METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2001 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 12:00 p.m., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Jerry Michaelis, Acting Chair; Kerry Coulter; Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; John W. McKay, Jr.; Ron Marnell; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner, and Ray Warren. James Barfield and Chris Carraher were not present. Staff members present were Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner, Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary; Valerie Robinson, for Unified Zoning Code. 1. Briefing by Donna Goltry on proposed Zoning Code Amendments GOLTRY "The subject of the briefing today is the Unified Zoning Code amendments, both substantive and clarification types of amendments that we have been working on. Those of you who sit on the MAPC Advance Plans Committee know that this is a monster. We have been working on it for several months. We have had a number of meetings where we have gone through all of the different parts of the Zoning Code to look for little errors in it to try to find them, and also to work on some changes that were driven, primarily by the impetus. You have a little cover memo that you received and it shows the impetus for the Zoning Code amendments—they were two-fold. One was to streamline redevelopment and new construction in older developed areas of the city and this was in order to encourage neighborhood revitalization in our core areas. The second impetus was to encourage increased density and flexibility of housing types, particularly in our lower density single-family districts, to try to kind of open up the 'SF-6' district, if you will, to be a little bit denser than it had been in the past. That is what kind of got the train rolling out of the station on the Zoning Code Amendments, and it seems to me that they have taken on a life of their own, and in the process, I think staff will tell you that it is about to take away my life. I have a fairly short time, I feel like, to introduce this briefing to you today, and this is to let you know that the MAPC Advance Plans Committee has faithfully been coming and meeting at 7:30 every Tuesday or every other Tuesday morning for about 10 weeks where we went through things page by page. We have suggested one round of amendments and then we would go back and revise things and do it again and again and again. What you have in front of you today is primarily the draft that we will be using for the public testimony that will be on March 8 when we will be having a public hearing on this Zoning Code issue, so this is considered a briefing today and not a public hearing. I have already found a mistake in it, I saw it this morning, so I know that there are some minor changes that still need to be made. Let's go through the ideas of streamlining new construction. You would think, since this was driving this train for the Zoning Code amendments, that it would be the lions' share of the work that is both involved, both in terms of the content of the changes and the time we spent on it, but actually not. Actually, the amendments that do that are very simple and straightforward and I have given you some references on the cover memo to show you where you can find those items and what has been changed. One is off-street parking. I am not going to go through all of this in this slide presentation. Some of you who may have been not on Advance Plans may have seen this slide presentation that I did the very first meeting, and Advance Plans did see it, but we went through some ideas of parking lots and clustering of subdivision and side-lot setbacks. So I am only going to highlight a few of the slides today for your benefit. As I said, since neighborhood revitalization was at the forefront of our efforts, we began with the charge of looking at making some specific regulations tailored to the older core area. So I started out looking at the downtown area, the 1919 city limits, if you will. We started from that format that that would be where we would be trying to do some streamlining on the regulations. As we sat and discussed it in the middle of MAPC; Advance Plans; and among staff, we decided that these ideas would work throughout the City, so what you see is they aren't specifically tailored to the 1919 city limits any more, but they are tailored to the idea of making development easier throughout the older built up areas of the City. We talked about different kinds of parking arrangements you can have. Basically, you have 3 ways to go when you provide parking. You can provide parking on site; you can provide parking off site; and you can provide parking through shared parking agreements with other users who may have different peak hour parking needs than you do. (Indicating) This is an example of a shared parking arrangement in the CBD. I am going to flip through some of the slides quickly. Here would be an off site parking lot that I found at the northwest corner of Waterman and Pattie. The little sign there says that it is parking for that user. The building is one block to the north. One of the suggested changes we are making is that off site parking be more flexible than it has been in the past. In the past, you could provide up to 50% of your parking needs with off site lots, and if you wanted more than that, you had to go to the BZA. This would allow administrative determination to go to 100% of your parking needs from off site parking. The next subject is side yard setbacks. Another thing that hampers re-development in the built areas of town is inadequate side yards. They don't meet current side yard requirements. Perhaps they were built a long time ago, or for whatever reason, they don't have that mandatory 6 feet between each lot. This is an example of a shared drive where I doubt that there is 12 feet between the two houses. In response to this issue, we have suggested some changes to Section V of the Code that would give some flexibility in reducing side and rear yards. In particular, one of the things we talked about, and if you want to kind of look at some of these slides of the houses you can see that in a lot of the older areas we do have pretty narrow side yards between the houses. Usually, it works pretty well. (Indicating) That one is incredibly narrow. I would bet that there isn't probably 6 feet between them. (Indicating) This is a house that is located on south Pattie, where they have an addition in about the middle of the lot. Whereas what you see in the typical older areas is always the accessory uses. The uses that aren't attached to the houses have been allowed to get to within 3 feet of the property line on the side yard, so the garage was closer to the lot line whereas the house was supposed to stay a little further back. Osborne-Howes arrived at the meeting at 12:22 p.m. What we have built in to the suggested changes, one thing we did talk about that is critical is that if you are going to reduce these side yards, it should be in the back half of the lots. We shouldn't be reducing the side yards down to a really small amount in the front, where it is more visible. So you will see that built into the suggested changes. I believe they are on Page 172. (Indicating) This is an example of a house on Fairview where they have done an addition, but the addition is towards the back of the house. And since it is an attached addition in the back, it is not as obtrusive as if it were a really narrow side yard clear up to the front. (Indicating) This is an example of the opposite approach. This one is setting close to the front. That would not comply with our suggested language of keeping it in the rear half of the side yard. The next thing we want to talk about is increasing density and flexibility of housing types in our Single-Family district. Here is the major suggestion: to go from 'SF-6' to 'SF-5'. Now, you all have gotten advance packets. I believe it was dated January 29, which was the proposed changes until we had our final meeting. We had some more staff input from various departments, so I am sure you are all aware already that we are suggesting to go from 'SF-6' to 'SF-5'. That means that you could have lots as small as 5,000 square feet for single-family dwellings. I did a little windshield survey of the City. First, I did a little work on maps to start with. Let's see if I can find any 5,000ish square foot lots that exist in the City of Wichita. So, I spent one afternoon kind of digging through all of our old map records. What I found is that in that era of transition, when you went from having long, skinny lots that fronted on a grid pattern of a street where the lot increment was usually 50 feet across for the lot and 130 to 140 feet in depth. Then, when you go into the 40s and 50s, instead, you begin to have the new lot arrangement, where you end up with wider lots and you have more attached garages and the garages set closer to the front of the house. In those cases, the lots became wider and not as deep. Bill Johnson arrived at the meeting at 12:27 p.m. In the 40s and 50s, you find several areas of the City which have a lot of 5,000 square foot to 6,000 square foot lots because they kind of fell in between the area. (Indicating) That is an example of one on Glen Oaks. So, yes, it can be done. We can do 5,000 square foot lots. But lest we leave that issue with just this historic area, there are some areas in the newer areas of Wichita, built in the Westlink area in the 1980s and 1990s which also have quite small lots, but are your traditional detached single-family dwelling. (Indicating) This is an example of one. We have also suggested reducing minimum interior side setbacks, which would be compatible if you are going down from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet. Then, would it not also be logical to go from 6 feet as your minimum side yard to 5 feet as your minimum side lot? The mistake I talked about that I noted this morning is that one thing we talked about is making accessory apartments a more encouraged type of land use by permitting it in 'MF-18'; 'MF-29'; 'B'; 'NR'; 'LC'; 'GC' and 'CBD'. That is reflected accurately on your use table on Page 123. I did omit adding them to the list of permitted uses in some of the independent categories, so I do need to go back and clean that up on the draft Zoning Code. I don't think I will ever get it perfectly right, try as hard as I may. In fact, the harder you try, the worse you do sometimes. The last point I want to talk about on the front page is that within the staff, as well as with the Advance Plans, we mulled over an idea of mixed use within the 'SF-5' district. Now, mixed use is different than clustering. We already have clustering, which can be done in the Single-Family district. That is where you cluster lots together, but you set aside a comparable area for open space. But when we say mixed use, what we were looking at was the option of encouraging single-family, duplex, patio homes, townhomes, maybe some four-plexes, and kind of a planned, a smaller scale but planned residential development that would encourage a range of housing types being offered in our low-density categories, but where the overall density wouldn't exceed that of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. We kicked it around; we tried putting it in as a Conditional Use. That didn't work. We tried putting it in in the Subdivision Regulations, that was cumbersome as well. Finally, when you have an idea that kind of comes full circle, what we came to the conclusion of was that we should focus, instead, on trying to encourage developers to use the existing residential CUP requirements. If you look back historically, when we were doing a lot of development at the scale of a quarter section land, 160 acres, Comotara, Tallgrass, Reflection Ridge, Huntington Park—all of these were fairly large scale developments. Many of those areas—I know Huntington Park and Reflection Ridge I know for sure do—they are all zoned 'SF-6', and yet it is developed with a range of housing types. How they were able to do that is because they maintained the 'SF-6' density within their overall development, but they bundled their densities in areas within it. So we feel that this is an existing option; to go to a Conditional Use is almost as difficult as doing a residential CUP. Maybe what we need to do is a better job of promoting the use of the residential CUP when it is an appropriate vehicle. Before I begin turning to all of the miscellaneous other things that have crept into this amendment process, I believe I will pause to take a breath and ask if you have any questions on the first page of the memo?" MICHAELIS "Does anyone have questions?" WARREN "On that last item, instead of the CUP, why wouldn't you use a PUD on that?" GOLTRY "You could do a PUD, too. A PUD is more intended to be a mix of non-residential and residential types of uses." WARREN "Do you see this as just residential?" GOLTRY "Yes, and actually, that is a good question. I should have pointed out that one of the minor changes I made in the CUP regulations is to point out something that has always been, and that is that a CUP can be residential, it can be non-residential, or it can be a combined residential/non-residential. Most of our ones that are residential, do have a non- residential component to it, as well. In fact, we have had some amendments that were like that recently: Hanley's residential CUP that added some office uses, and now it is a residential/non-residential. That system seems to be working all right, if we can just focus on it. Are there any questions about streamlining, setbacks, side yards, density—that range of uses? Okay, lets turn to Page 2. Now, this isn't an exhaustive list of all of the changes in the Zoning Code, because I didn't want to make the memo too long, but I did want to point out some of the major changes that are incorporated within it beyond the ones that were the impetus for starting the revision. Six to eight months ago, one of the people from a portable storage container company came up and asked 'can we make the regulations easier to have portable storage units in the 'LC' district'? Up to this point in time, we have treated 'LC' as our clean commercial district—the district where we try to prevent a lot of outdoor storage and display, and to confine it certain per cents of the building; ten per cent of the area for outdoor storage and displays only supposed to be 10 feet from the building. But the portable storage container people approached the City about loosening this up. As a result of that, there has been a City Committee that has met with the portable storage container company several times and from that meeting, there were some recommendations developed. I did take that recommendation to the MAPC Advance Plans Committee and we looked at it. They did some consideration of it—staff has had some consideration of it as well. We have included in the draft some suggestions for the portable storage containers in 'LC'. These are still different from the one we talked about two weeks ago at our last MAPC Advance Plans Committee in a couple of ways. But let me point out some basic things that it does. The suggested change that you have sitting before you today would allow temporary placement of portable storage containers for 90 days and then at the end of 90 days, they would be removed for 60 days and then they could be placed again in 90 days. Now, if these portable storage containers are placed in this manner, and if they are situated in such a way that they are behind the wall line of the principal building, meaning they are not out in front of the building, but tucked a little bit more behind it—the language says 5 feet behind the principal wall line—if they observe setback requirements of the district within which they are located, which setback requirements in 'LC' aren't nearly as stringent as they are in residential districts, for instance—if they have adjacent property that is zoned 'TF-3' or more restrictive, that is 'SF'; 'RR' through 'TF-3'—have to have at least a 20 foot setback from the property line, the property that is zoned with that 'TF-3' or more restrictive district. If they don't have signs facing the street or the adjacent residential property and if the color of the wall of the storage unit is compatible or inconspicuous with the building that it is temporarily serving, then the outside of the storage unit itself would be considered screening materials. This differs from what the current regulations are for portable storage containers. Right now, portable storage containers are considered to be outdoor work and storage areas and in the 'LC' district, they must be either screened by materials that are the same as the principal building—so if it is a brick building, it is supposed to have a brick wall; if it is a wood building, it could have a wood wall—or if you don't screen it with those kinds of materials, you can submit a plan to show how you plan to screen it and it has to also have landscaping, which isn't real practical in most cases because you are talking about a portable storage unit set on concrete, and the idea of having a wooden fence in front of it, it is hard to think about putting landscape materials on the concrete. I have a couple of slides to show you some examples of portable storage containers that are in existence today. Another idea that we are kicking around, and this is in this latest draft you received today that we want to take some more thought on. Another problem is 'let's keep the storage unit up near the building instead of letting them be setting closer to the property line'. So that is another issue to look at. That is one that we just talked about. Another thing is that we need to highlight the fact that they need to stay out of circulation, dry drive aisles and parking spaces. They would not be allowed to use up the required parking or to be setting in the circulation and dry vials. What is the current situation? Well, I checked with OCI to see how many portable storage containers are out right now on the east side so I could take some slides and show you examples of them. I could find 4 or 5. With this proposed change in the Zoning Code, we can extrapolate that we may end up with a situation that instead of having 4 or 5 containers on the east side of Wichita, we may have quite a few—that is excluding the big one at Wal Mart, which was approved as a CUP amendment where they have the 16- foot high chain link fence with screening around it. So let me show you the slides of the ones that I did find. (Indicating) This is at the Design Center on east Central between either Erie or Volutsia. This particular one may do a fairly decent job of blending in with the building because it has the light colored material. It has a metal back to this building. Actually, it is EIFS on the adjoining sides, but the side of it is metal. It had a sign on it that I didn't pick up because the tree was right in front of the sign, but the sign did exceed the size limitations that we are proposing in here. It was probably a 2 x 3 foot sign, which would be 6 square feet and we are proposing a limitation of 2 square feet on signage. Its door opening faces Volutsia Street. The property immediately across the street is zoned 'LC', and the front half of their lot where their building is setting, that is zoned 'TF-3'. The property behind; here is the unit, and this is the house and the garage. It is a single-family house sitting next to it. I am not sure why there is no screening wall here because they just did an addition to this building. I do remember having to do landscape plans. This is another issue that we talked about in Advance Plans. One of the tricky issues here is that you should have had a screening wall between this commercial use and this residential use, but the screening wall is not in place. Something we may want to think about is if you are going to put in these portable storage units and there isn't otherwise already a screening fence on the property line where it belongs, do we need to get this screening fence on the property line? The next one I found is at 2880 South Hillside. Right now, this one would not be even part of the issue because they are under construction to add an addition to this auto repair site. It is on the corner of Ross Parkway and Hillside in the Plainview area. But this storage container, which is an odd shaped one, it is a small little square guy instead of being a longer one and has been sitting there since well before they went under construction, so prior to them beginning construction, it would have been out of compliance with the 'LC' zoning regulations. It has large signs on the side of it and is sitting in front of the building and is along a major arterial. This placement of this storage container would not comply with our suggested regulations. This third one is over behind Red Baron's Electronics by the first place on east Kellogg. They have a long one and it is sitting right along the property line. We are lucky in the fact that although there is just in immediate proximity between this parking lot and the single-family residences behind it, this cedar hedge has been growing there for a good 50 years, I would say, so they have improved their screening from the nearby residential, but otherwise, that would be right on the back yard line if they had a patio grill right on the other side. Okay, and the last place I found them on the east side of Wichita was at Bradley Fair, between the backs of the buildings and the lake. They had a series of them back there. The reason I brought you the pictures of that, since this is a CUP it is a slightly different animal, but it is interesting because at one of our earlier discussions at Advance Plans, we talked about the issue of how many are you going to have between various commercial uses. Are we going to end up with rows and rows of these out in back of all of the buildings? If you look in our draft language, we have a comment that you can only have one per business and that it is not supposed to exceed 10 per cent of the area of the business, unless the business is smaller than 2,000 square feet where they are allowed 200 square feet. There were three of them in a row in back of different users. I think the segment of users would be the ones along where Gateway is, behind there. That is portable storage containers. I think this is an issue that has been very difficult for me to deal with in terms of we have changed it many times, trying to come up with a way that keeps 'LC' as a clean, commercial use, yet looking at the needs of small scale retailers to compete with the Wal-Marts of the world to provide some sort of temporary storage that they need for seasonal business practices. Related to the portable storage in 'LC', it causes us also to do a little closer examination of the screening requirements in Section IV, which is about on Page 176 of the regulations. We have this enormous long run-on sentence. Marvin wrote me a funny little note back saying 'I think this does it, but is about the longest sentence in history'. So I took a crack at making it an outline form instead. I ended up taking the screening requirements for all types of districts along arterials and breaking it apart into its basic components. It has screening of outdoor work, storage areas and other ground-level view items. It has screening of roof top mechanical equipment, and the third component was screening of trash receptacles and multi-family 'MF' areas. So I broke it out into outline form to try to clarify that they have had a lot thrown into one paragraph and make it a little bit easier to handle. Okay, I want to move on to the next item on the page, sexually-oriented business. We have Karen Duranleau from the County Counselor's Office here today who can field any specific questions that you might have on this. You will find that the Zoning Code is just a little racier than it used to be, or maybe a lot, because it is incorporating comparable language to the Adult Entertainment Code that was passed by the County last June, I believe. The idea is that the County is amortizing non-conforming sexually-oriented businesses that are within 1,000 feet of parks, schools, churches, residences and other adult entertainment establishments. Have I missed any from that list? Alcohol establishments. They have also defined night clubs in the county to be establishments that do not offer alcohol. So they are trying to separate the alcohol versus the sexually-oriented business approach. We have tried to reflect this and they have been very helpful to provide all of the input on language on how to incorporate this into the Code. MCKAY "Donna, all we did, as far as Advance Plans, we just accepted what the legal staffs of both sides said, and that is what is here; what the legal staff said. We didn't try to change it or anything else." GOLTRY "Yeah. Okay. There are many other changes sprinkled though out the Code and I am sure if you have opened your packet that you got from the 29th, you already know that. And of course, you have more changes in it today and I just told you about one I forgot to get in. Besides which, I will be taking more changes from the input we get from you and from the public before we get all said and done with this. I am going to highlight briefly. One of the issues that has come up just very recently is that the County is having some issues with the zoning of some of their parks. Their parks include a variety of alcohol related uses. The Sedgwick County Zoo is a good case in point. For Zoobilee, we all know that at Zoobilee you have a special event alcohol license, and they make big bucks at that event. So our initial thought was maybe we should be rezoning these parks 'GC' and then we reacted with the idea that 'no, we don't really think parks and 'GC' are very compatible. We looked at what the City has done. The City has taken an approach of keeping parks as single-family but having specific regulations on the books for the City on how you treat each of the different parks. So what we did was we imbedded within the definition of Parks and Recreation, some changes that would allow more latitude for public parks to provide a variety of uses. As part of that, we discovered that cultural groups as a use has just become an orphan. What used to be cultural groups, Zoos, Arboretums, could either be a park or they could be community assembly, so we are suggesting that since we have plenty of uses anyway and cultural groups now appear to be an orphan, let's eliminate them. A minor change was, we have had some requests from telecommunication carriers that are associated with office facilities not wanting to go through the utility major Conditional Use process, so we have incorporated some language for that. A kind of a clean-up item, No. 3 is that we have a lot of things to do with vehicles scattered through out the Zoning Code definitions as well as through out the Zoning Code. It is kind of hard to follow the trail through on where do you find everything to do with vehicles, so we tried to consolidate everything that had to do with vehicles under the definition of vehicle comma. I will say in passing that there are a lot of changes that are imbedded in the Zoning Code that are similar to that. One of them would be car washes. Car washes are a Conditional Use when they are in certain proximity to residential areas. We all know and understand that to be so with car washes as a principal use. It says point blank under the definition of convenience stores that car washes can be considered as an accessory use to a convenience store also. We talked about this issue and have clarified that any time you have a car wash, whether it is the principal use, the car wash Conditional Uses you see all of the time here at MAPC, or whether it is an accessory use to a service station or to a convenience store, think about some places like Coastal, which are running a convenience store, and they also have a car wash that is well patronized. It should be the same requirements that apply to it as far as Conditional Use if they are in close proximity to residential. The reasons you have it for residential use is to avoid the noise and the lights and what- not that are associated with a car wash. So that has been clarified. I didn't include that in this. Adjoining, adjacent and abutting is another kind of clarification thing. I went through an elaborate process; they will tell you I am nitpicky. Adjacent doesn't necessarily mean contiguous. Adjoining means contiguous as similar objects— abutting like a street abuts a lot, because they aren't the same type of object. So I have tried to consistently use Spellcheck, you know the word search through the computer, to line out the inconsistencies we had between adjacent, abutting and adjoining and to use them in the context for which they were intended to be within the Zoning Code. Item No. 4, reorder the intensity of commercial and industrial categories. This suggested change is that 'OW' Office Warehouse allows a lot fewer uses than does 'GC' General Commercial, and yet, so far, we have interpreted that 'GC' is a less intense district than 'OW'. We thought it looked like—and we talked about this with Advance Plans—it looks like 'OW' is less intensive than 'GC' when you look at the permitted uses. It is kind of hard to compare because 'OW' has a very limited range of uses as does 'IP'. They are not intended to include all sorts of the miscellaneous categories like General Retail. Anyway, we are suggesting that 'OW' be considered between 'LC' and 'GC' in the hierarchy of use intensity, and the 'IP' Industrial Park be placed between 'GC' General Commercial and 'CBD'. There was a minor change on outdoor work and storage areas to clarify that you weren't supposed to do your outdoor work and storage in the front setback of the 'IP' district. Item No. 6 has to do with 'LC', with our Conditional Use car lots. I took typical requirements that have been passed by MAPC at the last so many car lot cases and incorporated most of those as conditions for Conditional Uses. I will say that one thing I didn't add is some of the language that it was already in existence on and this runs through the Code. It makes me think that we could still do some better tightening up. This is an example: It says 'a Conditional Use shall comply with the requirements of the noise standards of Section IV.C'. Well, that is prima-facie. They already are supposed to comply with it because if it is one of the requirements, it could comply with it, it is redundant. The reason I didn't go ahead and yank it out in all of those cases is because it is redundant, perhaps it does serve as a second point of notice to people when they are looking through the regulations. Oh, by the way, don't forget you have noise standards to comply with, oh, by the way, don't forget you have lighting standards to comply with. But the truth of the matter is, that stands independent whether you have those in or out on the Conditional Uses. No. 7 is a suggested change, and it is something that we really are still talking about. It is in its formative stages. It is something we talked about at the most recent last two or three MAPC Advance Plans Committee meetings, and that is that in 'GC' car lots, actually, this came out of the retreat meeting we had last fall when we were talking about what is wrong with car lots. Well, maybe what is wrong with car lots is the way they look to the neighbors if the nearby neighbors are residential. So, I have some suggestions. I would say that this is something that is even new for the Advance Plans members and they haven't had a chance to respond to these yet. I would consider that this is definitely in draft form. It is an idea of supplemental regulations for 'GC' car lots that says that if 'GC' is near residential, then they have to be screened from the residential. Some very basics like that, and I would just ask you to refer to that section because it is new, it isn't in your January 29th draft. This is not written as a Conditional Use. This is written as a supplemental regulation. I know that you all know the difference between the two. A supplemental regulation is something you have to do to get your building permit. A Conditional Use is when you might get to do that use, or you might not, but first you have to bring it to MAPC for a public hearing to determine if it is appropriate to do that Conditional Use. We are not suggesting that the 'GC' be a Conditional Use rather we are suggesting that it be supplemental regulations as part of the permit process." GAROFALO "Donna, would you address the 'GC' car lots? We had some discussion about the height or the elevating. Those who are not on the Advance Committee might want to hear about that. " GOLTRY "Yes. That is a good point. Here is an issue where the verdict is out. What is the height of platforms that should be allowed in 'LC' and 'GC' car lots? It is something to kick around. I took the condition out of a number of existing car lot cases where you included the regulation 'there shall be no elevated platforms' and included that in the drafts that circulated in Advance Plans. We talked about that; we talked about the possibility of 2 feet; we talked about the fact that in 'GC' car lots, they are allowed to do whatever, but the bottom line is that when you elevate a car, it constitutes signage. That is what they are basically trying to accomplish with it is to use it for signage. So I think that is an issue that we probably do need to have some discussion about. That is a good one." GAROFALO "But in the 'LC', you kept that in there, right?" GOLTRY "I kept it in in this proposal." GAROFALO "So it is not in the 'GC'?" GOLTRY "Right. So that is something that we need to talk about. Do we want it in both, do we want it consistent, do we want it to be in different amounts in each one? It gets kind of into a Sign Code issue. I didn't put it in the 'GC' one because I didn't feel like since I hadn't had a chance to talk with the Advance Plans Committee about it—it was one of our late breaking issues, that we weren't 'put to bed' on that issue. Okay, I have combined the commercial and industrial accessory uses into one category, that is more of a clean-up thing. I don't think we need to belabor that. Also, a clarification on antennas and towers. I will refer to Ron Marnell to make sure that I got that right. We have had some problems with public franchise and antennas and saying that they needed to come in and get a Conditional Use to stick up the public franchise antennas. And I will refer to Joe Lang with the City, too, to make sure that I don't have that one in a form that needs a little changing. We did some work on the screening provisions to clarify that screening is required in two situations in both the City and the County. Screening is required if you have a non-residential use adjacent to a residential use on an interior side or a rear yard. Screening is also required if you have some of these uses—these outdoor work and storage areas from ground level view, trash receptacles, etc. Those types of things. If they are within ground-level view, then they are supposed to be screened from the public street. That is a suggestion. Advance Plans can tell you that I can't seem to get that section right at all. I have a lot of trouble with it because the City and the County do things so differently on landscaping. That is wherein the root of the difference is, to try to make them alike. I already talked to you about Point 11, reorganizing Section B of that screening mechanical outdoor work and storage areas to make it a little clearer, I hope. Late breaking developments. In the last week, we have had an issue come up on day reporting centers and juvenile centers. In fact, there is a meeting this afternoon, I think, on this very issue. I have nothing included in terms of language on either of those items, but it is a possibility that we may need to consider them between now and the 8th. I know we have meetings coming up in the next week or two. You have probably read in the media that there has been some controversy over day reporting centers. They have been making the front pages. I know that Mr. McKay and I talked about the need to allow for that possibility, so we structured the public announcement that went into the newspaper to facilitate that if it does come to pass, that we have some suggested language ready in time for the public hearing. I know I have omitted many, many, many things because there is just a lot in here, but I know that you are sick of hearing from me already because I have almost taken my full hour and I wasn't supposed to. So, I am going to open it up for questions you might have had, or comments you might have had from looking through your draft from the 29th?" MICHAELIS "Okay, are there any questions for Ms. Goltry?" HENTZEN "Donna, I studied this under the draft version that we had, so the page numbers might not fit." GOLTRY "They won't fit. That is part of the nightmare." HENTZEN "Yes. On Page 24 when we talk about an ornamental tower, meaning 'executive, non-structural, non-habitable building feature with a combined height no greater than twice the height of the building as measured from the average finished grade along the perimeter of the building'. What about church towers?" GOLTRY "Church towers are under exceptions. I can't tell you the page in the one you are looking at, but it will be about the last page in Section III under height. 'Exemptions from height standards'. I think it would probably be about on Page 161." HENTZEN "Okay, but all I am asking is, you had provided because most of these towers on these new churches, at least the larger churches are more than this paragraph allows." GOLTRY "Yes, exemptions from the height standards following features are exempt, and it lists chimney smokestacks, etc., and then gets over to belfry spires and church steeples. These are other types of ornamental towers. Probably this will be getting into more of the issue related to the one—we had a proposal from the Warren Theatre folks—they were wanting a tower out on the Gateway CUP at 13th Street and K-96 recently, and it was one that didn't fit into the church tower, since it was for adult entertainment." HENTZEN "I have another question. It refers, on my Page 30 and talks about adult bookstores, arcades and different things like that. What about the Hyatt Regency downtown?" GOLTRY "Karen, you are on for this one. An adult motel, are you saying?" HENTZEN "I assume that they have access to these 'X' rated movies there." GOLTRY "But you are asking the question about the part that is within the 'sexually oriented businesses in the County', so that only applies to businesses in the County. It does not apply to businesses within the City—all of these definitions." HENTZEN "Okay." KAREN DURANLEAU, Sedgwick County Counselor's Office. "It would also need to be a motel or hotel that is characterized by the depiction of the specified anatomical areas. So if it is merely a hotel that offers 'X' rated movies, but other than that, they are not directed toward depiction of the specified anatomical areas. Other than that, it would fall within the adult motel or hotel definition." GOLTRY "And that would be for the County and the City situation." JOE ALLEN LANG, City Attorney's Office "Mr. Hentzen, in the City, adult businesses are covered through our Licensing Code, not within the Zoning Code, but there is a definite definition of an adult hotel/motel for the City like for County uses as well. You have to be licensed especially as an adult hotel/motel. Most of the hotel/motels don't need that license." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions? If there are no further questions, we have a comment from Mr. Marnell." MARNELL "I would just like to suggest for those who aren't on the Advance Plans Committee, that there are a lot of changes in there that are just minor language changes and it will drive you nuts if you try to go through and read that and figure out what all of those are. They are back and forth between definitions, but the summary that Donna put together, if everybody goes through and looks at those pages, it will really facilitate our discussion in a couple of weeks." MICHAELIS "Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Goltry." -------------------------------------------------------- 2. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations MICHAELIS "Are there any items that need to be pulled by any Commissioners or by staff and treated individually?" DALE MILLER, Planning staff "Item 2/1, SUB2000-107 Final Plat of Barefoot Bay Estates Addition is being deferred. Apparently there is a lawsuit pending on this. The applicant is here and can verify that they are asking for a deferral. And on the zone change that is coming up later on, they are asking for a deferral on it as well." MOTION: That Item 2/1 be deferred. MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). Subdivision Committee items 2/2,2/3, 2/4, 2/5, 2/6, 2/7 and 2/8 were approved, subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MARNELL moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). 2/2. SUB2000-122 – One-Step Final Plat of REPLAT OF PART OF SPENCER GARDENS ADDITION, generally located south of Pawnee, west of Webb Road. A. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. A petition for the extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water services is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required. A minimum pad needs to be denoted for Lot 8. D. City Engineering requires a temporary easement to cover the stormwater sewer line located on Lot 1 in addition to a guarantee for relocation. E. The plat conforms with the CUP approval which permitted five access openings on Pawnee. Along George Washington Boulevard, the plat indicates two openings in accordance with the CUP; however the plat shall denote that the northern opening is limited to right-turns only. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. F. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. G. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the 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. H. 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. I. A cross-lot circulation agreement should be provided to assure access between the lots. J. The access easements between Lots 1 and 2 and between Lots 3 and 4 shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. K. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. L. In accordance with the CUP, the following street improvements are required: a) The Applicant shall guarantee one-half the cost of adding a continuous center left-turn lane on Pawnee from George Washington Boulevard to the existing five-lane section west of Oliver, b) The Applicant shall provide a continuous accel/decel lane along the south side of Pawnee. M. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-93, Amendment #1) and its special conditions for development on this property. N. The following lot dimensions are needed: a) west line of Lot 8, b) southwest corner of Lot 8, c) east and south lines of Lot 7, and d) east line of Lot 5. O. Lot 8 exceeds the maximum lot width to lot depth ratio of 3 to 1. A modification will need to be approved. P. County Surveying advises that the basis of bearings needs to be shown. Q. 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. R. 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.) S. 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. T. 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. U. 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. V. 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. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional utility easements. Z. 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 -------------------------------------------------- 2/3. SUB2000-124 – Final Plat of BEST SUPPLY ADDITION, generally located east of Broadway, on the north side of 21st Street North. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved subject to the applicant submitting a petition for future extension of stormwater sewer. D. Traffic Engineering has approved access control except for one opening. E. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. F. The contingent street dedication shall be referenced in the plattor's text. G. 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. H. 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.) I. 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. J. 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. K. 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. L. 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. M. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. N. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. O. 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. P. 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. ---------------------------------------------- 2/4. SUB2000-86 – Final Plat of MEADOW LAND ADDITION, located on the north side of Kellogg from 127th Street East to 143rd Street East. A. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. A petition shall be provided for the extension of City water and sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved subject to the Applicant submitting revisions. A drainage guarantee is required. A drainage easement is also needed. A letter shall be provided from ther Kansas Turnpike Commission indiciating their willingness to accept the drainage directed toward the Turnpike. D. In conformance with the CUP, the plat proposes one opening along Greenwich and two openings along Kellogg Drive. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. E. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. F. A cross-lot circulation agreement is required to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. G. The wall easements need to be referenced in the plattor's text. H. City Fire Department needs to comment on the need for turnarounds within Reserve A and Reserve B. Turnarounds will not be required as the Applicant shall submit a site circulation plan indicating an internal loop system. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the 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. K. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-196 Amendment #1) and its special conditions for development on this property. L. Traffic improvements along Greenwich Road and Kellogg Drive are needed as required in the associated CUP. M. 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. N. 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. O. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) P. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. Q. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. R. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. S. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. V. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. A temporary easement will need to be established by separate instrument for any facilities in need of relocation, along with the dedication of a permanent easement. W. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------- ---------------------------------------- 2/5. SUB2001-10 – One-step Final Plat of ONE KELLOGG PLACE SECOND ADDITION, located on the southeast corner of Greenwich Road and Kellogg. A. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. A petition shall be provided for the extension of City water and sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved subject to the Applicant submitting revisions. A drainage guarantee is required. A drainage easement is also needed. A letter shall be provided from ther Kansas Turnpike Commission indiciating their willingness to accept the drainage directed toward the Turnpike. D. In conformance with the CUP, the plat proposes one opening along Greenwich and two openings along Kellogg Drive. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. E. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. F. A cross-lot circulation agreement is required to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. G. The wall easements need to be referenced in the plattor's text. H. City Fire Department needs to comment on the need for turnarounds within Reserve A and Reserve B. Turnarounds will not be required as the Applicant shall submit a site circulation plan indicating an internal loop system. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the 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. K. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-196 Amendment #1) and its special conditions for development on this property. L. Traffic improvements along Greenwich Road and Kellogg Drive are needed as required in the associated CUP. M. 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. N. 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. O. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) P. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. Q. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. R. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. S. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. V. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. A temporary easement will need to be established by separate instrument for any facilities in need of relocation, along with the dedication of a permanent easement. W. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------- -------------------------------------------------- 2/6. DED2001-02 – Dedication of street right-of-way from Gilbert L. and Joanna I. Adams, for property located north of 53rd Street North, west of Seneca. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 15 feet and the west 30 feet of the south 103 feet of the north 206 feet of Lot 131, Vanview Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-114, and being dedicated for street right-of-way along Delaware and Legion. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------- 2/7. DED2001-03 – Dedication of a utility easement from Gilbert L. and Joanna I. Adams, for property located north of 53rd Street North, west of Seneca. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west 10 feet of the east 25 feet of the south 103 feet of the north 206 feet of Lot 131; AND, the east 10 feet of the west 40 feet of the south 103 feet of the north 206 feet of Lot 131, Vanview Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-114, and being dedicated for the construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ----------------------------------------------------- 2/8. DED2001-04 – Dedication of access control from Huong and Trang Le, for property located on the east side of Hillside, north of 31st Street South. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west line of Lot 1, Block C, except the south 150 feet thereof, Plainview Subdivision No. 2, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: Access control, except for one opening, along Hillside Avenue. This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-116, and being dedicated for access control along Hillside Avenue. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY MICHAELIS, Vice-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 and vacation 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAELIS "Before we begin, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on Items 3/1 through 3/4?" KROUT "These are not zoning hearings, these are requests to vacate utility easements and access control. Is there any information you need to provide, Bill, to the Planning Commission other than what they already have?" BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff "There have been no changes since the Subdivision Committee met and made recommendation with the conditions that are presented on your case sheets." MICHAELIS "All right. Once again, is there anyone here that wishes to speak, either in favor or in opposition to Items 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 or 3/4? Okay, seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve." MOTION: That the vacation items be approved. MARNELL moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). ---------------------------------------------------------- 3/1. VAC2001-00002 - Wilson Residential Co., LLC and Kris & Diane Lewonowski request to vacate utility easement. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of the 10.00 foot Utility Easement, between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, WILSON FARMS ADDITION, an addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; EXCEPT the West 20.00 feet of said 10.00 foot Utility Easement LOCATION: South of 21st Street between Rock Road and Webb Road REASON FOR REQUEST: To build a residence CURRENT ZONING: Easement surrounded (Lots 3 & 4) by "SF-6" Single-Family Residential. Properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned SF-6 Single-Family Residential. The applicants are requesting to vacate a utility easement that is interior to property owned by the applicants. The applicants wish to construct a residence that will straddle Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, Wilson Farms Addition. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time February 2, 2001, 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 the utility easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. Any lot created by a lot split must abide by all set backs & easements, must have a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft., and have access to utilities. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Any lot created by a lot split must abide by all set backs & easements, must have a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft., and have access to utilities. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. ------------------------------------- 3/2. VAC2001-00003 - World Impact, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South 1.00 foot of the West 5.00 of the platted 10.00 foot Utility Easement, located in the North 76.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, WORLD IMPACT ADDITION, an addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas LOCATION: South side of 13th Street and east of Hillside REASON FOR REQUEST: To allow encroachment over the utility easement by an (just built) existing building CURRENT ZONING: "B" Multi-Family The applicant has built a building that encroaches on an existing 10-ft. utility easement. The encroachment is on the south 1-ft. and west 5-ft of the platted 10-ft. utility easement. 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 Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time February 2, 2001, 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 utility easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. Possible power pole attachments, noted on the SW Bell records must be verified by applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. Possible power pole attachments, noted on the SW Bell records must be verified by applicant. -------------- --------------------------------------- 3/3. VAC2001-00005 - Request to vacate access control. OWNER/APPLICANT: Solomon Investments LLC AGENT: Kim Edgington/Austin Miller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, Hoskinson 2nd Add LOCATION: S 358.62-ft., Lot 1, Block 1, Hoskinson 2nd Add., generally located on the west side of Ridge Road and south of N 37th Street. REASON FOR REQUEST: Request to vacate access control along the west-side of Ridge Road. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property is zoned NR Neighborhood Retail restricted to GO General Office use (with conditions), the property is vacant. Property to the north, Lot 2, is zoned LC Limited Commercial subject to conditions. Properties to the south and west are zoned B Multi-family (Catamaran Cove). Property to the east (across Ridge Road) GO General Office (Medical Office). Applicant proposes to do a Lot Split, contingent upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval by City Council of the proposed vacation of access control, of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoskinson Add. The Lot Split would create one new Lot for this Addition; Lot 10. There are currently 9 lots in this addition. The applicant proposes to revise access control on the southern 30-ft of the Lot 10, as shown on the exhibit. The applicant must develop Lot 10 per standards as stated in Ridge Center Community Unit Plan (DP 242). 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 February 2, 2001, 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 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 the access control should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall move the proposed access control 250-ft north of the southern end of Lot 10 (the Lot to be created by Lot Split of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoskinson 2nd Addition, contingent upon recommendation by the MAPC and approval by the City Council). 3. The applicant shall get cross lot access agreement with adjacent lots. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall move the proposed access control 250-ft north of the southern end of Lot 10 (the Lot to be created by Lot Split of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoskinson 2nd Addition, contingent upon recommendation by the MAPC and approval by the City Council). -------------------------------------------------- 3/4. VAC2001-00006 - Request to vacate a sewer easement and a portion of complete access control. OWNER/APPLICANT: Kelly & Coleman, Inc., c/o Stephen R. Kelley AGENT: Baughman Company, P.A. c/o Phil Meyer LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Access Control Vacation; Commencing at the SE corner of Lot 1, Block A, DePaul Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence N00 degrees 00'00" E along the east line of said Lot 1, 250.00 feet to a deflection corner in said east line; thence N89 degrees 36'30" E along the east line of said Lot 1, 70.00 feet to a deflection corner in said east line and for a point of beginning; thence N00 degrees 00'00" E along the east line of said Lot 1, 72.40 feet to a deflection corner in said east line, and there ending. Easement Vacation; The 20 foot sewer easement granted to the de Paul Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas that begins along the easterly line of Lot 1, Block A, in said de Paul Addition LOCATION: Generally located on the southwest corner of Kessler and Central REASON FOR REQUEST: For future development of this site. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property is zoned NR Neighborhood Retail. Properties to the north and east are zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential. Property to the south is zoned GO General Office and property to the west is zoned LC Limited Commercial. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 20' Sewer Easement and a portion of Complete Access Control in Lot 1 to adjust driveway access on this site. The applicant proposes Access Control further away from the Central - Kessler Intersection. 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 Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time February 2, 2001, 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 subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall line up the proposed drive, onto Kessler, with the existing drive of the residence (zoned SF-6) across from it to ensure that headlights from the applicant's development not shine into the front window(s) of the residence. 2. The applicant shall submit a guarantee of the abandonment of the sewer line within the 20-foot sewer easement the applicant request vacation. 3. A temporary easement shall be dedicated by separate instrument until relocation of the sanitary sewer line is complete. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall line up the proposed drive, onto Kessler, with the existing drive of the residence (zoned SF-6) across from it to ensure that headlights from the applicant's development not shine into the front window(s) of the residence. 2. The applicant shall submit a guarantee of the abandonment of the sewer line within the 20-foot sewer easement the applicant request vacation. 3. A temporary easement shall be dedicated by separate instrument until relocation of the sanitary sewer line is complete. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. --------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 4a. CON2001-00008 - James and Sharon Hagan (Owner/Co-Applicant) Guthrie Wilkens Trailer Company, Kent or Nancy L. Wilkens (Contract Purchaser/Co-Applicant) request Conditional Use to permit a solid waste Transfer station; and 4b. ZON2001-00010 – James and Sharon Hagan (Owner/Co-Applicant) Gutherie Wilkens Trailer Company, Kent or Nancy L. Wilkens (Contract Purchaser/Co-Applicant) request zone change from "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-family residential to "LI" Limited Industrial on property described as: The South Half of the Southwest Quarter, except the East 1,054 feet, Section 23, Township 28 South, Range 1 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the northeast corner of 55th Street South and Hoover. DALE MILLER, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant has an "option to purchase" agreement for 48 acres located at the northeast corner of 55th Street South and Hoover Road. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use and "LI" Limited Industrial zoning with the intention of developing a municipal solid waste transfer station at this location. The application area is currently zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-family Residential and is used for crop production. The site has a mature hedgerow on all sides except for the west property line. Railroad tracks cross the northwest corner of the property. FEMA maps indicate the application area is not part of a designated floodplain. The application area is located 3.5 miles south of K-42 and 1.5 miles west of the 55th Street South bridge crossing of the Wichita-Valley Center Floodway. The 55th Street crossing is one of two east-west " section line road "Big Ditch" crossings in southwest Sedgwick County. As depicted on the applicant's site plan, all buildings and transfer activities are to be located in the center of the 48-acre application area. A four-bay 80-foot by 100-foot transfer station would be located 554 feet south of the north property line and 907 feet west of east property line. Other activities noted on the site plan include: trailer storage, roll-off box storage, cardboard bailing, re-syllable material drop off, office, scales, scale house and drive ways. This transfer station and associated facilities would be fenced at the property line and have gated access from 55th Street South. An 8-foot high landscaped berm is proposed to be located along the west property line, south of the railroad tracks. The site plan indicates approximately 100 trees would be planted along the berm. The applicant has stated that he intends to develop a facility that could process 500 to 600 tons of waste per day. Initial regular hours of operations would be 6 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. but they are seeking permission to operate 24 hours per day six days a week (Monday-Saturday). The applicant has a commitment to accept 330-400 tons per day from a local waste collection firm. (The Waste Connection transfer station is a 1500 tons per day facility.) No medical or hazardous waste will be accepted at this site. Waste delivered to the facility would be hauled to Topeka for final disposal. The scale house would be built large enough to provide meeting space for 40 people. Leachate collected from the tipping floor would be collected in a tank and removed in an appropriate manner. Water is to be trucked in and placed in storage tanks for domestic and wash down use. At this point in time, they do not intend to drill a well on-site. The applicant's also proposes a lagoon to handle on-site waste treatment. Traffic generation rates for the facility are estimated to be 50 residential and commercial truck trips hauling waste into the facility, and approximately 15 semi-trailer loads hauling waste out of the facility on a daily basis. Thus minimum projected additional average daily trips generated by this use are estimated to be 130. Land uses and zoning for the property surrounding the application area is mixed. To the west, land is zoned "LI" Limited Industrial and developed with a Township maintenance building and a power generation plant pond. Further west is a power generation plant. To the southwest the property is zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and is undeveloped. Further southwest is an industrial park zoned "LI" Limited Industrial and a grain elevator zoned "GI" General Industrial. To the south is farm ground zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-family Residential. There is a single-family home located approximately a ¼ mile to the south, along Hoover. Land to the east is zoned "SF-20" Single-family Residential and is pastureland. There are several single-family residences located further east, approximately 660 feet, along 55th Street. Property to the north is zoned "SF-20" Single-family Residential. This property is developed with a residence and a kennel. Because of the industrial uses already existing west of Hoover, Hoover carries a significant volume of truck traffic, especially during harvest time. An elementary school is located 1.5 miles north of the application on Hoover. Campus High is located 1.75 miles east of the application area. The County's Solid Waste Management Committee has reviewed this request and has recommended approval. There were approximately 30 to 40 citizens at the meeting asking questions regarding: hours of operation, impact on drainage, impact on property values, concerns over traffic, what other sites had been considered, will roadside dumping increase, a requirement to pick up fugitive debris, hours of operation, noise and odor, etc. According to state regulations, no trash is allowed to remain at the transfer station in excess of 48 hours. Material put in the roll off boxes – material that is inappropriate to go through the transfer station such as tires, yard waste, white goods – is permitted to be on-site a maximum of seven days. The Conditional Use application has been evaluated against the applicable regulations contained in the County's resolution regarding Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Those regulations address: minimum site acreage; distance to roads, property lines, and buildings on other property; landscaping; activities conducted in an enclosed building; one common entrance; room for educational activities; temporary storage for banned wastes; and adequate parking. The County's regulations, along with other applicable local and state requirements, address the complete range of operational issues for transfer stations. CASE HISTORY: None ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "SF-20" Single-family Residential; large-lot residence, kennel, agriculture SOUTH: "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-family Residential; agriculture EAST: "SF-20" Single-family Residential; agriculture WEST: "LI" Limited Industrial; Waco Township building; power generation station pond PUBLIC SERVICES: Both 55th Street and Hoover Road are paved two-lane county highways. Current traffic volumes on these roads are 3200 average daily traffic (ADT) on Hoover and 2400 ADT on 55th Street. Hoover Road provides a primary connection to K-42 to the north while 55th Street provides a key southern crossing to the "Big Ditch." No municipal sewer or water services are available. At the time of platting, it is likely that the following improvements will need to be guaranteed: southbound left turn on Hoover at the intersection of 55th Street; improved corner radii at the 55th Street and Hoover intersection; an east bound left-turn lane on 55th Street at the entrance and a right-turn decel lane at the entrance on 55th Street. Currently, these two county highways are built to county highway standards. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita/Sedgwick County Development Guide identifies this area as appropriate for "rural" uses. The rural designation includes land outside the 30 year Wichita urban service boundary and the small city growth areas. This category is intended to accommodate normal agricultural uses, and large lot residential subdivisions with provisions for future water and sewer services. The Unified Zoning Code in 1996 established solid waste transfer stations as uses conditionally permitted in both the Rural Residential and the two industrial zoning districts. The implication is that at least some locations that have a rural as well as industrial character should be suitable for these operations. Sedgwick County's official Solid Waste Plan identifies transfer stations as the appropriate method or waste disposal, and includes a section on "site selection." The plan recommends that transfer stations be approximately 15 acres in size; appropriately zoned; adjacent to a major highway to minimize the impact of truck traffic on neighborhood roadways; away from or shielded from residential areas; and centrally located to increase efficiency for haulers. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that industrial development may be appropriate in rural areas if an expansion of an existing industrial area, and should be located where there is good access and away from existing or planned residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that "LI" Limited Industrial zoning be APPROVED for only the area enclosed by the fence and driveway (as indicated on the site plan), subject to platting within 1 year and the following conditions. A. Prior to the beginning of operation of a solid waste transfer station, all applicable local, state and federal permits shall be acquired. B. This Conditional Use for the establishment of a solid waste transfer station shall be subject to all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and laws. C. The use of the site as a solid waste transfer station shall proceed and be maintained in general conformance with the approved site plan and made a part of this permit. The tipping floor area shall be completely enclosed except for openings with operable doors. D. At the time of platting, the applicant shall guarantee the following improvements: E. At the time of platting, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan for approval by Sedgwick County Department of Public Works, Department of Environmental Resources and the Health Department. All runoff within the tipping facility shall drain to a holding facility and not to the storm water system. All outside runoff shall be properly confined, filtered and or treated to prevent contamination, as deemed appropriate by the appropriate County departments. F. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the number, location, size and type of plants and method of watering. Landscaping shall be installed in conformance with this plan prior to operation of the facility and maintained in conformance with the plan. G. Temporary outside waste storage, not otherwise enclosed in a transfer trailer shall be confined to the "roll-off box" area depicted on the site plan, and paper and plastic goods shall be stored in receptacles that have lids which can be closed to prevent waste from being blown beyond the site. H. Outside building walls and roof surfaces shall be predominantly muted in color intensity, with bright white or colors limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the total surface area. I. No off-site signs are permitted on the property. Building signs are limited to a maximum of 10 percent of any wall surface. J. If a well is drilled on this site, the applicant shall submit water samples for water quality analysis by the City-County Health Department, and the applicant shall underwrite the cost of said analysis. K. Violation of any of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. The area is a mix of "LI" Limited Industrial, "GI" General Industrial, "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-family Residential. Uses range from agricultural, single- family residences, maintenance buildings, industrial park and power generation pond. The area to the west is primarily industrial with residential uses located to the east of Hoover. Heavy truck traffic exists today in the area due to existing industrial development. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The site is zoned "SF-20" and could be developed for permitted uses. However, proximity of this site to industrial zoning and existing industrial uses makes it less desirable for residential development. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Anticipated detrimental impacts will be mitigated by the setbacks, landscape buffers, minimum lot size requirements and other development and operational requirements. Projected traffic volume will increase, but projected increases can be addressed by required improvements. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized plans and policies: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for rural uses. The treatment of this use in the Zoning Code suggests it would be appropriate in some rural as well as well as industrial settings. The County's Solid Waste Management Plan relies upon the use of transfer stations to facilitate the removal of municipal solid waste. The County's Solid Waste Committee reviewed this application and found it to be consistent with the County's regulations for transfer stations. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will generate additional traffic, but the applicant will be required to fund road improvements which should address potential traffic impacts. No municipal water or sewer services are available, and these services should not be impacted by this development. 6. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare: With the imminent closing of Brooks Landfill, it makes the establishment of a new means of waste disposal imperative; Sedgwick County's plan for solid waste management mandates the utilization of transfer stations; there is only one other transfer station currently under construction with one other location approved for a transfer station. It is important for the community to have a choice of facilities in order to maintain a competitive balance between service providers. Since it also appears that the ultimate disposal locations are different for the two previously approved stations and this proposed station, approval of this request would provide additional security that there would likely always be a landfill to which the community's trash could be hauled. Finally, with a transfer station under construction in the north part of the county, a site in the southwest part of the county will provide increased convenience and reduce total vehicle miles traveled. MILLER "This is a request for 'LI' Limited Industrial zoning as well as a request for a Conditional Use to permit a municipal solid waste transfer station. The application area is located on the northeast corner of Hoover and 55th Street South. The applicants have an 'option to purchase' agreement for 48 acres at this location. As you can see on the zoning map, it is zoned 'SF-20' and 'LC'. With their intention of developing the municipal solid waste transfer station, they need a Conditional Use for the transfer station, and 'LI' Limited Industrial zoning as the base zoning on which to locate the transfer station. Three sides of the application area are covered by fairly mature hedgerows. The west side is not at this particular point in time. As indicated in the staff report, the applicants intend to build a berm along this side and they are going to plant approximately 100 trees along that west property line as well to complete the berming. You can see that the railroad track runs across that northwest corner of the application area. There is a KG&E electrical generating plant in the area; there is a Waco Township maintenance meeting and office space there. The generating plant has a pond that is located somewhere in the area—it looks like it is part of their cooling operations that they have set up for a wildlife habitat. There is a single property owner to the north, as far as I can tell off of the ownership list with structures and possibly a residence in approximately this location. There is another tract of land that is owned by Vulcan Chemicals, and then there are homes scattered to the east on larger lots. There is an agricultural tract to the south, a vacant piece of property that is currently farmed, as best as I can tell, off of that southwest corner; the DeBruce grain elevator and the Garvey Industrial park further to the southwest; and Vulcan Chemicals is located further southwest as well. If you go up this road a ways, there is the Oakville School and it connects up to K-42. If you go east, there is a bridge that crosses the Big Ditch and takes you on over about a mile and ¾ to Campus High School. The applicants have submitted a site plan with the Conditional Use request and it is attached to your staff report. As you can see on that site plan, they propose access off of 55th Street. The compound, if you will, would be fenced in by a chain-link fence and all of the activities would occur in here. The scales, the scale house, the actual transfer facility, which, according to the plan is a four-bay facility. There would also be parking spaces for trailers and other trucks utilizing the facility. They would also have a parking area for the meeting room that they are required to have as an educational center. They are proposing, at this point, to be able to handle up to 600 tons per day. We are advised that they currently have a potential contract to accept between 300 and 400 tons from a local hauler that would begin hauling to this location, if it is approved, as soon as it is under operation. They are asking for permission to go on up to 600 tons per day. They indicate that their hours of operation, to begin with, would be in the 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. range, although they are asking for 24-hour operation approval. They will not accept any medical waste or any hazardous waste at this location. Whatever the waste that is accepted here would then be hauled to Topeka for final disposal is what we are being told at this point. Leachate would be collected from the tipping floor and collected in a tank and then disposed of in an appropriate manner. They do not, at this point in time, plan on drilling a well on-site. They indicate that they will truck all of the water they need for domestic and wash-down purposes in and not drill a well. They will apply for a lagoon to handle their on-site solid waste requirements. Based on the information that we have at this point in time, we are estimating that the minimum projected additional average daily traffic generated by trucks would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 130. Approximately 6 in and 6 out, based on the firm they have the contract with has 32 routes and some of those trucks make only 1 trip a day; some make 2. That would be the minimum number. Since we don't have an active transfer station in the county to have any real world experience in terms of the way things work here in Sedgwick County, we can't give you an upper range because in the traffic manuals, that listing is not in there in terms of traffic generation like you are used to getting. We generally tell you that their particular use has a projected national traffic average and this use just isn't in the manual. Land use and zoning surrounding the property is somewhat mixed. There are residential uses to the east, there is vacant agricultural ground to the south and there is a house located approximately a quarter of a mile south of the agricultural area, and then to the southwest is the agricultural and industrial complex and then to the west is the KG&E generating plant. Then immediately north is the approximately 40 acres or so that has a residence on it and is probably the closest house to the transfer station. Based on the aerial, it looks like the homes to the east are approximately 660 feet to the east of this application area; a quarter mile to the south, as I indicated earlier and then this one that is right on the property line to the north. Campus High, as I indicated is about a mile and ¾ to the east and the elementary school is about a mile and a half north. The County Solid Waste Management Committee has reviewed this request and recommended approval. There were approximately 30 to 40 citizens at that meeting and they had questions concerning hours of operation; impact on drainage; impact on property values of adjoining property owners; concerns over traffic; what other sites had the applicant considered and why did they chose this one; concerns about roadside dumping increasing if this is approved, as people would be hauling to this location and then decide to just jettison their load as opposed to paying for it to be disposed of at this location; and who would pick up any fugitive debris; hours of operation; noise. Those kinds of things were the general questions that came up. The County has a resolution regarding municipal solid waste transfer stations and those regulations address minimum site size; distance to roads; distance from property lines; other buildings; landscaping requirements. Those sorts of things. Based on the committee's review of this, they are of the opinion that this application complies with all of those requirements. Susan Erlenwein is here from Sedgwick County if you have any particular questions about the committee meeting or those regulations. Currently 55th Street South and Hoover are designated on the County's maps as two lane county highways. The current traffic volume on these roads, based on the latest data that we had available to us is 3200 average daily trips on Hoover and 2400 on 55th Street. There is not any municipal sewer or water service available to this site. As I indicated before, they would be asking for a lagoon. We do understand that approximately ¼ of a mile south, along Hoover that the City of Clearwater has an 8 inch water line that terminates in that approximate area. It is not clear at this point whether that service could be extended to this location and probably it is something that would be more appropriately discussed at the platting stage. We have discovered that at least there is public water in the general area. We would anticipate that at the time of platting, we would ask for a southbound, left-turn lane on Hoover at the intersection of 55th. That they would also be looking for improved turn radii at that intersection. That an eastbound left-turn lane on 55th Street and a right turn decel lane on 55th Street be installed as a platting requirement. With respect to conformance to plans and policies, the plan recommends this area as a rural area and as such rural areas are intended to accommodate normal agricultural uses, large lot residential subdivisions and similar type uses. The Unified Zoning Code in 1996 established solid waste transfer stations as Conditional Uses permitted in both the rural residential and the two heavier industrial districts. The implication of that is that at least some locations that are located in rural areas may be appropriate for these types of uses. The Sedgwick County official Solid Waste Plan identifies transfer stations as the appropriate method of waste disposal, and includes a section on site selection requirements, as I have roughly gone over before. And finally, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that industrial development may be appropriate in rural areas if an extension of an existing industrial area, and if they are located with good access to highways and away from existing or planned residential development. Lopez arrived at the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Based on the information that we have at this point in time, we are recommending approval for both the Conditional Use and the 'LI' Limited Industrial zoning, subject to the conditions that are found on Page 5 of the staff report. The rationale for that finding begins on Page 6. I would also draw your attention to a number of pages that have been placed at your location that have been provided by interested citizens indicating the research they have done and whether they are in support or opposition of this particular request." MCKAY "Before we get into discussion, I would just like to ask the staff from the County if they have anything to add to what Dale has said before we get into questions." PLATT "Maybe we should comment. I receive this packet (indicating) at home last night." MICHAELIS "I was just going to ask that question. Have there been any ex parte contacts? Basically, everybody received that packet. Was there any other information other than the packet received? Any phone calls or discussions? Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Miller?" PLATT "Just one question to clarify. The recommendation is that the 'LI' zoning be limited to the area enclosed by the fence. Are you also recommending that the Conditional Use be limited to that, too?" MILLER "Yes, just this area (indicating) plus the access road, so that the remaining area would be left zoned as 'SF-20'." WARREN "Approximately how many acres would be fenced as part of this?" MILLER "I am not sure I can answer that. The applicant may know how much acreage is contained within the fenced area. I am being told that approximately 4 acres are inside the fenced area." GAROFALO "I would like to hear a little bit more about this lagoon and what its use would be and if it would be involved with any of the watering down of the concrete floor, and whatever disposal of that water." SUSAN ERLENWEIN "I am with Sedgwick County Environmental Resources. Any water used in the facility that comes into contact with trash will be collected from the concrete floor into a special tank and then that tank will be taken offsite to a sewage treatment plant for disposal. If there is a lagoon on site, that would be for bathroom uses, but not for the waste-water content." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of Ms. Erlenwein? Okay. Do you have any further comments you would like to add while you are there?" ERLENWEIN "I think I have made presentations in the past to this committee about the transfer stations and the County regulations. We do have landscaping regulations and we will be inspecting transfer stations on a weekly basis at random. We will show up and make sure they are complying with the regulations that are on the books. KDHE also has regulations that require transfer stations to be cleaned on a daily basis; how long the trash can be there. Our regulations are stricter than the state in many respects that it has to be an enclosed building, that we will be inspecting it more frequently than the state will be. We will keep on top of this and other transfer stations. There is a transfer station under construction right now in the north part of the County. It will be about 3 times the size of this location. I will be happy to answer any questions also after citizen comments to help address any of their concerns." GAROFALO "Has the County Commission decided on the number of transfer stations? Is there going to be a limit of 2,3,4 or 5?" ERLENWEIN "No, what the County Commissioners decided was for private ownership of transfer stations, and what the market could bear. So I imagine that our market size, at the most, you will be seeing 3 transfer stations." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions?" OSBORNE-HOWES "There are 2 approved now?" ERLENWEIN "The County Commission has approved one at 37th Street North and West Street and one along K-15, south of Derby. The one up north has gone through the state permitting process. The one south has not gone through the state permitting process yet. So there are 2 already approved by the BOCC." OSBORNE-HOWES "If we are talking about 3 and 2 are in the process, then this would be expected to be the last one. Did they talk about where the proper placement in this county should be for these transfer station based on need, direction of the trucks, etc.?" ERLENWEIN "The County Commissioners initially in addendum to the Solid Waste Plan, which was published in October of 1997 had looked at site selection on a basis of if the county were to build a facility. They were looking at centrally located, near major highways and other criteria. They also had a section in that plan about RFP going out for proposals for companies to provide the service. In the annual update to that plan, the Commissioners had decided instead of them building a facility to have it for the private sector to build a transfer station, so the criteria changed and they developed the resolution, which simply stated that access roads must be paved. One of the criteria also behind doing it that way is that that left it open for the private companies to build where they could find land and have a good location. Other cities have also developed their own transfer station regulations. Park City has; Wichita has, and some businesses will locate their facilities based on county regulations and those city regulations and what suits their needs the best." HENTZEN "How many tons of trash are dumped, say a day, on the average?" ERLENWEIN "At Brooks Landfill, the average is just over 1400 tons per day.' HENTZEN "Yeah. And what is the capacity of the two places that have been approved?" ERLENWEIN "The facility up north at 37th Street North and West Street is being built for 2,000 tons per day, and the one down in Derby was built for 500 tons per day. Of course, any facility being built, they want to build for expansion. They know that they will have less than that, but as the community grows, they want to make sure they have built for maximum capacity in the future." HENTZEN "When do you think you will reach the busting time or the limit if those were the only two places available?" ERLENWEIN "The County is looking at waste minimization, such as recycling and pay-as-you-throw measures to actually decrease the amount of trash going into these facilities. So I think we are talking very long term, 30 to 40 year capacity." HENTZEN "On just the two that are already approved?" ERLENWEIN "If they were to have that amount go to those facilities, yes." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of Ms. Erlenwein? Thank you, Ma'am." GAROFALO "I have a question of the County Engineer if he is here." JIM WEBER "I am the Deputy Director of Public Works for the County. We also have Mark Borst, who is our Traffic Engineer with us today, depending on which way your questions are going." GAROFALO "My question is, does the County have any plans for improvements of 55th and Hoover? Any kind of improvements?" WEBER "We are not showing any projects for 55th or Hoover in our 5-year C.I.P." GAROFALO "Okay. That answers my question." WARNER "Are these two roads constructed substantially to carry the increased traffic over a long period of time, or is this going to require a whole lot more maintenance or whatever on these two paved roads?" WEBER "All of our roads are built to standard to withstand truck traffic. We are aware of other truck traffic in this neighborhood, and we don't see that there is going to be any problem from the additional trucks down here." OSBORNE-HOWES "I don't know if this is the right time for this, but I would like to learn a little bit more about the routes these trucks would take to and from the facility." MICHAELIS "Maybe the applicant could address that a little better." OSBORNE-HOWES "I don't know if it should be the applicant. It should maybe be Traffic or someone like that should probably address it." WEBER "I am not certain that I can address where the trucks are going to go. They are legal to go on all County roads." OSBORNE-HOWES "Oh, I know, but initially, we were looking at them coming off of highways and such and placing these adjacent to highways so that they would not travel too far off of the main highways." WEBER "I am not sure how to address your question. This is adjacent to two County standard arterial roads, in an area where we already have truck traffic." MICHAELIS "Are there any additional questions for Mr. Weber?" GAROFALO "I just have a comment, or a question of staff, I guess. If this were to be approved, could a condition be a requirement that the big trucks that are hauling this stuff off to wherever they are taking it, could we require them to take certain routes?" MILLER "Well, I suppose that one could. I know that we have regulations about truck routes through the City, but I don't know if the County has had any experience with doing that in the County where they would limit where truck traffic could go. What was indicated at the solid waste committee meeting was that if the anticipation is that most of this traffic is going to be coming from the City of Wichita, then one would assume that they would use Hoover and that they would use 55th Street. They also indicated that West Street could also be an access road leading into this site." MICHAELIS "I would suggest that that would be a legal question that we may want to ask to see if we could even do that. I think that is something that the applicant could probably help us lead in that direction, too. Mark Borst says that he can maybe add some more to that." MARK BORST "I am with the Sedgwick County Public Works. For us to start restricting traffic, I don't think we could reasonably restrict an individual generator. We would have to look at DeBruce because they have large grain trucks. We would have to look at Vulcan, they have large tankers. We would potentially have to look at any other heavy commercial users of those roads. We would almost have to designate those roads as parkways, which is the fancy term for a non- truck route. That would be extremely difficult if not impossible for us to legitimately claim at this point because of the other industry that is in the area and has been using those roads over the years." MICHAELIS "Thank you, Mr. Borst. All right, are there any other questions for staff or any related County officials." LOPEZ "I have a clarification of Ms. Erlenwein. What is the capacity of the dump up north?" ERLENWEIN "The landfill? Okay. I am just clarifying the term because the term 'dump' is an archaic term. There aren't any dumps any more. The sanitary landfill up on North West Street has reached its capacity that has set by KDHE. It must close the evening of October 9, 2001." LOPEZ "What was the daily capacity, 1400 tons?" ERLENWEIN "That is what is going in there right now, average. Mondays would be a high day of about 2,000 tons per day and weekends are low days." LOPEZ "Okay. And then, if I heard you correctly, the transfer station is being built to accommodate 2,000 tons per day?" ERLENWEIN "Two thousand tons on the north transfer station. The one down at Derby 500 tons. At this one, I believe they want 600." LOPEZ "Okay. I just wondered if we are building for future growth. I guess we are." ERLENWEIN "And remember you have private companies hauling in our community. Waste Connections, formerly BFI will build a transfer station up north. Their trucks will go to their transfer station, which has the majority of the trash in our community. You have Waste Management, which said that they would take it to the proposed transfer station at 55th and Hoover. You have many smaller haulers such as Ballinger or Leis Trash, who would choose which transfer station to take it to. If Waste Connections builds their own transfer station, their own trucks will go to their transfer station. So because of the situation in our community with private collection, you can support multiple transfer stations." LOPEZ "So what we are building right now is for excess capacity." ERLENWEIN "That is true." MICHAELIS "I would like to ask the Commissioners, when you are speaking, to bring their microphones closer to make sure that everyone can hear you. Okay, we will now hear from the applicant. If he would come forward, please. And for those of you that just got here, I will remind you of the procedure. We have heard from staff, we are going to hear from the applicant, you will be given a chance to speak and then the applicant will be given 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal. That is the procedure we will follow. Also, once again, I would like to emphasize that you need to keep control. Don't pre-judge and say we are all against you. If you keep control it will go orderly for everybody." FLOYD COTTER "I am with Burns and McDonnell Engineering. I am a solid waste engineer. The outline that I think we passed around earlier we are going to go through. I think most of the information in there has been covered effectively by the previous speakers, so I won't go back through all of that again in order to keep this as concise as possible. I will try to hit some of the points where we can provide just a little bit more information. The ownership of this transfer station will be a company called Waste Disposal Company, owned by Ken and Nancy Wilkens, who are here with me today. We would like to emphasize that this transfer station does have a viable business plan. It has an arrangement, as mentioned before, with Waste Management to bring in a given quantity of trash into the transfer station, which will make the overall project viable and sustainable and result in a successful disposal option for the County. As mentioned earlier, the trash will go to Rolling Meadows Landfill. That landfill is located north of Topeka. It is a sub-title 'D' site that has been designed to the state-of-the-art and has all of the required liners, caps and groundwater monitoring systems. It is one of the better landfills in the State of Kansas. As you are aware, we are here to ask for a Conditional Use permit and a zoning adjustment. The site access issues, I guess were one of the main questions there. The primary routes into this site for the trash trucks will be West Street down to 55th Street South and across. That is going to be the trash collection trucks and the trucks that are leaving with the waste. There will be some faction of the public that may use the transfer station that may come from some other routes or there may be trash trucks that are out on collection that would be on other streets, but the majority of all traffic will stay on 55th Street South over to West Street and then up to I-235. We are more than willing to set up signs if need be to say 'turn left' onto 55th Street South for truck traffic, or whatever we need to do to help facilitate keeping that traffic route concise. I would add that we do concur with the 130-vehicle trip estimate that Dale had mentioned earlier. I think it is also is noted in your staff report the existing traffic counts on 55th Street. There is something over 3,000 vehicles per day. The counts on Hoover are over 2,000 vehicles per day, so if you look at the total percentage increase that this facility is bringing to the community, it is very small. We will preserve all natural screening and the 8 foot high berm that is proposed along Hoover will be constructed and that will be the only street where you will be able to see the facility. The view, until the 100 trees that we propose become mature, you will see driving down Hoover. (Indicating) This diagram that we have here basically shows what all four sides of the building are going to look like. A vehicle driving down Hoover will basically be able to see up to about elevation 1320. So the only part of this building which will be visible from a public street will be about the top 1/3 of this façade. As you can note, it is going to look like a warehouse. It is going to be very hard to distinguish this from any other type of Light Industrial activity. You have a 4 bay facility where 3 of the bays are going to be used for the commercial trash that is coming in and the 4th bay will be available for the public that wants to come in and drop off waste. It represents a 4-pit transfer station where the transfer trailers will come through on the lower level and the trash will be transported down into a pit-type. Again, I want to say that it is not only designed to comply with all state, federal and local regulations, but in a lot of instances, we are exceeding those requirements. It is in an enclosed building. Three hundred to five hundred tons per day is what we are estimating will be there at the beginning. I want to provide a little bit of clarification on the hours of operation. I think on the staff report it said 6:00 to 5:00 with permission to go for 24 hours per day. I guess our real intent is to go 6:00 to 6:00, but the 24-hour operation option would only be for emergency situations. For some unforeseen reason, if the public would need the facility to stay open for longer hours, we would have that option available to us. One of the components of this design is that there is going to be a 40-person viewing area, and like an educational-type room for civic organizations or classrooms if folks would like to come out and watch the transfer operations. There will be a room that will facilitate that in the scale house. It will be available to the public and they will be welcome to use it. All the site roads are going to be paved and all of the disturbed areas will be vegetated in order to make sure that it is a clean, concise operation with minimal dust and problems. As mentioned earlier, the water will be trucked in to the site. As Susan pointed out, water used in the wash-down of the transfer station will be containerized and transported to a wastewater treatment plant and the water used in the restroom facilities will be disposed of in a lagoon system. There will be fire protection on-site that will be provided by fire extinguishers. There will be a fire extinguisher located on all pieces of equipment as well as located throughout the building at various locations. I want to say that at Burns and McDonald, we have built 23 of these transfer stations in the last 5 years, and the one that we are working on the final design with here, and taking through the process is going to be a top-notch facility. Ken and Nancy are very dedicated to making sure that this transfer station is efficient, sized-right and basically an asset to the community. We have been involved over a period of 2 years now, trying to locate a place for this transfer station. This isn't the only site we have looked at. We have gone through a very extensive process of weighting pros and cons and negative impacts and positive impacts of various sites, and we believe that this is one of the best sites in Sedgwick County to locate this facility on. In closing, we would like to reiterate that point No. 6 on the last page of the staff report basically says it quite well. Some time back when it was evident that Brooks Landfill was going to close, the County planners had to make some decisions about how solid waste was going to be handled in the County. It is obvious that transfer stations are a very necessary part of having a sustainable, disposable scenario for this county. This transfer station is a viable one, it has a solid operation plan, and I think it can be a very successful project. With that, I will entertain any specific questions." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions for Mr. Cotter?" MARNELL "On the site plan, what is the height of the fence that will enclose the area?" COTTER "That will be an 8 foot chain-link fence. That is what we have proposed right now." COULTER "If trucks have to stop and wait to be dumped, what kind of ground preparation is there going to be in those areas where those trucks are going to be stopped?" COTTER "Can we put the site plan back up? (Indicating) This is going to be paved in this area, so basically the trucks can come in here, cross the scales and into this area, back into the transfer station to dump their loads; come back out and around, across the scales to exit. All roads, with the exception of the trailer-parking area will be paved." WARREN "The bay that you have available for just consumer use, will they be able to pull in, turn around and track up when they back into that bay?" COTTER "The design is still being finalized to some degree, but the scenario that we believe works best in other transfer stations is to do your turning outside the building, back straight into the building dock and drive out. The door arrangement there on the front of the building may change slightly so that we move one of the doors closer to the other two so that we provide a little more room for the public users so they can have more space to come in and unload." GAROFALO "Will you clarify for me, the semis that would be leaving with the trash, you are saying that you are going to try to confine them to using 55th to West Street?" COTTER "Yes, there will be a very specific route that those trucks will use. They will come out the driveway, hit 55th Street, take a left, go to West Street and take West Street out to I-235." GAROFALO "You are talking about the hours of operation from 6:00 to 6:00?" COTTER "Yes, sir." GAROFALO "How many days?" COTTER "It would be 5 days a week, Monday through Friday and there would be the possibility of being open on Saturday morning if it looked like the public would use that option." GAROFALO "Okay. You mentioned something about 24 hours in some sort of an emergency. What would you consider an emergency, or what are you talking about?" COTTER "In the event of a tornado or a severe ice storm or something like that. Some sort of a natural disaster. Normally, yard waste or C&D waste wouldn't be handled through this transfer station, but if there would ever be a need for that, it could be switched over for that type of operation." GAROFALO "Otherwise you are saying it would be limited to 6:00 to 6:00 five days a week?" COTTER "That is the business plan right now, to operate for those hours." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of Mr. Cotter?" LOPEZ "Is Waste Disposal, LLC a current hauler or contractor in Sedgwick County?" COTTER "No, sir." LOPEZ "They are just a company that is wanting to open a transfer station?" COTTER "It is a company that has an agreement with Waste Management and Gutherie Wilkins Trailer Company has been in the trailer sales and servicing business for years. That company has established an excellent reput