METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2000 The regular meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, May 25, 2000 at 1:00 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; Chris Carraher; Bill Johnson, Richard Lopez; John W. McKay, Jr., Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner, Jr.; and Ray Warren. James Barafield, Bud Hentzen and Deanna Wheeler were not present. Staff members present were: Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, Lisa Van de Water, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Associate Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Approval of MAPC minutes for March 16, 2000 and March 30, 2000 GAROFALO “Are there any changes or corrections?” MOTION: That the minutes for March 16, 2000 and March 30, 2000 be approved as submitted. LOPEZ moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approving the Transportation Improvement Program (2000-2005), including prioritizing Federally funded projects (STP/CMAQ/BRIDGE PROGRAM), and the MPO’s annual certification of the Transportation Planning Process. JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff, gave the following report on the Transportation Improvement Program. Councilmember Joe Pisciotte and Steve Lackey, Public Works Director, were present to offer comments and to answer questions. The Federal Transportation Planning Program requires all urban areas with greater than 50,000 population to have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In the Wichita Metropolitan Area, the Planning Commission have been designated by the US and Kansas Department of Transportation as the MPO since 1974. The MPO approved The Transportation Plan for the year 2030. The two governing bodies have not approved the Transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan as yet, but the MPO has met this first responsibility. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is also an MPO document that identifies all significant transportation projects that are within the MPO boundary (Sedgwick County). As a minimum, it should include all transportation projects that have federal funding. This agenda item is whether to include 37th or Woodlawn in the TIP. You recently approved the Unified Planning Work Program for the years 2000 and 2001. As staff of the MPO, we receive federal Planning funds to accomplish the tasks that that are identified in this document. This proposed TIP (Attachment 1) contains $880 million of transportation projects. 60% of it is Local, 15% is State, and 25% is Federal. Previously, we have not brought the approval of the TIP to you, because we have used a sub-committee called TAC, and a Coordinating Committee to handle perfunctory issues. As the Wichita and Sedgwick County CIPs are both officially approved documents, and as you have already had your input while the two CIPs were being prepared, we recognize the priorities in these documents and simply include them in the TIP. The proposed TIP, as mailed to you, does not include 37th Street or Woodlawn, and we will wait for your final action today before sending this document to KDOT. The MPO’s Planning Boundary is Sedgwick County, and this TIP document covers all projects in the entire county. After the 1990 Census, the Urban Area Boundary was officially identified so that urban and non-urban funds can be budgeted separately. The most recent Urban Area Boundary includes 6 incorporated cities and very small sections of unincorporated Sedgwick County. One might expect this red line to expand significantly after the Census 2000 data is made available. In fact expect the red line to cross over into parts of Butler County. However, for right now the MPO must determine how to spend the $50 Million in this Urban Area over the next five years using STP, CMAQ and Bridge Funds. These three funding categories are federal apportionments provided for our Urban Area. This 5-year apportionment of $50 Million is for the MPO to allocate to various projects that you consider your priorities. Federal regulations are clear, in that you cannot sub-allocate these federal funds on the basis of population share of these jurisdictions. It is our job as your staff to present to you the facts, and also allow opportunity for input from all other entities or citizens. Any project in the TIP and with federal funds involved, must be consistent with the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan. The full TIP document must be Financially Constrained and each project must demonstrate the source of funding. So the City of Wichita projects are derived from the City Council’s approved CIP. Sedgwick County’s projects in the TIP come out of the County CIP. If a small city in the Urban Area requests the use of federal funds, then the MPO must review the project and be assured that the local match will be available. The controversy whether you need to include 37th or Woodlawn is what you’ll hear from representatives of both cities. Neither 37th nor Woodlawn are in the official approved TIP. Thirty-seventh Street through the 1990s was a likely project discussed and endorsed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Coordinating Committee. 37th Street between Oliver and Woodlawn, has been shifted out to later years at least twice. We could not put this project on the official TIP because the issue of “who’ll pay the Local Match” has not been resolved. Earlier this year, the City of Bel Aire requested our Planning Department to shift the focus from 37th Street to Woodlawn. As staff to the MPO, we have concluded an independent analysis of both 37th and Woodlawn, and reported our findings. Part of the problem stems from the fact that Bel Aire owns one half of the right of way on 37th, Woodlawn, and even Oliver Street. On 37th Street, Bel Aire owns the north half and Sedgwick County owns the south half; and the City of Wichita abuts the south right-of-way line. On Woodlawn, between 37th Street and the Railroad tracks, Bel Aire has west half and Sedgwick County has the east half, with Wichita abutting the east right-of-way line. North of the tracks, Woodlawn is entirely under the jurisdiction of Bel Aire. Bel Aire’s claims that for the mile on Woodlawn between 37th and 45th, it’s frontage is 89%. It is still willing to fund 100% of the local match. In the mid 90s, 37th Street had more traffic on it than Woodlawn. Since then, a lot of changes have occurred. Bel Aire itself has grown considerably, but with the improved interchange at K-254 to the north, and with K-96 to the south, traffic on Woodlawn now exceeds the volume on 37th Street by 84% in year 2000. At the mid-mile on Woodlawn, traffic is 67% more than on 37th Street. Over the past three years, while Woodlawn traffic has grown by 46%, 37th traffic declined by 2.5%. The existing volume on Woodlawn exceeds the 10,000 vehicles-per-day threshold for widening 2-lane arterials to 4 lanes. Woodlawn is the only 2-lane street in the metropolitan area with volumes exceeding this 10,000 vehicles-per-day threshold, and is a regional transportation facility. The interchange at Woodlawn and K-254 will continue to draw more traffic down this street, instead of Rock or Webb Road, as these are at-grade intersections MAPC’s 2030 Transportation Plan identifies both 37th and Woodlawn as needed improvements. The volumes on both these streets justify improvement. Even in the future, Woodlawn will continue to serve more traffic. Two weeks ago, City PW offered a suggestion to stripe Woodlawn to 3-lanes and not widen it. Woodlawn does have shoulders in both sides. Our practice in the past has been to build 3-lanes instead of 4 if there are right of way constraints, or if any further widening will impact the residential character of the neighborhood. An example is Meridian (Central to Maple). I can’t think of a project where we simply re-stripe the existing pavement. On Woodlawn, we feel this is not a neighborhood street. It’s a link that connects two regional highways, and 3 lanes is not a solution. We did look at accidents along both these streets, using information that is consolidated from the both Wichita Police and Bel Aire Police. The intersections of 37th and Woodlawn, and 37th and Oliver are fully already fully improved. Over the past five years, there were 2 accidents reported at each of these improved intersections. This graphic only illustrates the accident locations for the sections of roadway that are proposed for widening and improvement. Presently, the intersection of 45th and Woodlawn has stop signs, and does not have any turning lanes. The Woodlawn project will improve this intersection as well. Overall there were 24 accidents on Woodlawn including one fatality, and 37th Street had 8 accidents. Woodlawn will cost $3.3 million, so the local share pledged by Bel Aire is $1.million. Thirty-seventh Street would cost $2.3 million, so the required local share would be nearly $700,000. Woodlawn’s higher cost is due to a half mile of 5-lane instead of all 4 lanes over the full mile. It also includes a large drainage structure, and the intersection of 45th and Woodlawn is part of this improvement as well. On Monday, May 22, TAC voted in favor of adding Woodlawn to the TIP. On Wednesday, May 24, Sedgwick County Commissioners voted 3-1 in support of the Woodlawn. They continue to emphasize, however, that 37th continues to be an important project that should be reviewed and ultimately programmed. But there higher priority at this time is on the Woodlawn Project. The City of Wichita voted on May 9, unanimously, recommending you to consider 37th Street instead of Woodlawn. You had asked us the details of that motion, and we have provided the council minutes in your package. In addition to the objective analysis, we also examined the effect of adding Woodlawn in the TIP, and what its effect is on other projects programmed in the Wichita CIP. WE find that Wichita street projects as programmed in the City CIP are not impacted by the Woodlawn project. In fact, there were federal funds available to move two projects ahead of where they are in the Wichita CIP. However, if both 37th and Woodlawn are included in this five year program, assuming there is full local match available for the 37th project, then some other project will need to be set back. I need to also emphasize that the TIP is a continuos program. We will amend it every year to maintain the future five year period. You can also amend the TIP mid-year at any time. GAROFALO “At the last session, we took public comments but said we would leave it open to anything new that could be presented. So if there are any speakers in the audience who think they have some new information that they can provide, we would be glad to hear it. STEVE LACKEY, Director of Public Works, City of Wichita “I think Jamsheed covered a lot of the technical issues, but he did raise some issues that I feel like need responding to. One, he said he was not aware of the City of Wichita changing any asphalt mat roadways from two lane to three lane. We have had a program in the Capital Improvement Program for several years, budgeted at $300,000 where it is called asphalt mat rejuvenation. We have gone in to do some Tyler Road improvements, 55th Street South improvements, 37th Street North improvements, and have built selective left-turn lanes. That is part of the issue here, and it was one of the reasons that we had this budgeted in our own Capital Improvement Program to forego having to build four and five lane facilities that absolutely didn’t warrant it at that point in time. It was a matter of trying to stretch our dollars. I think that is an obvious solution here. You could place a left-hand turn lane the full length of this mile and reduce the rear-end accidents that could be occurring. We have a street in Wichita, Meridian, from Maple to Central. It carries 12,500 per day approximately, and we built it to three lane standards. We built 29th Street west of Arkansas to three lane standards. We built 29th East to Rock Road to three lanes. Granted those were curb and guttered streets, but we have also done some asphalt mat rejuvenation projects. By doing this and improving 37th Street, you say a lot of taxpayers’ money and you are able to take on projects that have a higher ranking when it comes to overall needs within the urban area. We could go to the City’s Capital Improvement program and pick out projects similar to the Harry project and it would rate very favorably at or above what the Woodlawn project would rate. Quite frankly, the 37th Street corridor is not complete. It needs to be completed. It is a bottleneck and it is unsafe. I think you saw the slides last week of the ditches. It is simply a project that is not yet complete. It is a project that the Metropolitan Area Planning Department has tried to sponsor for a number of years and bring Bel Aire and Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita together to help fund this project. To my knowledge, obviously this project was never funded. Bel Aire never did want to do it and they still do not want to do it ahead of Woodlawn. It is an incomplete corridor. It is not good practice; it is not good planning, and I think the Metropolitan Area Planning Department recognized that for the last several years. A year ago, Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita agreed that we would use federal dollars to help fund this improvement if all parties could get together and fund the match. If it is going to get down to the fact that you need local match for 37th Street, I think I heard yesterday at the County Commission meeting, that the City of Wichita was willing to participate one-third on this, even though we own no part of the roadway. But we spent City taxpayers’ dollars at 37th and Woodlawn in rights-of-way that we don’t totally own in order to provide a corridor and improvements that made planning and engineering sense. We felt like it was only the responsibility of Bel Aire, primarily, along with Sedgwick County, to help improve 37th Street, since we had used our own money, both in the intersection and north of the intersection on Woodlawn. We felt like that was reasonable. And to take a project like Woodlawn and infuse it into the program without the opportunity to rank it against all of the other projects in the City and the County C.I.P. is simply not fair. As far as the vote that the TAC Committee took, yes it was 5-4, but I want to point out to you, because some of you chair the Coordinating Council and have chaired the Coordinating Council before, the process that we have used before is that the TAC Committee would meet, make recommendations to the Coordinating Council, and then they would make recommendations on to the Planning Commission. Several of you have chaired that. The County Commission is part of it, the City of Wichita is part of that group; the board member from the Transit. That Committee never voted on this. This process was completely different, and why, I don’t know. It has never really been explained to me why the Coordinating Council was never allowed to vote on this process. I think it is flawed. The bottom line is, I really feel like the answer to this to pave 37th Street, re-stripe Woodlawn, or let’s hold them both out of the program, re-prioritize all of our projects and come back a year later with recommendations that everybody can agree to. If 37th Street was left in and done in 2003, or if Woodlawn is placed in in 2004, nothing is going to happen between those years right now. There will probably be no planning accomplished in this first year. Let’s redo the process and see where all of the priorities shake out later. The City of Wichita is definitely not opposed to allowing the communities outside of Wichita to have their funds to build the improvements that make good engineering sense, and there is continuity in the program. We have done that in Haysville, we have done it in Park City, and we were more than willing to do it on 37th Street and allow Bel Aire to participate in that. We just feel like Woodlawn was thrown into the mix without adequate planning and programming and prioritization with other projects within the urban area. We feel like there are a lot of other projects that are more worthy. That is all I have. Thank you.” MARNELL “Mr. Lackey, if this plan that the department has put together for the Metropolitan Planning Organization, if it was passed today as it is, the Committee that this process appears to have passed by would still review all of the stuff again next year?” LACKEY “It would all take place again next year. Every year you have to redo the plan.” MARNELL “Do you think there would be hope of reconciliation between the parties next year if there wasn’t this year?” LACKEY “I think it would give all of the parties more of an opportunity and less pressure to make a decision. Right now, it would give them more of an opportunity over the next year to work out what the priorities are, and I think more information could be made available. I simply don’t think there was adequate discussion on this, particularly on one of the boards that is supposed to make recommendations to you. There was none of that." BARFIELD “Mr. Lackey, I look here and I see that we are talking about Harry from Webb Road to Greenwich Road and we are talking about a four lane arterial we are widening and reconstructing into a four lane arterial, and I see this in a similar vein as I see Woodlawn from 37th Street to 45th Street. What is the difference?” LACKEY “We went through a prioritization process, not only in our own Capital Improvement Program, but we used that prioritization process to infuse projects into this TIP It is not a project that came into the process in the last month. It has been in our C.I.P. for a number of years, and it has been rated against all of the other projects in the community, so I feel like there has been a process that has been followed. This one has not had a proper process in my mind.” BARFIELD “Okay, so you feel that simply by re-striping this street that that would be sufficient to justify the traffic patterns that you have identified for the future on Woodlawn?” LACKEY “I think in the future you are going to have to improve it, but if you looked at that chart, up at 45th and Woodlawn there is 2,000 cars per day north of the intersection. There are certainly less than 10,000 south of the intersection. But this project re-paves the entire intersection, it channelizes it, and it is not needed. It simply is not needed from a vehicular traffic point of view. And I haven’t even talked about the fact that at least they have room today to do what I am talking about. It would be a very cheap expenditure. The width of their asphalt mat today is between 39 and 40 feet wide. They could put in three 12-foot lanes or three 3-foot lanes and not have to rebuild the roadway and provide left turns for the whole mile. Similar to what we have done in some of our other improvements. If we built 37th Street, for an example, and if there is a $600,000 match and the three units of government split it, that is $200,000 apiece. Otherwise, Bel Aire is looking at over $1 million for the Woodlawn project and 37th Street still isn’t addressed. In terms of taxpayers’ savings to everybody, you could forego that expense for a longer period of time. I think the City of Wichita recognized the fact that the traffic count was going to be higher at 37th and Woodlawn, because we paved it and we added lanes on the north leg, contemplating higher average daily traffic (ADT). So I just think there are ways of doing this without outlaying over $3 million. Their original proposal was for over $4 million that went up to 49th Street, and I think the Planning Department talked them into cutting it back because it wasn’t justified. I don’t think it is justified going through the intersection, as well. The traffic counts aren’t there to rationalize it, either.” BARFIELD “But when we talk about traffic counts, you are also aware that the Planning Department has already recognized the traffic is decreasing on 37th Street as we talk.” LACKEY “True, but that is one attribute, when you go to program a road improvement. The other attributes that I look at as Public Works Director, and I think transportation planners fail to recognize, are the drainage needs, the maintenance costs, the potential safety liability on this roadway. The fact that we have a bottleneck there simply is not good planning. But the fact that the ditches are extremely steep on Woodlawn; the ditches are deep, yes, but they are broad. They have gentle 4-1 or 5-1 slopes. On 37th Street, they are 1-1 or less. They are straight up and down in some cases. There is a railroad crossing with signal hardware, a guardrail and then a drop off in the ditch. There are twice as many access points on 37th Street than there are on Woodlawn. There are about 14 on Woodlawn in this mile and there are 27 on 37th Street. Traffic is one attribute, and I guess if you count votes, or heads, that is important. But there are other attributes when you make decisions to rebuild roadways; otherwise some streets would never get rebuilt that are simply falling apart.” JOHNSON “Mr. Lackey, did you look at the possibility of three lanes on 37th Street?” LACKEY “No, we haven’t. We were following the Transportation Comp Plan.” JOHNSON “I thought that since you looked at Woodlawn, I didn’t know if there was a possibility that you had looked at a three lane plan. Maybe there would be a way of maybe doing both projects at the same time by doing something like that.” LACKEY “I would just say this. One of the reasons I don’t think that would be a total solution is that under today’s traffic counts, three lanes would certainly accommodate 37th Street. In the future, as you saw, Jamsheed pointed out that the traffic counts would over 12,000, so if we are going to go in and rebuild it to put in three lanes, there is not sufficient room to extend the asphalt mat that is there. If that was a potential, then yes, but because of the ditch and the constraint and the right-of-way, we would have to build curb and gutter, and we might as well go ahead and build the full width now.” GAROFALO “I would like to go back to this alleged agreement about Harry and I-135 to George Washington Boulevard. Explain that from your perspective. What is all of that about?” LACKEY “This is going to be a long answer, so hang with me. We were asked that if Woodlawn was placed into the TIP and moved back to 2004, and 37th Street was eliminated, what project would you move forward if the MAPC voted in that manner? So we got together with Planning and told them which project we saw should move up. Now, the fact that all of these budgets and these programs get re-calculated and re-programmed every year ,and the fact that Jamsheed said that the City of Wichita is not losing any projects if you put one project in, doesn’t diminish the fact that you have moved a project into the program that costs almost $3.5 million, and you have taken a project out that costs about $2.5 million; so there is $1 million in there that could be used for another project. It is important, as we all go through our budgets in our C.I.P., we re-calculate this every year, and if there is an opportunity to move more deserving projects in, then that should be done. The fact that we have moved one project up in the program and moved Woodlawn back, doesn’t solve the issue. The issue is prioritization and total money available for all projects in the urban area. I am of the opinion that there are more deserving projects in the area than Woodlawn.” GAROFALO “Do you consider Harry between I-135 to George Washington Boulevard as more important than Woodlawn?” LACKEY “Yes.” GAROFALO “Another question I have and I think some of the other Commissioners have is that Bel Aire says it won’t kick in the local share on 37th. The County hasn’t committed, and they own the other half. Where is the money going to come from to do 37th besides the federal money? Where is the local share going to come from?” LACKEY “I really think, and this could always be debated and I am sure it will be, but we have kind of been playing a poker game for the last decade as it is. I think each agency is waiting for the other to flinch and go ahead and build it. The County owns the south half of 37th Street, has been maintaining 37th Street, and they have no responsibility to maintain the north half. So in my mind, Bel Aire has not been paying for the maintenance on the north half of 37th Street, they have not been willing to step forward and pay their half or their share on 37th in the past. And now we are going to go and pave another road further up and leave a bottleneck on a transportation corridor that the MAPC has already identified a need on for four to five lanes. And 37th Street has been in this program for years. Bill Stockwell is sitting over there and he can tell you. I am not going to drag him into this fray, but he was the one that pounded the table to put this into the program and put all of the different cities together and the county. I think now is the time to face reality and get 37th Street programmed and figure out what the local match is going to be and get on with it.” GAROFALO “If we followed your recommendation as to putting this off, what impact would that have on federal funds for this time frame?” LACKEY “I think what we would all have to do is move in projects that would fill up the budget, No. 1, but there are several different alternatives we could do. We could leave 37th Street in and show in the Transportation Plan that there is going to be a commitment for local match and not program Woodlawn. We could pull them both out and put in other projects for this year and revisit this whole thing a year from now, after there has been time to discuss and compromise.” GAROFALO “Did I misunderstand that 37th Street, and I haven’t gone through every bit of this, neither 37th nor Woodlawn are in this now? Is that what we are trying to do at this point?” LACKEY “It is what you are trying to do now.” GAROFALO “So neither one is in. So 37th Street isn’t in even though it has been talked about for a long time.” LACKEY “What is in now is Woodlawn and the Harry project. That is what they are asking you to vote on now.” GAROFALO “I understand that, but neither one is in now?” KROUT “That’s right, neither one is currently.” MICHAELIS “Mr. Lackey, would it be possible to do both in a sense? Couldn’t we do 37th to the four lane standard and couldn’t we re-stripe Woodlawn to the three lane standard as part of one project? Would that be possible?” LACKEY “I doubt if the Feds would participate in the Woodlawn project. That would probably have to be done with some local money. But that is certainly my answer to this. You could do them both and still save a lot of money over what you would have spent before, both at the local level and the federal level. But you couldn’t package them both together into one project and expect the Federal Government to pick up 80% of the Woodlawn project.” MICHAELIS “I guess I wasn’t getting there, but I was looking at one at $3.3 million and one at $2.3 million; and say everybody does kick in their share, would there be enough to do both? Obviously it wouldn’t take $3.3 million to stripe Woodlawn.” LACKEY “That’s right. No, I think if everybody kicked in their money, there could be enough to re-stripe. I do think you would probably have to lay what is called a slurry seal. It is kind of a paint job on the roadway to cover up the old stripes and then you could just put new thermoplastic down.” BARFIELD “Okay, you have mentioned that you have built some streets as you did 29th Street in the three lane process. Now, my question is, can you tell me one street where you went in and did what your are suggesting? You just re-stripe an existing street?” LACKEY “We have added on to asphalt mats and re-striped them at intersections, we have gone in at intersections and added asphalt on the edges an then re-striped them to accommodate left turns, either into major entrances or street intersections.” BARFIELD “But we have not done it for a mile stretch like what we are proposing here.” LACKEY “Not a full mile, no.” OSBORNE-HOWES “How much do you expect this re-striping of Woodlawn to cost? Have you made any estimates on that?” LACKEY “No, I haven’t.” OSBORNE-HOWES “And did I understand you to say that the City of Wichita would contribute one-third of the cost on 37th Street?” LACKEY “That was discussed yesterday in front of the County Commission. The City Council has not voted on that, but that would be a proposal that could be discussed in the interim.” GAROFALO “But the County hasn’t made any commitment?” LACKEY “No. I don’t want to put words in David Spear’s mouth, but he had thought that in the future, and he told me that he was planning outside their five-year program, that at some point in time they would participate in the 37th Street paving. But it is not within their current five-year program. But he suspected that at some point in time they would be a contributing player in that project.” LOPEZ “Mr. Lackey, to widen it then and re-stripe Woodlawn would not require any construction activity on those ditches?” LACKEY “The current roadway is between 39 and 40 feet wide, so there would not have to be any work done to the asphalt. And the ditches would remain the same. You would just re-stripe.” OSBORNE-HOWES “You had mentioned that the 37th Street corridor was not done yet. Could you elaborate on that?” LACKEY “It is not done between Oliver and Woodlawn. The fact that this two-lane asphalt mat is left with steep, deep ditches on either side, there is four lanes on either side. It is not complete and it is a corridor that needs completed.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Would that complete the corridor?” LACKEY “It would through approximately from Webb all the way over to Hillside.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Steve? I think Councilmember Pisciotte would like to address the Commission.” JOE PISCIOTTE “Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. I have the privilege of representing the second district on the Wichita City Council, which encompasses some 55,000 to 60,000 who live on the east side and who have to drive these highways and byways that we are talking about. Before I chat, I want to commend all of you for the good work you do. I think if there is one job in the City that is perhaps more arduous and difficult than the City Council, it is being on the Metropolitan Planning Commission. One of the issues that is before the City Council and is particularly important to the second district is Rock Road. In my opinion, there is nothing more important, nothing more difficult to address at this time on the infrastructure public agenda than Rock Road, perhaps with the exception of Kellogg. We are working on Kellogg and we have every expectation that we are going to resolve that in the very near future and we hope to complete it in the very near future. We can’t say the same for Rock Road. We are working very hard as to how we can be innovative and creative to solve some of the problems that have been created on Rock Road because of some lack of planning, not necessarily on your part, but making decisions for the moment and not necessarily making decisions for the long haul. I say that because the 37th Street corridor was part of the equation as we have been thinking about alleviation of the problems on Rock Road. How can we resolve some of the traffic safety and the expediency problems? In my mind, the 37th Street corridor was done. We were going to be able to have a four-lane road from Hillside to Webb Road, with the exception of one small glitch that we are going to take care of, we are going to straighten that one little part. To have to come back now and anticipate that this corridor is going to remain as a two lane bottleneck really presents great difficulties for us as we are trying to plan on a much broader, much more comprehensive basis. I drive that area all of the time and as a matter of fact, I drove it again yesterday and I drove it this morning to make certain that I was correct on this. All of the activity that is at Koch Industry, and yes the numbers are down right now because their employment is down, but they drive that corridor as well as the one going south, for the places that they live, shop and recreate in the eastern part of town. It is a dangerous corridor, as Mr. Lackey has stated, and I think we need to complete it. I know it is very difficult for you to go against staff recommendations. I was surprised to find that there was such a strong feeling of going with the staff on this particular issue. I was perhaps caught somewhat shortsighted on it because I didn’t know that this was going to develop. I thought that the 37th paving was in the plan and that we were going to go with that. I didn’t know that this was being changed, it was being put in without re-prioritizing or going through the same process until I got a copy of a letter that County Commissioner Gwin had sent to Bel Aire responding to their request to support them in this particular activity. Let me say also that you are caught up into a set of politics that you are not usually caught up in, part of which is the fact that Bel Aire was incorporated in 1980. It presents all of the nuances of two cities trying to operate together without really thinking through what is going to happen in the long term. This issue, I think, is really is at the heart of it. You are also being caught up in a set of politics of having to make some decisions on transportation that are somehow trying to be blended with the broader Comprehensive Plans that we worked so hard on in an orderly manner and that you so very well are involved in. I would suggest that you not consider only the figures that are presented to you by staff. Those are not figures that are required by Federal Law or by the Federal Mandates, or whatever you want to call them, to allow either of these projects to go forward. They are largely judgement calls that are being put together to justify a decision that has been made outside the normal planning process. One of the issues that was raised yesterday in the County Commission is the local match. Why hasn’t the City of Wichita stepped forward and wanted to provide the local match? Let’s take a moment to talk about some public finance. Much of the money that is being used for these kinds of efforts comes from the 1-cent sales tax that was passed by the voters in 1985, and distributed throughout the County. It is distributed to the City of Wichita, to Sedgwick County, and to the other communities in the County, including Bel Aire. The City of Wichita expends those entire amounts on projects throughout the area. Most of the money is going to Kellogg, which is used by everyone in the community. Not one cent of that sales tax money that has been distributed to the County or to Bel Aire or the other communities has gone to that. Bel Aire receives, this year, $450,000 in that sales tax money. Last year it received $401,000. It is increasing about 10 to 11 %. It becomes very easy for them to suddenly to want to talk about this local match when they use those monies only in the city limits of Bel Aire and are not shared throughout the community. It also becomes very easy to say yes, we will put this over until 2004 and shove another project in and that is going to allow them to accrue the money that they need for the local match. We are prepared to participate on 37th Street, and we told the County Commission yesterday that we would put forward a proposal and I think we can deliver on it of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, on the local match for 37th Street. Had I known in advance that we were going to change the rules of the game; that we were suddenly going to have other projects up for grabs for the use of this money, I guarantee you that there are others throughout the city and particularly in the second district that would have been far more important. I would ask you to take your attention, for example, to the intersection of Rock Road and 29th Street and go east on 29th Street and turn off on Penstemon as you try to get back on Rock Road. I guarantee you that those figures will far exceed not only the traffic counts but the accident rate that goes on on any given day. I was not asked to participate in the reprioritization of these issues on what I consider to be one of the major critical issues of the community. I would also ask you to consider what is going to happen to 37th Street if it is not built under this plan. I doubt if anybody is going to step up and say ‘yes, we will build it’. So, as that particular area develops, as Koch comes back and builds, as development takes place along 45th Street, as there is a proposal right now to develop, what are we going to say to folks when we say that 37th Street is still an undeveloped, dangerous corridor. And believe me, it is dangerous. I would suggest that we go ahead with 37th Street. It was in the plan. That we re-stripe, as Mr. Lackey has suggested, and then we get together, as a community, and talk about Woodlawn from 37th to K254, all the way out. Let me suggest, for your consideration, if you vote now on Woodlawn, you will be making a vote for the moment, in response, I think, to some political activities that are going on, and you will have one more Rock Road on your hands. Because as soon as this thing is built, and five years down the road, you are going to be asking the question why didn’t we build a six lane road with raised medians and appropriate accel, decel lanes? I want you to think about how short of a time ago it was when we made the bad decisions on Rock Road, largely in response to pressure of the moment. Let me ask that when you make this vote that you do it on a comprehensive basis; that you do it on a community-wide planning basis and you do it in the best interest of the entire community. I think quite frequently we are asked to make some decisions that that are required to close the gap between expectations and reality. I would ask you to close those gaps within the reality of the best interest of the community on a long-range plan. Thank you very much.” BARFIELD “Councilmember, I hear you talk about development on 45th Street that is in the future. We see, currently housing development going up to the east and to the west of Woodlawn, from 37th Street to at least 45th Street.” PISCIOTTE “That is true.” BARFIELD “Now at this particular time, I have heard no one, yourself included, talk about any development taking place on 37th Street that would justify us putting that street over Woodlawn.” PISCIOTTE “Sir, I would be glad to address that. Just for openers, Bel Aire has, I think, worked out an arrangement with Jostens that is going to build a building and move that company from Hillside. I think that you don’t necessarily need to talk about future development, even though there are some tracts there that can be developed. I think you need to take a look at what is there at the present time. You have two churches on the south side that are full on any given Sunday morning. You’ve got a great deal of activity going along on 37th Street, so it is not a question of future development on that one, it is a matter of building that road so it can help offset some of the development that is going to be going along in other particular areas. Incidentally, Commissioner Barfield, I watch that traffic there almost daily, and many of the figures that are cited on that particular instance from Woodlawn north, it is not through traffic as is 37th. It is going from the 7-11 Store and the Sonic Store across the street from the car wash, or across the street to the bank, or the veterinarian. It is a lot of local cross traffic. Also, and it has been said, but let me say it again, if you were to drive either of these streets, Woodlawn is in good shape. It has wide shoulders, it has frontage roads. Thirty-seventh Street has none of that. As Mr. Lackey has already defined it, it is a dangerous street that needs rebuilding at the earliest opportunity.” MARNELL “Councilmember Pisciotte, I like you, drove that road about 6:00 o’clock this morning and went back and forth each direction and looked at the four lane roads that interconnect with it to see what it looked like. I think there is no question in my mind that 37th Street reminds me of the old K-96 Highway that went east out of Wichita with no shoulders and very dangerous looking ditches. Woodlawn is a nice wide street with shoulders. I like for people to use innovative solutions, being a taxpayer, and so the center stripe idea that has been discussed by Public Works sounds intriguing. I think we probably don’t know everything we would need to know about that now. But when you get past all of that and the traffic counts support one more than the other, we still come down to the funding issue, and we have an obligation to get this out today, and with committed funds and somebody on the line for this. I would be hard pressed thinking that if you were over on this side of the table how you would put that project that is unfunded, and maybe that doesn’t justify putting the other one in, putting the unfunded project there and coming up with, at best, a commitment for a third of the required funding. Would you address that?” PISCIOTTE “I think I have indicated that on the part of the City of Wichita, I think we could fairly safely say that we will commit to the $200,000 from our part. I think the County will do likewise. I can’t speak for them, obviously, but I have had some conversations, and I think that they are sufficiently aware of the need to build 37th Street, and I think they also know that if we let this opportunity fall through, it may not get built. I don’t see Bel Aire stepping up to the table saying ‘give us Woodlawn and then we will build 37th Street’. If Bel Aire would chose not to participate on 37th Street, then I think it would behoove the City and the County to come together as good community partners and take care of it.” GAROFALO “Councilmember, if we did what Steve suggested about not doing anything and letting this ride for a year or 6 months, or whatever, do you think it is possible that the City of Wichita and Bel Aire and the County could get together and figure out a plan to some accommodation on both of these?” PISCIOTTE “Mr. Chair, I can only, obviously, speak for myself and hopefully for my colleagues on the City Council. I think that there are a couple of things that you should keep in mind that would address that in a broad sense. We work very hard with the County on Compact 2000. We meet weekly and we have very broad-based community issues on the table that we are going to address. This is one small part of that that we would be willing to sit down and talk about. As a matter of fact, I have already met with my colleagues from the County Commission, talking about how we can resolve these problems. I think we also have a new organization called REAP, which is some 27 communities in a seven county area and we are talking all of the time about common issues. We focus on our common values and not on our differences. That is a long answer to say yes, that I think we can. I was asked why I feel so strongly about this road when it is not even in the City of Wichita, but it is such a crucial integral part of what we are trying to do to the overall transportation plan for the east side that I think it would be a mistake to go contrary to what has been planned. If the only alternative is to put it off, I guess I would have to say we should consider it. I would prefer, obviously, that you make the tough decision to keep the TIP as it was. Go with 37th, then let us come back together and talk about how we can not only do Woodlawn, but how we can do the other funds in the urban area. One of the things that Commissioner Gwin raised yesterday, which I thought was inappropriate, and no indictment at all, was whether or not this was a fault line between the City of Wichita and the rest of the County. And it is not. I think everybody knows that I have been trying to do everything that we can to come together as a community and work on common problems and focus on shared values. I think we can do that with these funds, but I think there is a feeling that we have somehow circumvented the process that one entity was allowed to come in in the 11th hour and do something, get staff to put together some data without any input as to how it might the overall planning of other entities.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” BARFIELD “I don’t have a question, but I would like to hear from Bel Aire.” GAROFALO “Yes, we will. Thank you.” MIKE KILLIAN “I am with Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants, 411 North Webb Road in Wichita. I work with another engineer in the office and was asked to help prepare a cost estimate for this project. When I first heard the idea of striping Woodlawn from two lanes to three, for a short period of time, that sounded like a good idea. I believe the shoulders are there from probably fairly recently widening or improvement to that street. If you were to stripe it to three lanes, you would have to do more to prevent from it from violating the AASHTO Green Book of Roadside Design Guide. A number of times Steve and Joe have mentioned how dangerous 37th Street is. By adding a third lane in, you change the geometry of Woodlawn and immediately put two of the lanes right over close to the slope. The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide uses design speed, vehicle counts and shoulders and fore-slopes to determine a safe roadway. I believe Woodlawn, in most areas may not have slopes flatter than 3 to 1. I am thinking they are probably about 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 in some areas, which would be a dangerous, non-traversible slope, according to AASHTO. I just felt obligated to point that out because it sounds like a simple solution, but I don’t see that it would work. One thing that does work is adding curb and gutter. When you have curb and gutter, AASHTO uses that as a form of barrier and they reduce the clear zone to half a meter for about two feet. To add curb and gutter to Woodlawn would create drainage problems, I believe, and I don’t think that would be money well spent at this time. I think if you are going to do Woodlawn, you need to go all of the way, take care of the drainage problems, add curb and gutter, and have enough lanes and not create a dangerous situation as has been set along 37th Street.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Are you retained by Bel Aire, or are you just speaking independently?” KILLIAN “We are Mid-Kansas Engineering; we provide assistance to the Bel Aire City Engineer. Most of my work is with KDOT. I have not worked with Bel Aire before.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of this speaker?” MICHAELIS “Did I understand you to say that in your mind that Woodlawn is not as safe as 37th Street?” KILLIAN “No, what I am saying is that if you were to stripe it as for three lanes, in other words eliminate the shoulder, then it would be no safer and maybe not as safe as 37th Street.” MICHAELIS “Okay, so you are in disagreement with Mr. Lackey that the 39 feet is adequate for three lanes.” KILLIAN “Yes. I haven’t looked at it, but I am sure that you would violate the AASHTO Green Book and Roadside Design Guide because you change the geometry. You are eliminating the 6 foot shoulder that currently exists and that is used as a buffer based on the number of vehicles at 40 mile per hour design speed.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just want to get this straight. Have you gone out and made measurements or are you just giving your opinion?” KILLIAN “I am giving an opinion, and I believe others are as well as far as slopes. Is that what you are referring to?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just wondered if you had gone out as an engineer and checked that out, or what.” KILLIAN “We hadn’t gotten that far yet. The estimate is preliminary and it is my opinion that the slopes are about the same on both 37th Street and Woodlawn, and Woodlawn has deeper ditches. Are there any other questions?” GAROFALO “Okay, thank you. Anyone from Bel Aire want to speak now?” LEE PARKER “I live 420 North Armour. I am the Bel Aire City Attorney. I had no plan to speak today as I came, but there is one thing that I need to clear up, I believe. There has been a statement made concerning both Woodlawn and 37th Street that Bel Aire has not participated in the past in the reconstruction or maintenance of those streets. That is absolutely true. Bel Aire was a city of the third class until the Fourth of July of 1998. At that time, it reached a population of 5,000. Why that is important is that under state law, both Woodlawn and 37th Street were considered connecting link roadways. And with cities with a population of less than 5,000, which are cities of the third class, those connecting link roadways within those cities are maintained by the county, or by the township. The reason why that is important and done in that way is because until you become a city of the second class and hit 5,000 in population, the state and federal funds for connecting link roadways go to those other entities and not to those cities themselves. That is why it happens that way. So I wanted to clarify, when we are talking about Bel Air stepping to the plate and doing maintenance or construction on those roadways, that was outside their perview up until July 4th, 1998. It is almost two years that it has come within perview. That is all I wish to say, but if there are questions of me from that legal standpoint, I would be happy to answer.” LOPEZ “It has been two years that Bel Aire has participated?” PARKER “To my knowledge, there has been no maintenance done on the roadways. You might have to ask Tim Johnson, who is the City Administrator. I know that beside the roadway in the 4100 block, there was drainage improvements done under the roadway and beside the roadway on Woodlawn. There is about a 10-foot deep lake that sets right off north of the railroad track. We call it a lake. When I was a kid, we called it a pond. But at any rate, it is about 10 or 12 foot deep and it is a retaining pond that sets out there over about half of an acre right off of the roadway. It slopes right down to it, right north of the railroad track. That was a Bel Aire improvement. But as to the laneage of the roadways, I am not sure that there has been any improvements done on either of those roadways in the last two years. Thank you.” TIM JOHNSON “I am the City Administrator of Bel Aire and I live at 4465 North Westlake Court in Bel Aire. I lack Dr. Pisciotte’s eloquence, although I strive to achieve it at some point in the future. I have very few points to make, but I would be willing to respond to any questions. First, on the questions regarding maintenance on the north side of 37th. Very little, if any asphaltic maintenance has been done by the City of Bel Aire though both the County and the City of Bel Aire take care of ice control, actually, on both sides. It is an overlapping function. We do maintain drainage on the north side, and in fact, we do plan to improve some of that drainage at Harding and 37th. I have heard it mentioned that the process that brought us to this meeting today and brought us to the question of whether it will be 37th Street or Woodlawn that is to be included in the 2000 TIP is a flawed one. I agree with that. Bel Aire has no presence or direct representation on any board, committee, or commission that has any authority or jurisdiction over the programming of road projects in the TIP None whatsoever. Every year, we receive from KDOT a letter indicating what the project schedule is for 37th Street and inviting us to contact our representative, the Metropolitan Area Planning Department, and through them, the Planning Commission, if we have any changes that we would like to have incorporated either in that particular project or to the overall plan itself. Comment has been made regarding roads that don’t warrant being four-lane being reconfigured as three lane. Certainly that is correct. I don’t disagree with that; however, as you have all seen, Woodlawn does warrant being made a four-lane street. Of the three entities involved, the County, Bel-Air, and the City of Wichita, only Bel-Air is guaranteeing the money on the table today. Yes, it is $1 million versus perhaps $200,000 to $250,000 for 37th Street, and that should be some indication of how important we feel Woodlawn is versus 37th Street. If we are willing to spend 3 to 5 times as much of our own money on 37th Street, a corridor that benefits not just Bel Aire, but Wichita, the second district and cities outside of both Bel Aire and Wichita; in this county and outside of this county. Woodlawn and 37th Street are the only projects being considered for the TIP this year that I am aware of that are outside the corporate limits of the City of Wichita. Allusion has been made to the political nature of this. I concur. It is political. I believe that is all I have to say. I would be happy to respond to any questions.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the Administrator?” BARFIELD “Sir, did I hear you correctly in saying that should we approve the Woodlawn project, you are ready to commit funds to 37th Street at a later date?” JOHNSON “As soon as we can come up with the funds, and if Wichita is willing to participate in the local match on 37th Street, that logically would mean that Bel Aire will be able to participate sooner than we would if it is strictly a Bel Aire/Sedgwick County local match.” OSBORNE-HOWES “But are you saying that you require Woodlawn first, and that you will provide somewhere between $700,000 and $1 million first and only after that you would do 37th Street?” JOHNSON “Yes, Commissioner.” GAROFALO “Let me ask you the same thing I asked the Councilmember. If we were to defer this or not take any action on it at this point, would that be a big horrible thing to you? Do you think you can get together and work something out?” JOHNSON “Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that if this is deferred that you won’t see it again for years. I don’t think either one will happen.” GAROFALO “Okay. That answers my question, I guess.” MCKAY “Can you give us any information why?” JOHNSON “Why? Because we are having such great difficulty during this process doing either one of these projects outside of the City of Wichita. There are, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 projects this year in the TIP All but one, 37th Street, is inside the corporate boundaries of Wichita. Thirty-Seventh Street is outside, although they border on it and stand to gain a greater benefit, at least immediately from that particular street. We look at the warrants, we look at the traffic, we look at the accidents, we look at the increase in traffic and the projected increase. We believe it is time to make a switch, and we believe that now is the right time. We also believe that 37th Street should be done just as soon as possible. If I could guarantee Bel Aire’s match today for 37th Street, I would be happy to do so. I just can’t do that. It is simply a matter of finance.” MICHAELIS “Could you explain to me, from the viewpoint of Bel Aire, because I drive those streets almost daily, too, and 37th Street has Treetop Nursery on the north side of it, which generates a tremendous amount of traffic, and for the Mid- Kansas personnel, I suggest you go out there to look at those ditches because there is a considerable difference. Why, when we have a street that affects Bel Aire, and both of these affect Bel Aire considerably, what is the overwhelming desire, I guess, to take a fairly good street that is fairly adequate, in very good shape, and completely redo it versus taking a street that is pretty inferior and leaving it alone, when they both seemingly have a benefit to Bel Aire. What is your decision based on?” JOHNSON “The need is greater on Woodlawn, and in terms of need, we believe it will continue to increase.” MICHAELIS “What is that need?” JOHNSON “That is traffic volume, that is accidents, it is the fact that the northwest corner of 37th and Woodlawn continues to develop in Bel Aire. Also, as you have seen, we have razed that blighted building at 45th and Woodlawn and are beginning the process of developing that intersection. The Catholic Care Center is about to add 120 plus assisted living units at the northeast section of that corner. We believe that development that is already in the development process along Woodlawn combined with the increased residential development at 37th and Woodlawn just south there at LaCross, just east of three at the Remington, and other areas, particularly once Wichita develops that south side of 37th and Woodlawn, which we all expect to be commercial, that is going to pull in even more through traffic from Kechi, from Park City, from Whitewater, from Benton and the rural areas north of town. Jamsheed referred to the divided or split grade intersection at Woodlawn. It is the easiest and safest access/egress to Wichita from north of town. Thirty-seventh, for the most part, isn’t going anywhere, either east or west. It ends at Webb and it dead-ends behind the Word of Life Church at I-235, just west of Meridian. We simply see the need being greater now and in the future to go ahead and move on Woodlawn.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are there any other questions of the Administrator? Thank you. Is there anyone else who feel they can add something new? Jim, do you want to add anything from the County’s perspective?” JIM WEBER “I am the Deputy Director of Public Works for Sedgwick County. Mostly, I just want you to know that we are here. We didn’t bring a lot of people today. I just want to bring maybe a little focus in from the County’s point of view. Once again, traffic counts on Woodlawn greatly exceed those on 37th Street right now. Accident rate on Woodlawn is 24, versus 8 on 37th Street. The local match is available. There is somebody wanting to put the money up. I haven’t heard this brought up today, but in the discussions yesterday, the Board of County Commissioners did discuss that if, in fact, 37th is an important project to do, and by the way, we think it is, I think their conversation leaned toward that they were certainly even willing to discuss a three-way project with all local funding, $800,000 apiece, if that is what it takes to get it done; if that needs to be programmed into the C.I.P. That is really all I have. You can ask me a question if you wish, I am not real familiar with this process, but I did sit through yesterday’s County Commission meeting, and I think I have a feel for what happened there.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Jim? I guess not. Commissioner Marnell has a question of Jamsheed.” MARNELL “I understand our requirement to get this plan pushed out of here so that we will, in fact, get the funds for the near-term projects in particular. So we have an active plan. I also think I heard you say that the plans in the out years maybe 2004 and 2005 really don’t start any money going into those or the engineering work for some time yet. Is that correct?” MEHTA “If it is in 2004, for example, you would be starting engineering by the end of this year or the early part of next year. If it was for 2003, you should have started engineering right now, if you are starting from scratch. If you already have some engineering work built in, then you can expedite the process. So if it is even 2004, either the Bel Aire and KDOT in that case, would have to start working together before the end of this year to start the process. They have many environmental reviews and other coordination aspects that have to be met.” MARNELL “I have a follow-up on that. This project is set in under the STP Plan, and it shows it as $2.3 million. When you look to 2005, there is a project at 21st Street North and on 47th Street South. Those two added together come up to about $2.2 million. It appears that 2004 was already overspent, on the estimate basis, by $1 million. If you just swap those two for that one and gave the parties time to see if they can get these things prioritized on a broad basis and on the criteria of needs, is that something that would be a solution that would work, or does that create a second problem of some kind?” MEHTA “Which projects would you take from 2005?” MARNELL “I would take the 21st North from Oliver to Woodlawn and the 47th Street South, I-135 to Hydraulic. It’s almost the same money. Flip those two. That way, it keeps this whole issue of where it can be resolved without something getting down the road and either money spent and get reversed and wasted or continuing controversy with a group that we need to have cooperation among.” MEHTA “If you were to do that, then in this assumption, are we dropping Woodlawn out of this five year program?” MARNELL “No, we would move it to 2005, and move those to 2004.” MEHTA “It would be for Bel Aire and Wichita to agree on those, and the five year program, as it is right now, your end of $650,000 in the negative will stay constant.” MARNELL “Yes.” MEHTA “It is possible, but we haven’t heard from the sponsoring agencies if that can be acceptable to them in their phasing. I guess Wichita as well as Bel Aire.” MARNELL “I guess I would have to say that they don’t have a vote in this. So, what I am asking you is is that something that is going to create some other kind of havoc because at some point, they are going to have to prioritize this stuff?” MEHTA “Right. But I would still urge you to have that coordination because it is possible that some of these projects are phased for some reason. It may be relying on some other project. Perhaps that is not true in this case, but Public Works from the City of Wichita would be able to best answer that.” MARNELL “Well, I think everybody here would like to see this meeting end before it gets dark outside, and we need to somehow move this along. We seem to have intractable positions, but if we can move it so that it remains somewhat status quo, it would seem like then we could, by the time we deal with this next year, it is then time to get on down the road and see where we go.” WARREN “Ron, let me hear that proposal again.” MARNELL “If you look at the plan, if we put something in 2004 that is the magnitude of this project, it is probably going to have to start work early, and we still have these unresolved issues of funding and priorities. So it would seem that if we skipped a year we still have time next year to move it back. It may have to be a cross-line project if it ends up being the succeeding project.” WARREN “But I think you are saying put both projects, both Woodlawn and 37th Street North, in and take something out, is that what I am hearing?” MARNELL “No, what I said is take the plan that is laying here before us, take two projects from 2005 that are smaller projects and that would probably take smaller lead time and move them up; move this one back and then we would see if this thing can’t be resolved.” MCKAY “Ron, are you saying to move back both Woodlawn and 37th Street?” MARNELL “Thirty-seventh isn’t in this plan.” MCKAY “I understand that. Woodlawn is.” BARFIELD “As I sit here, I hear one of the leading opponents to this plan, and he has specifically told us that he would prefer that we would not defer this decision. We have heard one of the proponents of this say that he prefers that we not defer the decision. I think it is incumbent upon us to make the decision as we best see it and move on with it and let’s get this issue passed.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just have a question for Jamsheed. When you made the projections on 37th Street and Woodlawn for the future, were you taking into account, were you keeping 37th Street the way it is now, or were you making a projection as if it were a four lane?” MEHTA “Thirty-seventh Street as a minimum four-lane, and Woodlawn as a minimum four-lane and assuming that along 37th what we call traffic zones, you may be familiar with from months earlier, we have plugged in additional land use from what there is today to see what the net results were. Say if my numbers suggest in the range of 12,000 on 37th, it is not just an extrapolation of today’s through traffic in the year 2030, it is through traffic and new traffic, based on new growth in the 37th corridor.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, I think we have heard form everybody now that we need to hear from. So the Woodlawn project is listed in the proposal now and we have to take action on that.” PLATT “In what year?” GAROFALO “It says in 2004. On that last table is where that is listed.” PLATT “I wanted to be sure that we had that in the record.” GAROFALO “Our action is to decide here whether we want to approve the Transportation Improvement Program for the year 2000 through 2005.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the Transportation Program for the year 2000 through 2005. BARFIELD moved, WARNER seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion? Commissioner McKay?” MCKAY “We are sitting here, appointed by these elected officials that can’t get along. I have been on this Commission now for almost nine years and this has happened about twice every year, and it hasn’t been the same Commissions. I think it is about time that the elected people quit using us as a, I don’t know what you want to call it, a ball I guess, to throw around. We just went through six months of getting our butts chewed out with the worst bunch of people in the world and never saw one City Councilmember or County Commissioner step up and publicly defend us, yet now they can’t agree on something and there is an outside group here now and they are wanting us to decide. So, I can’t support the motion. I think it is time for them to sit down and work the damn thing out. Pardon my language. “ MARNELL “When we saw the presentation last week or two weeks ago, based on traffic counts, I would have been prepared to support the Woodlawn from 37th to 45th Street. I went up there and drove that this morning, and I don’t have an engineering degree, and my eyes are corrected, but I can still see ditches, and there is no comparison between those two ditches. I would think it would be in Bel Aire’s best interest for their citizens to fix what looks like a very hazardous road that still reminds me of K-96 that I used to drive a lot with no shoulders at all. When you left the pavement, you were in the ditch, as compared to Woodlawn, where it has sloping. Those ditches aren’t nice either because there are a lot of culverts along there that if someone going even at probably the posted speed would hit one of those stone reinforced culverts, they are probably going to die. It is a bad situation and they are neither one great projects. I can’t support the Woodlawn project after having gone out there, and I would have supported it just based on volume numbers, but I don’t think they are comparable pieces.” BARFIELD “One thing, 37th is an east/west traffic way and we cannot overlook the fact that an awful lot of the traffic that in previous years would have utilized that street is now utilizing the by-pass, and so therefore I don’t see where, and we are talking about a street that is in a residential area and are talking about a speed limit there of 35 miles per hour. I don’t see any development; nobody has been able to talk to us about any development that is taking place on 37th Street. Clearly we can see development on both sides of Woodlawn from 37th Street to 45th Street and it is only going to get worse. We have more people moving into that area. I feel that that alone and the fact that Mr. Pisciotte, who represents District #2 and who was opposed to this, but has asked us not to delay this, makes me think that it is incumbent upon us, we are charged with making the decision, and I don’t think we should do what the City Council wants, or what Mr. McKay is accusing the City Council or the County Commission is doing is passing the buck. We are charged with making this decision and I think it is incumbent upon us to do that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I was just thinking. A couple of weeks ago, I thought that Woodlawn made sense, too, when I drove it. Thirty-seventh Street, certainly eyeball-wise, makes more sense. I guess I am at the point where I am feeling that we are being held somewhat hostage by a city that says ‘we are going to match this and we are going pledge like $1.1 million to this’. But if I figured this right, this still requires the public to spend over $2 million, and I guess I don’t feel that I can support the motion. I am somewhat inclined to say let’s put this back and let them solve this. I would like to hear more comments.” MICHAELIS “I am not going to take up a lot of time because we have been here a long time, but I echo the sentiments of the last two people that spoke.” PLATT “I would like to ask the people who say they can’t support the motion if they are suggesting that we approve it with different projects or if they are suggesting that we simply ignore the whole thing and forget about it.” MCKAY “We can’t do that.” PLATT “What are you suggesting then?“ MCKAY “Ron gave a good suggestion a while ago. Pull the Woodlawn project out and let them work it out among themselves and move something else forward. I am not here to say any particular project.” WARNER “Then who would make that decision? Would that ultimately come back to us?” MCKAY “Not if they moved a project up that is in the plan. They would just move it from 2002 to 2004, or whatever. Isn’t that right, Marvin?” KROUT “Ultimately, the decision has to be made by the MPO as to where the priorities are. If things got worked out to the extent that everyone was satisfied, then it might go to this executive group. But whenever there is any issue of any kind of debate like this, we felt that the whole Planning Commission, which is the official body, needed to be involved in this decision. I think your options are 1)the motion on the table 2)the motion that was suggested by Commissioner Marnell, and then 3)the other possibility that was discussed was to basically leave a hole in the Transportation Improvement Program, not officially endorse any project for 2004. But if you think that something can be worked out after this meeting, then you could reserve a place for another project, whether it be 37th Street, or Woodlawn. You can’t put 37th Street into the TIP at this point because there is no local match of any kind.” BARFIELD “It is my understanding that today is the day to decide on this?” KROUT “Yes. We do need a decision. Jamsheed said that we were on borrowed time. KDOT and the federal government needs this decision by the end of this month.” WARREN “Based on this formula that we have here, who decides, or maybe you know now, where would 37th Street fit into this? Would it be in 2006, 2007, or where do you see that? It is not in here at all, right? Assuming it gets support and funding, where do you see that going?” KROUT “It requires local funding, to be in the TIP, and we would have to find those assurances of support, and then, maybe a year from now or 6 months from now, the MPO can revisit the entire TIP and make a decision on priorities.” WARREN “Do I understand that it was in there once but got passed over for lack of funding?” KROUT “It has never been in the Transportation Improvement Program. We have had a separate set of accounting that we have done for these three federal projects: STP, CMAQ and BRIDGE, and that is where we were trying to hold a place for 37th Street until we find the funding. But we can’t put it into the official TIP without that assurance." GAROFALO “So in a year from now, when we take this up again, the 37th Street project could be put in if there is some kind of an agreement between the parties where there will be a local share?” KROUT “Right.” GAROFALO “But it will at least be a year, then, right?” KROUT “No, you could come back and amend the TIP at any time, so if there was some kind of an agreement that was reached six months from now or four months from now, you could.” MCKAY “Or two weeks.” GAROFALO “Yeah, or two weeks from now. Okay, if they can come up with some kind of agreement, we can always consider putting the 37th Street project in there when there is a commitment for a local share. Is there any other discussion?” WARNER “Did I misunderstand something? You are saying that the 37th Street project is not anywhere in this TIP?” GAROFALO “No.” WARNER “And it wasn’t.” GAROFALO “No. There is no local share committed.” WARNER “Well, then, 37th Street is the newcomer?” KROUT “No. You talked about 37th Street in a collection of tentative programs for those three federal programs, but neither Woodlawn or 37th Street has ever been in the Transportation Improvement Program.” WARNER “Okay.” GAROFALO “Okay, is there any other discussion? If not, let’s have a roll call vote, I guess.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed with 7 votes in opposition (Lopez, Osborne-Howes, Michaelis, Warren, Marnell, McKay and Carraher) and 5 in favor (Platt, Johnson, Barfield, Warner and Garofalo). Hentzen was not present. GAROFALO “Okay. Commissioner Marnell wants to try another motion.” SUBSTITUTE MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the Transportation Improvement Program for year 2000 to 2005, subject to moving two projects, one identified at $1.3 million and one at $900,000 under the column headed STP into 2004 and take the Woodlawn project and move it into 2005. BARFIELD “Which two are you favoring?” MARNELL “On the next to last page of the report. It is 21st North from Oliver to Woodlawn and 47th Street South from I-35 to Hydraulic. I don’t think this resolves that issue, but it does get it out of here and to the state for allocation, and gets our deadline met, and gives the parties involved time to resolve their issues. It is probably not the correct prioritization, but we will probably revisit this at least next year.” MARNELL moved, WARREN seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Okay, so we are moving Woodlawn to 2005 and those other two projects up. Is there any discussion?” PLATT “I can see the merit and thought behind the motion, and I haven’t made up my mind how I am going to vote on it yet, but I want to put it in the record, but I can see that there is an attempt to achieving some compromise here, which is desirable.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: The motion carried with 9 votes in favor (Johnson, Warren, Barfield, Carraher, Garofalo, Marnell, Michaelis, Lopez, and Osborne-Howes), and 3 in opposition (Platt, Warner and McKay). Hentzen was not present. GAROFALO “Okay, we need a motion to certify that the planning process is being carried out in conformance with federal requirements.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission certify that the planning process is being carried out in conformance with all requirements of the 23CF Part 450-334. CARRAHER moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ KROUT “If anyone is sitting here waiting to testify on case for duplex zoning on Walnut Street, near the intersection of 31st and Seneca, that case has been deferred. It doesn’t show up on the agenda because it has been postponed. I just want to make sure that there isn’t anyone sitting here who is expecting to testify in that case.” 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations from the May 18 meeting. GAROFALO “On these subdivision items, we are pulling Item 3/3 for discussion, and we can have a motion unless there are questions or comments on any of the others. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any of the Subdivision Committee items?” Subdivision Committee items 3/1, 3/2, 3/4, 3/5 and 3/6 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. PLATT moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). 3/1. SUB2000-24 - Final Plat of CHURCH OF THE MAGDALEN ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of 127th Street East and 21st Street North. A. As this site is adjacent to Wichita’s city limits, the Applicant shall submit a request for annexation. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single-Family Residential. B. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the extension of sanitary sewer and City water services. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. County Engineering has required a copy of the final drainage plan to verify how off-site drainage is to be handled. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan and has required a cross-lot drainage easement. The minimum building elevation appears to be too low. E. County/Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes two access openings along 21st St. North and two access openings along 127th St. East. County Engineering requests that the entry access be coordinated with the streets and entrances on the south side of 21st Street. On the final plat, the dedication of access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. F. County/Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for any improvements to perimeter streets. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the construction of a left turn bay on 21st Street and the construction of a paved road to County standards on 127th St. East along the plat’s frontage. G. County Surveying requests a benchmark elevation. H. Access to 127th St. East will require a release to cross the pipeline. I. The applicant shall submit a covenant regarding the ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. J. In the plattor’s text, the word “Reserve” shall be corrected. K. The 35’ building setback lines along the tapers on the road rights-of-way need to be parallel with the new property lines. L. The 35’ building setback along 127th St. needs increased to include the pipeline setback with a definite dimension with respect to the plat. M. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. N. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. 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. ----------------------------------------------------- 3/2. SUB2000-29 - One-step Final Plat of TARA FALLS 2ND ADDITION, located south of Harry Street, West of 127th Street East. A. This site is located in the County’s Four-Mile Creek sewer system and will be served by the County. Existing petitions for sewer, water, paving and sidewalk improvements have been submitted with the Tara Falls Addition. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for any new guarantees or easements. A sanitary sewer layout is requested. New City and County petitions are required. B. On the final plat tracing, appropriate wording shall be added to the Mayor’s signature block indicating the City’s agreement to allow a County sewer district to be formed within the City. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. The Applicant 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. 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 AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------- 3/4. DED2000-10 - Contingent street right-of-way dedication from Phil Ruffin for property generally located south of U.S. 54, on the west side of Broadway (921 S. Broadway), described as: The east 20 feet of the following described properties: Lots 93-99 (odd) Broadway Avenue, Lee's Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, KS; Lots 87-91 (odd), Lees 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, KS; and, An unplatted tract of land described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 93, Broadway Avenue; thence west 140 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 93; thence north 24.3 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of Lot 91, Broadway Avenue; thence east 140 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 91; thence south 25.55 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. This Contingent Dedication is a requirement of a Conditional Use (CON 2000-02) and is being dedicated for future street widening on Broadway. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/5. DED2000-11 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Mennonite Housing, for property generally located south of Central, west of West Street, described as: The east five (5) feet of the west ten (10) feet of the east 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 9, Parkwilde Addition to Wichita, Kansas; together with the south five (5) feet of the east 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 9, Parkwilde Addition to Wichita, Kansas, except the east 95 feet thereof. Generally located south of Central, west of West Street. This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-16, and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------- 3/6. DED2000-13 - Dedication of a street right-of-way from Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc., for property generally located south on the northeast corner of Murdock and Topeka, described as: A tract of land in Lot 1, Block 1, Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc., Addition, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1; thence east along the south line of Lot 1, 20 feet; thence northwest to a point on the west line of Lot 1, 20 feet north of the southwest corner of Lot 1; thence south along the west line 20 feet to the point of beginning. Generally located on the northeast corner of Murdock and Topeka. This Dedication is a requirement of City Engineering for the Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc., Addition, and is being dedicated for additional street right-of-way. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 3/3. SUB2000-31 - One-Step Final Plat of GORGES ACRES, located on the north side of 13th Street North, west of 279th Street 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. Standard soil testing 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. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A Floodway Reserve is required within the northern third of the plat to handle off-site drainage. D. The Applicant shall dedicate a 35-ft half-street contingent right-of-way along the east or west line of the plat to improve access to future development to the north. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The final plat shall reference the access controls in the plattor’s text. County Engineering requires access control except for one opening. MAPD recommends that the opening coincide with the location of the contingent right-of-way dedication. F. If platted, the building setback needs to be 35 ft to conform with the Zoning Regulations for section line roads. 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. Monuments shall be found or set per the Armour Survey. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff, “This is a one-lot plat, located in the County on the north side of 13th Street North, west of 279th Street West. At last weeks’ Subdivision meeting, this plat was approved, subject to staff comments. What the platting conditions were was a half-street contingent right-of-way dedication along the east or west line of the plat. In addition, one access opening was approved to coincide with the location of that contingent right-of-way dedication. So, for instance, if the contingent right-of-way dedication is platted by the applicant along the east line of the plat, then the access opening also would have to be along that east line. The Subdivision regulations do provide for the dedication of contingent right-of-ways upon determination of the Planning Commission, to provide for potential street connections to adjoining undeveloped property to prevent the land-locking of adjoining properties and to avoid an excessive number of individual driveways along Section Line Roads. In this case, the Subdivision Committee required the contingent right-of-way dedication in order to approve access to potential development to the north as you can see by the tax parcel map. This is the subject property right here (indicating) and a contingent right-of-way dedication along the west or east line of the plat would allow for improvement of access to property to the north. And this would promote an orderly pattern of development through an internal street system. At last week’s meeting, the applicant, who also owns property to the north and to the west objected to this contingent right-of-way dedication and the applicant is here today to appeal this condition of the plat.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil? Okay, we will hear from the applicant or agent.” MARK SAVOY “I am with Savoy, Ruggles and Bohm, here representing the applicant. I have given you one exhibit; it is part of a FEMA map that kind of shows the drainage area there a little better. That is the reason for showing you that. The other, larger map that I gave you was a County map just to show that the general location of this is fairly remote to very much development activity. When I expressed the property owner’s desires, I may have done them in reverse order because I think one kind of got ignored. The comments as to access control, we are willing to give access control except for one opening, but we prefer that to be across our south property line anywhere and not be pinned to a specific location. Should you approve a contingent dedication, that pins it down to wherever we put that contingent dedication, so I ask that the one item be amended to, if you want access control except one opening, to allow us to have that anywhere across the south line. In regards to the contingent street dedication, the reason I gave you that second form, I sought advice from the County Engineer’s office in regards to the contingent dedication, more particularly the location that expressed the fact that the property owner is just deadly against it. He just doesn’t want to do it. He had a bad experience with a similar situation and he does not want any contingent dedication. Since we have the option of putting it on either side, I thought maybe if I got some information on that, I might be able to maybe sway him a little bit, but when I asked the County Engineer where they would prefer a contingent dedication or if they had a preference, they said if they had a preference for a road, we would want it over against the half-section line, closer to the line that is between the two quarter sections. In the west quarter section there is a creek that is referred to as ‘Polecat Creek’ that has quite a flood history. His reasoning was that he thought it ought to be down the half section line because the good ground that is on the east side of that creek is really not developable by the people who own it on the other side of the creek. So he said if he had his druthers of picking where a street would go, he would just as soon it would be along that line. The piece of property I am working with is a 6-acre tract or a gross site of 6 acres, and is not adjacent to that line. I have a contract purchaser who is doing the platting. The gentleman he is buying it from has fee title to the 40 acres at the moment. The one I am doing the work for is buying the 6 acres, so I don’t really have much control over that half-section line except to kind of feed a little bit to the reasoning that maybe a road along his east or west line either one of the 6-acre tract may not be real beneficial. It is a fairly deep tract, 35-foot width which encompasses .6 of an acre. If you are paying $5,000 per acre, that is about $3,000 for a contingent street right-of-way. When I was trying to convince him that it probably wouldn’t hurt anything to go ahead and give this and it was looking to the future and everything, and he asked if he could plant trees on it. I said ‘sure’, and he asked if the trees would always stay there. I told him that may not happen. He asked when it would be and I told him it could be 20 years, 30 years. I don’t know when somebody else might do something else with that. Just like you don’t know. Or it could be next month, so it didn’t make him real happy to know that he was going to have a strip of land that he couldn’t even plant trees on and rely on the fact that they would stay there. So, No. 1, I am asking that you let us have access control except one opening across the south line of the property. Don’t pin us down to one location. That kind of has to do with that there are other design features that need to take into consideration where he places his house, so on and so forth, and it could make a long drive if we are not careful. Secondly, I ask that you do not require that we give a contingent street dedication along either property line. Thanks for your consideration.” WARREN “Mark, I am looking at GP 38-1 on this little map.” SAVOY “Is that the one that the chunk comes out of?” WARREN “Yeah. Okay, do I understand that you are working for the fellow that is a contract buyer for this 6 acres?” SAVOY “Yes. He is buying the 6 acres from the owner of GP 38-1, which is a 40-acre parcel.” WARREN “Is this a completed transaction, or is it subject to something?” SAVOY “It is subject to platting.” WARREN “So you are dealing also a little bit with the owner of the bounds of GP 38-1?” SAVOY “I don’t think he has strong opinions except that he doesn’t plan on, in his words, he doesn’t plan on doing anything with the rest of the property. If he sells it at all, something is probably going to happen to it someday. He is not trying to divide off 5-acre tracts or anything like that.” WARREN “Are you of the opinion that he would not be willing, then, to give a dedication down the center of that?” SAVOY “He doesn’t want to affect anything. He has a number of parcels of land around that he farms and he is not interested in trying to help us out by giving a contingent dedication along his west line.” WARREN “It looks like something is going to get that, Mark. Either the guy wants to sell this land bad enough to dedicate something, or…” SAVOY “Well, the guy buying is only buying 6 acres. He is the one that we are dealing with. He is buying 6 acres and he is the one that we are committing to giving away an additional .6 of an acre of land should we give that contingent dedication, via in the future before it becomes a valid dedication.” WARREN “But his seller could help him out a lot, couldn’t he?” SAVOY “If he chose to, I suppose he could.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thanks, Mark. Is there anyone else to speak in support of this plat? Is there anyone to speak in opposition. Seeing none, we will bring this back to the Commission. There was one vote opposed to this at the Subdivision Committee meeting.” MICHAELIS “That was me.” GAROFALO “Okay. Do you want to give us some input?” MICHAELIS “Yeah. I just felt it was kind of inappropriate to go out here in the middle of la la land and say we need a street dedication when we have no idea if it is going to be there. Now if we are talking 13th and Woodlawn and something like that and access control, yes I can understand that, but we are out in the country here and there may never be anything else done there, and for that reason I don’t see that we should deprive this person of an opportunity to use this piece of property for what he wants. I think what Mark said made a good point. If we want to use as a guideline the section lines or half section lines or something, and it abuts that, then maybe we need to look at it, but to just go out here and take this 6 acres and say ‘we want a street here’, and then if we do another 3 acres ‘we want a street here’ and if we do another 4 acres ‘we want a street here’, I don’t think that is necessary. That is why I voted against it before and I would vote against it again.” WARREN “Mr. Chair, I am on the Subdivision Committee, but I wasn’t at that meeting, I was gone that day. Mark, let me ask you a question. Is this seller…do I understand that that seller has that quarter section that would be the southeast quarter?” SAVOY “He owns the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter. He only owns a 40-acre strip, 660 feet in width by half a mile in depth, east of and adjacent to the half section line.” WARREN “He has 80 acres then?” SAVOY “He has 40 acres.” WARREN “I am looking at 8 here, and this being a quarter section…” MCKAY “He said the southwest quarter, didn’t you?” SAVOY “Southeast. He has the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter.” WARREN “Well, I guess what I am thinking is that the guy who is subdividing this and is becoming a developer. He may think of himself as a farmer, but by golly he is becoming a developer. I think he has an obligation, if he is going to start selling off land, to start providing for those things that are ultimately going to be necessary. He is shuffling that responsibility over to this buyer, but I think the buyer needs to beware. If you are going to sell me 6 acres, you had better start providing for what is going to happen to the rest of it.” MICHAELIS “I think that comes back to reality. When is this going to be an urban area? Ever? Probably not.” WARREN “That is what my argument has been along, that this needs to be put together in packages so that we do have some unable to hear along with it.” MICHAELIS “But when you start thinking that, to me that has to be within what we are looking at as far as the 30 year plan. We can’t be looking at here 100 years away and try to say that there is going to be a street there. I just don’t think that is fair.” KROUT “I think the point that staff is trying to make is that this may never become an urban area, or it may, but even if it is not, the whole reason that the County Commission and the Planning Commission, I thought, a couple of years ago, decided that they wanted to look at 5-acre lot developments in the country is because they have developed, in a hap hazard way, without good standards and we have all kinds of problems of property that is locked out of too many access points along mile-line roads, and this is a fundamental thing. If people find that coming in one lot at a time, and their response is ‘well, it is a half an acre and we don’t want to even make a contingent’, and that is the way they can get their lots, then we are going to have one-lot plats, one after another, a hodge-podge with no contingent dedications and we are going to be left with odd pockets and odd areas that are going to be difficult to access and develop. Even if it doesn’t develop for urban purposes some day, this owner and other owners around him are going to develop it for suburban purposes. I think it is really missing the point and I think that if we are going to continue to allow this kind of flexibility, allow anyone on a mile section road to come in with 300 foot of frontage and 600 foot of depth and to provide no way of jointly controlling access and getting interior circulation and just allow the access anywhere that they want it on that mile-line road, I am not sure why we are even bothering to go through the platting process. I think maybe you ought to make a recommendation to the County Commission that we go back to a 5-acre exemption.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” MCKAY “We weren’t privileged to have the FEMA map, and believe it or not, I was one of them who voted, and you know how I hate contingent dedications, but I voted for it primarily because two questions were asked of the applicant, ‘why do you feel like you shouldn’t have to put in a contingent dedication?’ and the answer was ‘well, if somebody else develops it, they can pay for the street’. The second one was ‘we are never going to develop any of the rest of this ground’. I do agree with him that he ought to have the privilege of being able to move that one driveway back and forth and not have to stay on the side, but now that I see this FEMA map, I am even more convinced because a third of this contingent dedication is in the floodway where they can’t use it anyhow.” MOTION: That the planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments with the exception of giving the applicant the right to have the one opening of his choice. MCKAY moved. GAROFALO “That is with the contingent dedication?” MCKAY “Yeah, with the contingent dedication, and the option was either side by the staff. It should be either on the west side or the east side.” KROUT “I am not sure that I understand your motion. Is your motion to require half-street dedication but not to require that the access be where that dedication is going to occur?” MCKAY “I was under the impression that he gives a contingent dedication, either on the west side or the east side. It has nothing to do with the one exception opening. I am saying that he has a driveway opening at any place along the 300 feet. If it is next to it, that is fine. If it is not next to it, if it is on the other side of the 5 acres, then okay. That gives him a driveway, if not, then if he puts it there, he is bound to use the street and his driveway.” KROUT “That is one of the reasons that we are trying to encourage a pattern of internal streets is so that properties will take their access off of that street in the future. Now, what you are basically doing is approving two access points on this 300 feet for the future.” MCKAY “Potentially. If it never develops, I’m not.” WARREN “Could you go along with the fact that if the seller of this property be willing to dedicate his half down that quarter section line that that would be adequate?” MCKAY “That is different. That is not even the same piece of property.” WARREN “Except that I think that they are related right now.” MCKAY “I don’t disagree with that. I am simply looking at their 6-acre tract of ground here that…” MICHAELIS “That has nothing to do with the plat that we are looking at.” GAROFALO “Okay, wait a minute. Let’s do this a little more orderly.” MARNELL “I have a question of the motion maker. When you said either on the east or west side, you are talking about the specific 6 acres as opposed to the other section line that had been mentioned earlier?” MCKAY “Right. All I am talking about is that 6 acres of ground that is up for the platting. When this was presented to us, it was said that they are to provide a contingent dedication and that could be either on the east side of the property or the west side of the property.” MARNELL “Could I ask, for further clarification, this party is still going to be granted access control anywhere along the property, would that go away if that dedication turns into a street so it would have to join the access control?” MCKAY “I hadn’t gotten that far. The whole contingent thing is about that this is clear out in the boonies and it is never going to happen.” MARNELL “It won’t happen?” GAROFALO “Of course, we don’t know that.” MCKAY “It is very simple. If they have a driveway on the east side and the contingent dedication is on the west side, and somebody comes in and buys the other 6 acres to the west, he has to put in a contingent dedication and we can deny him any access off of 13th Street, and he has to come off of the dedicated street.” KROUT “But he will point to this case and what you did on this case and say why not me?” MCKAY “Marvin, I am not going to argue with you. I made a motion. If nobody seconds it, then it will just go on down.” GAROFALO “Okay, do we have a second to the motion?” WARREN “I’ll second the motion just to get it on the floor.” WARREN seconded the motion. WARREN “Somebody suggested that we couldn’t deal with the other piece of land, but I think that because there is a sale being made here, if this buyer went back to the seller and said ‘look, they are asking me for a dedication, but if you will give the dedication on the quarter section line, then I am not required this’. It is an option.” GAROFALO “I don’t think we can require that.” MICHAELIS “It has nothing to do with this case.” WARREN “If he came back to us two weeks from now and said ‘my seller is ready to dedicate down that quarter section line, do I have to, I think we could probably forgive it’. If we would defer it, we could.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion of the motion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed. There were 4 in favor (McKay, Johnson, Warren and Lopez), and 8 opposed (Barfield, Carraher, Warner, Garofalo, Marnell, Michaelis, Platt and Osborne-Howes. Wheeler and Hentzen were not present. MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments with the deletion of the contingent street dedication. MICHAELIS moved, but the motion failed for lack of a second. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments. LOPEZ moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion?” WARREN “What you are saying now is that he is limited to where he can approach this property by wherever he decides to give that easement?” LOPEZ “That’s right. According to staff comments.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 10 votes in favor and 2 votes in opposition (Warren and Michaelis). ----------------------------------------------------------------- MCKAY “I would like to have item 4/2 pulled. I have a conflict of interest on it. I platted both pieces of property on either side of this easement.” GAROFALO “Let’s see. These are vacations, so this is a public hearing.” LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning staff “Items 4/1 and 4/6 were presented at the Subdivision Committee meeting a week ago, and were all approved. I have no further comments to make on them. Aside from Item 4/2, and unless there is public comment, you can take these all in one motion. GAROFALO “Is there anyone here who would like to speak on Vacation Items 4/1,4/3, 4/4, 4/5 and 4/6? Okay, then we can have a motion for them.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that vacation Items 4/1, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5 and 4/6 be approved. MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/1. VAC2000-08 - Request by Woodridge Christian Church c/o Diana Dawkins and P.E.C., P.A. to vacate a 20-foot utility easement and joint access easement, described as. Joint Access Easement: The east 25 feet of the North 245 feet of Lot 138, Block 4, White Tail Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas 20-Foot Utility Easement: The east 20 feet of the North 430 feet of Lot 138, Block 4, White Tail Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas, generally located approx. ½ mile west of 127th Street East on the south side of 13th Street North. Development of a church on adjoining 2½ lots The applicant is requesting to vacate the 20-foot utility easement and 25-foot joint access easements that run interior to the three lots that they intend to develop as a new church site. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement and joint access easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the access and utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with the Office of Central Inspection to shift the western boundaries of Lots 139 and 140 to coincide with the eastern extent of the subject property on Lot 138. 2. The applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties Lots 139 and 140 together. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with the Office of Central Inspection to shift the western boundaries of Lots 139 and 140 to coincide with the eastern extent of the subject property on Lot 138. 2. The applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties Lots 139 and 140 together. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4/3. VAC2000-00010 - Request by CAP Carpet, Inc., c/o Greg Perkins request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement, described as: 20-Foot Utility Easement described as: The south 10 feet of Lots 4 and 5 together with the north 10 feet of Lot 3, all within Block 1, Carriage House Plaza Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, EXCEPT the west 10 feet of said utility easement. Generally located north of Kellogg Drive and west of West of Woodchuck. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 20-foot utility easement that runs along the shared boundary lines of Lot 4 and 5 to the north and Lot 3 to the south of Carriage House Plaza Addition. All three lots are under the same ownership and CAP Carpet, Inc. wishes to relocate their retail carpet store on this site, utilizing the existing easement as buildable land. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the utility easement described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties Lots 4, 5, and 6 together. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties Lots 4, 5, and 6 together. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4/4. VAC2000-000011 - Smithmoor Associates, LLC, c/o Grant Tideman and Austin Miller, P.A. c/o Kim Edgington requests to vacate a portion of access control, described as: The east 10 feet of the west 185 feet of Harry Street access control, Lot 1, Smithmoor Commercial Addition. Generally located south of Harry and east of Smithmoor. Reason for request: To adjust access control to fit site layout and usage. The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of access control along Harry to adjust driveway access for the proposed development on this site. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described access control, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of access control described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------- 4/5. VAC2000-00012 - Clarence Lieber and Austin Miller, P.A., c/o Kim Edgington request to vacate a portion of a front building setback, described as: The west 15 feet of the east 35 feet of Lot 1, Lieber Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the west side of Hydraulic between 2nd and 3rd Streets. REASON FOR REQUEST: To accommodate potential purchaser of property for business expansion. The applicant is requesting to 15 feet of a 35-foot building setback along Hydraulic for future expansion of the existing business. This reduction in building setback would leave 20 feet of front setback, which is the same as the required front setback in the “GC” zoning district. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described portion of a front building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of front building setback described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------------- 4/6. VAC2000-00013 - K-DA, Inc., c/o Boyd Johnson, Austin Miller, P.A., c/o Kirk Miller request to vacate a portion of access control, described as: The east 7 feet of Kellogg Frontage access control, Lot 2, Block 1, Carriage House Plaza 4th Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of Kellogg Frontage and west of Woodchuck REASON FOR REQUEST: To adjust access control to fit site layout and usage. The Applicant is requesting to vacate 7 feet of access control along Kellogg frontage road for a shared access point between Lots 2 and 4. This seven feet is in addition to the existing 50 feet of driveway opening allowed for the shared access point. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described access control, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of access control described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ------------------------------------------------------------ Item taken out order: 4/2. VAC2000-00009 - Auburn Hills, Inc., c/o Jay Russell (owner); Steve Seiler (contract purchaser) and Savoy, Ruggles & Bohm, P.A., request to vacate a portion of a 30-foot drainage and utility easement, described as: The West 10 feet of the east 30 feet of Lot 5, Block C, Auburn Hills 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located ½ mile south of Maple and ½ mile east of 135th Street West (12817 Hendryx Court). REASON FOR REQUEST: Construction of home with covered deck. The applicant is requesting to vacate the west 10 feet of a 30-foot drainage and utility easement that runs along the rear property line of the subject property. The site is currently vacant, but the contract purchaser wishes to build a home with a covered deck that would extend into the existing easement. Additionally, the applicant would like to place a water-well for landscaping in the easement to be vacated. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 2, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility and drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easement described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall maintain the existing surface swale for surface drainage. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall maintain the existing surface swale for surface drainage. MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. JOHNSON moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconde