METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 21, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, September 21, 2000 at 1:00 in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Chris Carraher, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez (late arrival); Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne- Howes (late arrival); George Platt; Harold Warner; and Ray Warren. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, Barry Carroll, Associate Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Approval of minutes for July 27, 2000 and August 17, 2000. CARRAHER “The first item of business will be the approval of the MAPC minutes for July 27, 2000 and the August 17, 2000 meetings. We will take them one at a time. Are there any corrections to the minutes?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of July 27, 2000 as submitted. MCKAY moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of August 17, 2000 as submitted. MCKAY moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CARRAHER “Right now, we need to deviate from our agenda. In your packets, fellow Commissioners, there should be a proposed By-Law change. Because of some conflict or because we are not sure how it happened, it didn't get listed on the agenda. I would like to put it on the floor and have somebody make a motion to have the change in the By-Laws be considered. MOTION: That the By-law change be added to the agenda. GAROFALO moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). CARRAHER “In your packet, there should be a proposed amendment to the By-Laws. It is in regards to the composition of the sub-committees, both the Subdivision and the Advance Plans Committee. After the meeting two weeks ago, myself, Marvin and Jerry met in consideration of how to go about appointing members to each of the respective sub- committees. In our discussion, Mr. Michaelis expressed a wish to serve on the Subdivision Committee, and I in turn, support that. The conflict comes in on the By-laws in Article IV, Section II where the Vice-Chair, that being Mr. Michaelis is automatically appointed to the Advance Plans Committee. Marvin, could you please give us a little background on how that came to be?” KROUT “We have gone through several versions of this, it is probably just an evolving thing. At first we had, if some of you older members remember, we had six members of the Subdivision Committee and six members of the Advance Plans Committee, and then when we made some changes, we required equal membership from both of those committees. Then we realized that we had the Vice Chair, which is not the most awesome responsibility, except when the Chair is not here. So we thought that the Vice-Chair at least ought to have a seat on one of these committees and it was kind of arbitrary to assign it to the Advance Plans committee at the time. We realize it is probably a good idea to involve everybody on the Planning Commission in one or another of these two committees. So our suggestion to you is that instead of having six and six and then the Vice-Chair on the Advance Plans, that we divide the Planning Commission into committees of seven and seven with no more than four members of either committee being either city appointed or county appointed, so that there is a balance on each of the committes. The Chair and the Vice-Chair can serve on either committee as the Chair decides. That way, everyone is involved in the process and we do have a balance, but there is a little more flexibility in terms of accommodating some of the preferences the people expressed the last time we met.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions or commentary with regards to the proposed change?” WARREN “Now, what you just suggested here, do you see that already drafted into this proposal? We are looking at a proposal here. Is what he just explained what we would be voting on?” CARRAHER “On the blue memo, the front page, yes.” WARREN “That front page will be incorporated into the Bylaws in that manner then?” KROUT “Yes. It will be in the revised By-Laws.” CARRAHER “Basically, what I am wanting to happen is not to make it obligatory that the Vice-Chair be automatically assigned to the Advance Plans Committee, but have that option open to whether or not the Vice-Chair can serve on either subcommittee. Are there any further questions in regards to the By-laws?” WARREN “We have brought up this one item, and I assume that now that we have these By-laws open for amendment that any other amendments would be in order to discuss at this time? Any other conditions of change would this be an appropriate time to talk about those?” CARRAHER “In regard to the Subdivision?” WARREN “To the By-laws. Amending the By-laws. I guess what I am getting at is that I have heard two or three Commissioners discuss, and I certainly agree, that Page 5, Item D needs discussion. It says ‘prior to any motion on an application, Commissioners shall disclose the nature of any ex parte contacts and of any information obtained through those contacts that may have a bearing on their decision’. I find that whole thing to be very subjective. I don’t know for sure how you arrive at what may or may not be bearing on your decision. So with the Chair’s permission, I would like to discuss this part of the By-laws also.” CARRAHER “I can appreciate that, Mr. Warren. What I would like to have happen is this is a particular issue, I would like to keep the scope on this particular part of the By-laws, but if you want to discuss this, either after we discuss the issue on the floor or if you would have time to prepare a proposal for the next meeting, I would be more than open to that. I want to keep the scope at one particular issue at a time.” WARREN “Okay. I take it, then, that there is a time-frame on this particular issue that you are wanting to address now?” KROUT “Yes, because we are wanting to appoint the Subdivision Committee and the Advance Plans Committee.” WARREN “Okay. Then I would just like to state publicly that I would like to bring these By-laws back into focus again as it would relate to some other items.” CARRAHER “Okay. Then the Chair would be more than pleased to work with you and any other of my colleagues on that. Are there any questions or commentary with regards to the By-law proposal that is on the floor? Seeing none, I will open the floor to a motion.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the new By-law changes as presented. WARREN moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion. CARRAHER “Are there any questions or commentary with regards to the motion on the floor?” HENTZEN “Do I understand that there will be seven members on each committee, and the Chair and the Vice-Chair won’t necessarily end up on the same committee?” CARRAHER “The possibility is there. If you are asking me if I am going to appoint both Mr. Michaelis and I on the same committee for this term, the answer would be no. I would offer that to you.” GAROFALO “Maybe we ought to consider putting in there, for posterity, that the Vice-Chair would be on one committee, and the Chair would be on the other committee, or words to the effect that both can’t serve on the same committee.” PLATT “That difference does that make?” GAROFALO “I am just addressing a concern that Bud had. That would be one solution, if that is a problem. I am not saying that it is.” HENTZEN “I was just asking an information question. I don’t have a problem with the proposal.” MCKAY “Years ago, when I first got on the Planning Commission, the Chair and the Vice-Chair were automatically ex- officios on each committee. It was six and six when we first organized. “ KROUT “That sounds familiar.” MCKAY “Yeah, and I think what happened was because they were saying that the reason the Advance Plans for the Vice-Chair was because they thought they would automatically move into the Chair for the next year and they would have some idea and some feel about what was going on for Advance Plans. That hasn’t happened here in the last 3-5 years. I think that is possibly the reason why this has come up. It used to be that the Chair and Vice-Chair were automatically on both committees. They could attend either one or none of them.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions or commentary in regards to the motion on the floor?” MARNELL “I just want to make it clear, are we just replacing the first three paragraphs of that section? This is not the new section, and we are leaving that last paragraph on the Quad County Planning quorum in place?” KROUT “Right.” CARRAHER “That would be true. Are there any further questions or commentary before we move into a vote? We will now move into a voice vote.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (10-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Appointment of Subdivision Committee, Advance Plans Committee, and nomination of delegate to Quad-County Planning Forum. CARRAHER “The next item of business will be the appointment of the Subdivision Committee, the Advance Plans Committee and the nomination of a delegate to the Quad-County Planning Forum. As I discussed earlier, after the last MAPC meeting, I got together with Mr. Michaelis and Mr. Krout to get their input as well as your requests on which subcommittee that you would all like to serve on. I will just announce what they are. For the Subdivision Committee, I am going to appoint Mr. Johnson as the Chair and the remainder of the Subdivision Committee is as follows: Mr. Michaelis; Mr. Lopez; Dr. Platt; Mr. Warren; Mr. Barfield and Mr. Warner. As for the Advance Plans Committee, I am appointing Mr. McKay as the Chair, and the rest of the Advance Plans Committee as follows: Mr. Garofalo; Mr. Marnell; Mr. Hentzen; Ms. Osborne-Howes; and myself. There is a vacant seat, so if we do get a new appointee in the near future, the chances are that they will be serving on the Advance Plans Committee. Are there any questions in regards to the appointments made to the Advance Plans or the Subdivision Committee?” KROUT I just want to mention that on the next Subdivision Committee, the mailout has already gone out. It went out to the old Subdivision members, so Commissioners Johnson and Warner: we will have two packets to give you this afternoon. But that means that there are two others who were on Subdivision Committee who don’t need to come next week. Can we figure out who those are real quick? John McKay is the only one because we now have seven members on the Subdivision Committee. And just this time we don’t have the large plats, the fold-out plats because we have sent out all of the ones that we had. So you will have to work without those for the next week or two.” CARRAHER “The next item of business would be the nomination of a delegate to the Quad-County Planning Forum. I would like to open the floor for nominations.” MCKAY “Mr. Chair, could Mr. Krout kind of give us a description of what the responsibilities are on this?” KROUT “The Quad-County Planning Forum’s membership is made up of the elected County Commissioners from Sedgwick, Harvey, Reno and Butler Counties. They meet on a quarterly basis, once every three months, I think it is on the second Monday of the month, in a rotating location in one county or another. The only non-elected member of that body is the Metropolitan Area Planning Commissioner, because you are the Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation purposes, and because you represent a larger area and more regional concerns. There aren’t any other responsibilities, there is not a lot of homework to do for the job, and the meals are usually pretty good. There is some travel involved. If that is really a difficulty, we probably could pay for the travel. It is never beyond the adjoining county though.” HENTZEN “Mr. Chair, I would like to volunteer for that. If someone else wants to do it, that is okay with me, too, but I would be glad to do it.” CARRAHER “Okay. Mr. Hentzen has volunteered as a nominee. Are there any other nominations? Seeing no objection, I will close the nominations and open the floor for a motion.” MOTION: That Commissioner Hentzen become the delegate to the Quad-County Planning Forum. MCKAY moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried 10-0. -------------------------------------------------------- 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations CARRAHER “Items 3/2, 4/1, 4/6 and 4/8 need to be pulled for debate.” JOHNSON “I will abstain from Item 4/2. I have a conflict on that one.” CARRAHER “Okay, for the record, Mr. Johnson will not be considering Item 4/2, due to a possible conflict.” MCKAY “I will be abstaining on Item 4/8.” CARRAHER “Are there any other issues that need to be pulled for debate or any other statements made in regards to those issues? Seeing none, I will open the floor to a motion on the remaining Subdivision issues.” MOTION: That Subdivision Committee items 3/1; 3/3; 3/4; 3/5; and 3/6 be approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). 3/1. SUB 2000-66 - Final Plat of ASCENSION LUTERAN CHURCH 2ND ADDITION, located east of 135th Street West, south side of Maple. 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. A reserve should be platted for the detention area. No guarantees are required. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes two access openings along Maple. The final plat shall reference the access controls in the plattor’s text. Traffic Engineering has required 175 feet between the openings, which shall be denoted on the face of the plat. E. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. F. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. G. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) H. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. K. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. O. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. P. The MAPC Chairman needs to be revised to reference, “Christopher S. Carraher”. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3/3. SUB2000-74 - One-Step Final Plat of OPERATING ENGINEERS ADDITION, located on the south side of 95th Street South, east of Ridge Road. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. The Health Department has required a restrictive covenant prohibiting non- domestic uses on the site until public sewer is available. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. The operation of equipment on adjoining property to the west could impact the floodplain and permits may be required. D. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. E. A “Notice of Protective Overlay” document indicating the Protective Overlay has been filed with the MAPD shall be submitted. F. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. G. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) H. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. K. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. O. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. P. The MAPC Chairman needs to be revised to reference, “Christopher S. Carraher”. ------------------------------------------------------------ 3/4. SUB2000-75- One-Step Final Plat of DREILING ACRES ADDITION, located on the south side of 31st Street South, east of 167th Street West. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Standard soil testing is approved. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. The Applicant shall coordinate removal of the terraces with Natural Resources Conservation Service (721-6127). A minimum pad of 1418 M.S.L. shall be established. D. The plat proposes two access openings along 31st St. South. The Subdivision Committee has approved two openings. E. As this plat is located within three miles of the City of Wichita, the final plat tracing shall include a signature block for the Wichita City Council. F. The MAPC Chairman needs to be revised to reference, “Christopher S. Carraher”. G. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. H. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. I. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) J. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. K. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. L. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. M. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Q. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/5. DED2000-22 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Asa D. and Otilla Hill Stevens, for property located north of Central, west of Zoo Boulevard. OWNER/APPLICANT: Asa D. and Otilla Hill Stevens, 756 Westridge, Wichita, KS 67203 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 17, Westridge Acres, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 17, that is at an assumed bearing of south 89°19'44" East, a distance of 145.40 feet from the northwest corner of said lot; thence south 89°19'44" East, a distance of 4.02 feet; thence south 4°30'04" East, a distance of 70.24 feet to a point on the south line of said lot; thence north 89°22'00" West, on said south line, a distance of 4.02 feet; thence north 4°30'04" west, a distance of 70.24 feet to the point of beginning. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-57 and is being dedicated as a requirement by City Engineering to increase the 16-foot easement to the 20-foot standard. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------- 3/6. DED2000-23 - Dedication of Access Controls from Deere and Company, a Delaware Corporation, by H.R. Anciaux, for property located on the northeast corner of West Street and Southwest Drive. OWNER/APPLICANT: Deere and Company, C/O H.R. Anciaux, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1050, Bldg. 40, Overland Park, KS 66210 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, John Deere Acres, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-67 and is being dedicated for access control except for two openings along West Street. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 3/2. SUB2000-22 - Final Plat of SHOAL CREEK ADDITION (formerly Whitewood Addition), located on the west side of 143rd Street East, south of Central. A. In order to allow for the lot sizes being platted, and since the plat is adjacent to the City of Wichita, the applicant shall request annexation into the City. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single-Family residential and permit the lot sizes being proposed. The final plat shall not be scheduled for City Council consideration until annexation has occurred. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. This guarantee shall be with the County for service through the Four-Mile Creek sanitary sewer system. On the final plat tracing, appropriate wording shall be added to the Mayor’s signature block indicating the City’s agreement to allow a County sewer district to be formed within the City. A revised sanitary sewer/utility layout is requested. Off-site sewer easements are required. C. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water to serve the lots being platted. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. E. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A drainage guarantee is required. As drainage from the site is directed onto the Kansas Turnpike, a letter shall be required from KDOT indicating their agreement to accept such drainage. F. Complete access control is required along the Kansas Turnpike. The dedication of access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text on the final plat. G. City Fire Department needs to comment on the 2,400-ft cul-de-sac (Siefkes/Whitewood Court) which exceeds the 1,200 maximum length standard of the Subdivision regulations. City Fire Department requests an emergency access easement to provide two points of access along Reserve D, Block A. H. 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. I. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. J. The plat consists of lots that contain under 6,000-sq. ft., the minimum lot standard of the SF-6 district. The Cluster Development option in the Subdivision Regulations require that any reduction in lot size is offset by the provision of permanent open space. The Applicant has included a table indicating that the amount of open space provided in the Reserves (210,946 sq. ft.) exceeds the cumulative total reduction in lot area (7,303 sq. ft.). K. The MAPC Policy Statement regarding Cluster Development states that each open space area shall be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and that no lot reduced in area shall be more than 500 feet from the nearest open space area. Lots 36-39, Block E are not located within the required 500 feet from Reserve E. A modification from this design standard has been approved. L. In addition to the standard restrictive covenant required per Item H above, the Subdivision regulations require the submittal of a restrictive covenant addressing the Reserves associated with the clustering development. The covenant shall ensure that the open space will not be further subdivided in the future, that the use of open space will continue in perpetuity, and that the common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee. M. The lots in Block E shall be renumbered beginning with Lot 1. N. The terminus of Whitewood Court to the west shall be reconfigured as a circular turnaround. O. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for improvements to 143rd St. East. Traffic Engineering has required the construction of a decel lane. P. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. Q. The pipeline easement on Lot 26, Block E, needs to be located. R. A dimension needs to be added on Lots 5 and 6, Block D. S. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent “15-foot street drainage and utility easements”, a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot-owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. T. City Fire Department needs to comment on the plat’s street names. The City Fire Department has met with the Applicant to revise the street names. U. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the interior streets. This guarantee shall include a sidewalk along one side of Whitewood/Siefkes. In lieu of sidewalks on Siefkes Court and Whitewood Place/Whitewood Court, the Applicant has agreed to submit an alternate sidewalk plan denoting sidewalks around Reserve E. V. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 32-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. W. 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. X. 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. Y. 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.) Z. 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. AA. 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. BB. 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. CC. 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. DD. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. EE. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. FF. 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. GG. 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. HH. The MAPC Chairman needs to be revised to reference “Christopher S. Carraher”. I I. The plattor’s text shall include ‘neighborhood swimming pool’ as a permitted use in Reserve A; and JJ. A Restrictive Covenant shall be submitted that requires a turnaround be provided on Lot 6, Block D; and Lots 12, 22 and 40, Block A. STRAHL “This plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee last week. Pursuant to the meeting, the applicant informed staff of his intention to include a neighborhood swimming pool within reserve ‘A’, which is located right there (indicating) in the northern portion of the plot. Although typically permitted as a Conditional Use, the Zoning Code allows for a neighborhood swimming pool to be permitted by right if it is identified as a permitted use in the platting of the reserves. A site plan needs to be submitted at the time the final plat is approved. The applicant has submitted the required site plan to staff today and seeks approval of the plat with this revision.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for staff regarding this matter by the Commission? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience who is wanting to speak either for or against this item? Seeing none, I will move it back to the Commission. Are there any questions or commentary?” WARREN “The applicant is not here to speak on this?” CARRAHER “My apologies, I am new at this. Is the applicant here?” EWY “Not a probIem. I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. We have no further comment and would answer any questions that you might have.” WARREN “Russ, I asked in the Subdivision meeting, and was assured that lots such as Lots 6 in D, we had over in Block A-40 and 22. I questioned how you are going to get out of those without backing down the street, and I was assured that there would be a turn-around within the lot or a back-up.” EWY “I believe that is correct.” WARREN “Do you have a restrictive covenant that would ensure that, or how could we be assured that that is going to take place on that lot?” EWY “I can’t answer that. I do not know.” WARREN “Russ, I would hate to see that lot develop.” CARRAHER “Are there any other questions for the applicant?” WARREN “Could I ask the applicant, would you object to filing a Restrictive Covenant that would so guarantee that the turn-around would be on the lot so that they could come out?” EWY “We would be agreeable to looking into filing a covenant.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Ewy. Just to give the gallery a fair opportunity, is there anybody in the gallery who would like to speak either for or against this issue? Seeing none, we will move it back to the Commission. What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to putting that condition of turn-around in those four affected lots in the covenant. WARREN moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4/1. DR00-08 - Proposed Amendment to Subdivision Regulations - Platting Exemptions. This amendment to the Subdivision Regulations will implement a requirement for owners of property, which is unplatted and exempt from the Subdivision regulations. These owners would be required to file a Restrictive Covenant with the Register of Deeds Office that prohibits the transfer of portions of their property unless that land is platted (if under 20 acres). This Restrictive Covenant would need to be filed before any issuance of a platting exemption by County Code Enforcement. In the past, property owners in the County have obtained platting exemptions from County Code Enforcement Office and then circumvented the Subdivision Regulations by selling portions of their property that would be required to be platted. It is intended that this restrictive covenant would help to alleviate this situation. Planning staff has reviewed this amendment and related Restrictive Covenant with the County Code Enforcement Office, Register of Deeds Office, and County Legal Department and recommends its adoption. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “This is a proposed amendment to the Subdivision regulations, and regards platting exemptions. This amendment addresses unplatted land that is exempt from the Subdivision Regulations. This would typically be land of 20 acres and above. The amendment was prepared by staff in response to a growing problem in the county. The County Code Enforcement informed us that the owners of unplatted land, again 20 acres and above, are obtaining building permits for construction on their unplatted land and then selling off portions of the property. In some cases, the owners are circumventing the Subdivision Regulations by using the same land to qualify for more than one platting exemption. As an example, an owner of 20 acres would obtain a building permit for a new home and does not have to plat, due to the size of the site. He then keeps five acres for the house and sells off 15 acres. The new owner of the 15- acre site would then combine the 15 acres with an adjoining 5 acres to create a total of 20 acres, which would be exempt from platting. So we have the same 15 acres being used twice to qualify for a platting exemption. This amendment is intended to alleviate this situation by putting owners on notice that unplatted land that is currently exempt from Subdivision regulations will need to be platted before any transfer of land occurs and the Restrictive Covenant would be filed with the Register of Deeds before the County Code Enforcement Office would issue a permit on any unplatted land. Are there any questions for staff?” WARREN “I promise to be quiet after this. No, I don’t. We discussed this on two or three occasions in Subdivision Committee. I have checked with some counsel on this and the objection that they had to this thing is that what Neil is talking about is already against the law. We already have an ordinance covering that. So what we are doing is passing an ordinance that says you can’t disobey the ordinance. They say that by and large, that is not very good for law, to pass a law to say that you can’t disobey a law. That is, by and large, what we are doing here. The second thing, I would like to see that sample copy of the Restrictive Covenant, which I didn’t find a copy of attached, before we vote on this.” STRAHL “It should be in your packet. It is right after the staff report.” WARREN “Okay. The third thing is that all Restrictive Covenants that I have had anything to do with, if I had so control of the land, I could go in and void out the Restrictive Covenants. As long as I don’t have to ask any other landowners to join in with me, I can do that. So I don’t know what keeps the landowner from filing this and then going in and deleting it or filing another that would be a change to this. I think we have problems with this and it needs further study before this committee votes on it.” STRAHL “In response to your last question, we do have a clause in there that the covenant does run with the land, binding all successors to title the property.” WARREN “That is only until I decide to void it out, and then it not binding all successors. We have, all of us who have had anything to do with land, and filed Restrictive Covenants, have later come in and deleted them and filed new ones with new restrictions. I see nothing in here that would prohibit a landowner from doing that. I think if it were worded right and if it was in effect that the landowner’s agreement with the City/County through some kind of a developer agreement might do it, but I don’t think you are going to do it with this.” KROUT “In the interest of time, we do have a long hearing, and I have no objection to deferring this until the next Planning Commission meeting so that we can talk about the issue you are raising. The issue about Restrictive Covenants can be raised with regard to all of the other covenants that we file on Subdivision plats, so maybe we ought to ask the attorneys whether or not any of them are worth their weight. In referring to an ordinance, the purpose of the covenant is for notification purposes, to let a future potential buyer be on notice that he is going to have to plat the property and not be surprised when he find out that even though he has 15 acres instead of 5 acres, he is not exempt from platting. It is just to provide some notification because most people don’t read the Subdivision Regulations before they buy land.” MARNELL “If we are going to defer this item, I won’t make my comment now.” PLATT “I just want to comment that what is being proposed here is nothing unusual at all in terms of the way we operate our governmental system. We pass laws or codes or ordinances setting up speed limits on highways and then we turn right around and pass another one saying that we must post them every so many feet or so many miles on the highway so that people know about it. There is nothing unusual about this at all.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions or commentary regarding the issue? What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the item be deferred. MCKAY moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/2. VAC2000-00033 - Request to vacate alley right-of-way, described as: The west 160 feet of the east-west alley right-of-way, Block 3, replat of John McCormick’s Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, located south of McCormick between Elizabeth and Martinson. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described alley right- of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the alley right-of-way described in the petition should be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley returns or construct the vacated alley return to a private driveway standard. 2. The vacated alley shall be retained as a utility easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley returns or construct the vacated alley return to a private driveway standard. 2. The vacated alley shall be retained as a utility easement. CARRAHER “Is there anybody here to speak on this item? What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MARNELL moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. (9- 0) Johnson abstained. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4/3. VAC2000-00035 - Request to vacate a portion of a building setback, described as: Vacation of a portion of a 75-foot building setback located in Lot 1, Block 1, Dillon 11th Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas described as follows: Beginning at a point 75 feet North and 105 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence West, parallel with the South line of said Lot 1, 25 feet; thence South, parallel with the east line of said Lot 1, 15 feet; thence East, parallel with the South line of Said Lot 1, 25 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Lot 1, 15 feet to the point of beginning, located on the northwest corner of 47th Street South and Broadway. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described street right-of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of building setback described in the petition should be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 75-foot building setback along the southern property line on the C.U.P to 60 feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 75-foot building setback along the southern property line on the C.U.P to 60 feet. CARRAHER “Is there anybody here to speak to this item?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARNER moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ------------------------------------------------------- 4/4. VAC2000-00036 - Request to vacate building setback and utility easement, described as: Vacation of a portion of a 70-foot building setback located in Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Rockwood Center 2nd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line and 50 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 3; thence West, parallel with the North line of said Lot 3, 20 feet; thence south, parallel with the East line of said Lot 3, 20 feet; thence east, parallel with the North line of said Lots 3 and 4, 40 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Lot 3, 20 feet; thence West, parallel with the North line of said Lot 4, 20 feet to the point of beginning. AND Vacation of a portion of a 10-foot utility easement common to Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Rockwood Center 2nd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: The North 140 feet of the 10-foot utility easement common to the east line of said Lot 3 and the West line of said Lot 4. Located on the southwest corner of Central and Rock. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback and utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a building setback and utility easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 70-foot building setback along the northern property line on the C.U.P. to 50 feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 70-foot building setback along the northern property line on the C.U.P. to 50 feet. CARRAHER “Is there anyone here to speak on this item?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARNER moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ------------------------------------------------ 4/5. VAC2000-00037 - Request to vacate utility easement, described as: The south 10 feet of Lots 6 &7, Block 1 & the north 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Carriage House Plaza Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas EXCEPT the east 10 feet of said utility easement. Located on the north side of Kellogg Drive, west of Woodchuck Lane. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the utility easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties together Lots 2, 6 and 7. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant that ties together Lots 2, 6 and 7. CARRAHER “Is there anyone here to speak on this issue? What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. JOHNSON moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). -------------------------------------------------------- 4/6. VAC2000-00038 - Request to vacate utility easement, described as: The south 10 feet of Lots 6 & 7, Block 1 & the north 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Carriage House Plaza Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas EXCEPT the east 10 feet of said utility easement. Located on the north side of Kellogg Drive, west of Woodchuck Lane. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff, “Ten feet of a 25-foot setback is requested to be vacated along the eastern property line for the construction of a single-family home. The Subdivision Committee did approve this, subject to the applicant maintaining a 25-foot setback on the north line, in addition to coming into an agreement with staff regarding submission of the document to guarantee that this existing site plan would be complied with. Staff feels that a Restrictive Covenant would be an appropriate document to do so, so we would like for the second condition to read that a Restrictive Covenant shall be provided stating that the property shall be developed in accordance with this particular site plan.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for staff with regard to this matter? Seeing none, is the applicant here and would he like to speak?” RUSS EWY “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. We are in agreement with staff to revise staff conditions for this.” WARREN “I didn’t hear your comments having to do with this site plan having some kind of a guarantee. Did you have that in there?” STRAHL “We would have a Restrictive Covenant provided by the applicant requiring that that site plan be complied with.” WARREN “Okay.” Osborne-Howes arrived at the meeting at 1:40 p.m. KROUT “We will check on the language of that Restrictive Covenant also to make sure that it isn’t pulled unilaterally by the property owner.” WARREN “And I think a Restrictive Covenant is good as long as you include the County or the City in it and make them party to it. They have to come out of it, too.” KROUT ”I think you are right.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, is there anyone in the gallery, either for or against the issue who wishes to speak? I will bring it back to the Commission. What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MICHAELIS “Just for a point of clarification, Marvin, I would like to ask you if we approve this as presented with a site plan that is attached, and then, for whatever reason, this doesn’t go through and this lot becomes available again and is for re- sale, is that covenant still in place on this lot, or does it remain as its original layout?"” KROUT “I would say that the Covenant is in place and maybe the Covenant should be drafted to be sure that the owner only needs to conform with the site plan if there is an encroachment into the setback areas, otherwise, it could be used without having to conform to the site plan.” MICHAELIS “Okay, but I think the only reason we are changing this is for this particular house, and in Subdivision, it was made mention that this particular house may or may not be built there.” KROUT “And if it is not built, then they won’t need to vacate the setbacks, is that the question?” MICHAELIS “That is my question, yeah.” KROUT “I think the wording in the Covenant will take care of that.” MICHAELIS “Okay.” EWY “Yeah, we think we can word the Covenant to tie to this particular site plan, but we have all assurances that this is going to happen in the near future by the end of the year.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions or commentary with regards to this item?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. GAROFALO moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/7. VAC2000-00039 - Request to vacate a portion of a building setback, described as: The north 25 feet of the south 140 feet of the 35-foot platted building setback adjacent to Woodchuck, Lot 1, Tyler Acres 3rd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the northwest corner of Central and Woodchuck. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a building setback described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 35-foot building setback along the eastern property line on the C.U.P. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional landscaping along Woodchuck. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 35-foot building setback along the eastern property line on the C.U.P. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional landscaping along Woodchuck. CARRAHER “Is there anybody here to speak either for or against this item? Seeing none, I will move it to the Commission. What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARREN moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 4/8. VAC2000-00040 - Request to vacate alley right-of-way, described as: That part of the alley as dedicated in Munger’s Original Town of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, lying north of the south line of Lot 86 on Court, (now Main Street) as extended east, and lying south of the south right-of- way line of Oak, (now Murdock Avenue). A. 1. 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: 2. 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 August 29, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 3. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 4. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a building setback described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 35-foot building setback along the eastern property line on the C.U.P. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional landscaping along Woodchuck. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall submit an Administrative C.U.P. Adjustment to reduce a portion of the 35-foot building setback along the eastern property line on the C.U.P. 2. The Applicant shall provide additional landscaping along Woodchuck. NEIL STRAHL, Planning Staff “This is a request to vacate an alley right-of-way for a future development for the Wichita Area Builders’ Association. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the vacation, subject to the applicant providing a public access easement through the southeastern portion of the site that would allow for continuation of the alley eastward to Market Street. Staff is also asking for a guarantee to close the existing alley return. We also need the vacated alley to be retained as utility easement since there are utilities located currently in the alley. Are there any questions for staff?” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to speak?” PHIL MEYER “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. With me here also today is Wess Galyon with the Wichita Area Builders’ Association. He will be glad to answer any questions you may have. What I have passed around to you was a site plan for the proposed re-development of this site. What we are asking to do is to vacate the north approximately one-third of this alley, and after we vacate that alley, we are offering an access easement, which is shown on the site plan and a hatching that would allow the existing alley to exit out to the east over to Market Street. This alley presently is a two-way alley which carries traffic in both directions. This access easement we are offering, I am going to word it as a temporary access easement. We are going to draft that so it remains in place as long as the alley exists to the south. I think the long-term plan is to come in and vacate the rest of the alley. This is a temporary solution to letting us finish up the site plan for the Builders’ Association. So the easement will remain in effect until the rest of the alley is vacated and will always allow access through the property out to Market Street. With that, I will be glad to answer any questions. I have a little packet of information here that shows a rendered site plan and building elevations and pictures of the alley. I don’t plan on passing those out unless one of the Planning Commissioners wants to see it. I’ve got that information available.” GAROFALO “I just want to know about the alley. Is it going to have access onto Market?” MEYER “Yes, sir.” GAROFALO “That access easement?” MEYER “That access easement will allow all traffic in the alley.” GAROFALO “What about the parking lot?” MEYER “That access is going through the parking lot. It is the driving lane in the parking lot.” GAROFALO “So that will be just the one access on Market.” MEYER “The one access for the alley…yes.” GAROFALO “And for the parking lot.” MEYER “Yes. There is access on the alley at the south end. That will be the only access opening we have to Market is that one opening. We are closing the rest of the drives.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions for the applicant? Mr. Galyon, are you wanting to add any words with regards to this matter?” WESS GALYON “I will make a few brief remarks. I am basically here today for questions. For your information, we were in the process of moving forward to tear down the current buildings that we own at 726, 728 and 730 North Market and in its place we are going to erect an approximately 8500 square foot new brick facility there. We have already located our offices, and our primary motivation for seeking this alley vacation is so that we will have a little better control in terms of access to our site, and also to allow us to do some buffering between our property and the property to the south, and block it from view, if you will, to the extent that it is reasonably possible to do that. It is a little unsightly, so that is one of the reasons we are asking to do this. There is a little bit of a safety problem having the traffic go northwest through that alley. We are building currently right up to the alleyway or the easement if you want to refer to it as that, and we have had some people nearly get hit with cars coming through there, so this will remedy that problem pretty directly, as well. We are not planning to encroach into the easement, but our property will go up to that alleyway that we are asking to be vacated. We will have some improvements out in it, but not to the extent that it would interfere with any utilities or anything that might be in that easement area.” CARRAHER “Are there anyone in the gallery wishing to speak in favor of the issue? Seeing none, is there anyone in the gallery who wishes to speak in opposition to the issue?” SAM LUINSTRA “I own and operate Neil Hardware at 722 North Main. The vacation of this alley comes to the edge of my property line. I don’t know how I am going to get off of Murdock into our property to service the people that call on us on the back door. We probably do as much business out of our back door as we do the front door. We have been at that store for 52 years and then this comes up and you are going to take part of my business away from me. The only way that any business can form would be the convenience of having access to my business. I don’t know how you are going to get a garbage truck and the big semi trucks and etc., that comes up through and down that alley and make them go in that easeway. I very definitely object to the vacation of this alley. In fact, I almost demand that it not be vacated. Please remember, I am not against the builders. I suppose you need to know because I heard him say just now a future date to vacate the whole alley. That is fine. I have in my hand here a letter from an attorney with an option to buy my property. That is fine if they want to buy my property, then they can go ahead and vacate the alley. But until they come across and buy my property, I have to have the in and out of that alley, if you please. I have 100 foot, four properties on Main Street and I have three properties almost directly across the alley on Market Street. It is going to put something there that will be hard for me to bear. Also, we have a tenant at one of our properties there, and I would say that the back alley door is his main door, and I can see maybe 15 people come to that back door every day. How are they going to get in and out? If you please, do not vacate this alley.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else in the gallery wishing to speak in opposition? Yes, sir.” EMORY GOAD “I have a business at 724 North Main, which would be on the immediate property line south of this improvement. I was never advised of today's hearing. Do you customarily advise tenants?” KROUT “No, just property owners.” GOAD “Just property owners, okay. My office faces the parking lot at the alley of the building split in the middle. We don’t enter or exit from Main Street. This would cause a hardship to my business, I know. I am a tenant of Mr. Luinstra. I hadn’t heard what I heard the last part of here today, and I am not sure of the details, but running that alley through their parking lot would make we wonder then where the parking lot is going to be because that takes up a third of the existing parking lot. In any case, I am opposed, and I wasn’t given any material or anything about it today. Our only door faces there, so we would have people parking somewhere, probably walking in this new alleyway coming back and forth to our door. Questions?” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for the speaker?” WARREN “Do I understand that you would have some restriction that you do not have now, or is it just a re-routing of traffic?” GOAD “It would appear to be some restrictions, but nobody has ever told me the details and there has been so much mystery about this entire development, I mean total mystery. People are afraid to talk, or won't talk, and we don’t know what is going to happen, so I can’t really answer your question.” WARREN (Holding up site plan) “Have you seen this?” GOAD “No, sir. They don’t want to share any information with anybody south of their improvement. I guess it is a secret. We tried to interview people this morning on properties that are lined up to be a part of this on Market Street, and they don’t want to talk either. I made an effort for about a week, and I am licensed Private Investigator. I made an effort to try to find out what is going on and everybody wants to clam up because the Homebuilders’ told them not to say anything. We don’t know what is about to happen in this block. There are too many secrets.” WARREN “We have public meetings.” KROUT “Did you contact the Planning Department?” GOAD “Did I? No, sir.” KROUT “Because we would have been glad to share the information we had with you.” GOAD “I don’t think you know half of what they have planned.” KROUT “Well, I hope it is twice as much as I have seen so far.” (Laughter here). WARREN “I was just going to comment on what Mr. Krout was just saying. We had a public meeting here last Thursday and it was attended by a number of people, and we discussed this whole project. It hasn’t been anything of secret.” GOAD “I am talking about for my purposes. And there are people who are involved, and there are apparently some spin- offs here. I am not saying that anything else that is going to happen is bad, I am just saying I am apprehensive for lack of understanding.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions for the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition to the issue? Seeing none, I will move it back to the Commission.” MARNELL “I would like to ask Mr. Galyon a question, if he would come to the podium. You heard the prior speaker say that there was some kind of secret in this and you are asking people to be quiet on this. Would you like to comment on that?” GALYON “I don’t know how they surmised that. The only property we are asking the alley to be vacated behind is our property to our south property line that fronts on Main Street. We bought a small parcel of property immediately south of our existing building and the site plan shows that. It is so we can actually have parking on the south side where people can pull in off Main and pull into there. That is one way south. The purpose of our asking for that vacation is so we can limit traffic access onto our site that we own. It is a two-way alley, access is available from the south and we are agreeable to give an easement from the alley where it comes up to the south of our property line, east across the southern part of our property to Market Street. There is no secret about what we are doing. The building has been designed, it has been through plan review. Obviously we are going through the process that we need to to request and hopefully gain approval to have that alley vacated. There is some discussion going on on the part of some people. I don’t know who those people are that are looking at maybe buying some property, the property south of us. Mr. Luinstra has already presented evidence to that extent by virtue of the fact that he has entered into an option agreement to sell his property to some individuals. I am not one of those individuals. Our association is not an investor in that property south of us, nor do we intend to be. Frankly, we would like to see somebody buy it and clean it up, but that is not what we are about. We don’t think this impairs the usability of the property or anything else and we would certainly hope that you would support our application.” CARRAHER “Before we entertain any more questions, I made a mistake and skipped a procedure. I did not give the applicant an opportunity to have a rebuttal. Would you like to have that opportunity now?” MEYER “Just briefly, part of the reason for asking for this vacation is the re-development of this site. There are a lot of positives that come out of the re-development of this site. We are closing a lot of the driveways that exist. There are a lot of small curb cuts along Market that we will be closing. We are consolidating our access to one point to each street, rather than a multitude of points right now. The existing alley that goes up to Murdock now will be closed and that access is not available, but we are still allowing the landowners access out to the east, so their property, with the alley being a two-way access. That is kind of why I mentioned that earlier. They still have access in and out of that property. A lot of the alleys in the downtown area are not too wide. They are one-way. That has more of a detrimental impact. Being a two-way alley, you can easily come down to Main, turn on Pine, come up the alley and come up Murdock and turn into the Wichita Area Builders’ Association, come back to the alley. There is still plenty of good access to this alley. The alley is being maintained as a utility easement so the utilities can still go through the alley that are there. As far as the redevelopment of a piece of downtown property, vacating this alley will be a positive thing for this redevelopment. We don’t think we are adversely impacting anybody south of us. We are still allowing them access. They still have the same space behind their building to get in and out of their building as they did before. We are not impacting their present operation.” MARNELL “Will the radiuses on the turn from the alley into that easement allow for semis that would answer Mr. Luinstra’s questions on access?” MEYER “We showed this to Traffic Engineering, and as long as we don’t block off that end stall right there, they were comfortable with the trucks being able to turn through there. The main concern the Traffic Department has is trash vehicles being able to turn in and out of there.” MARNELL “And that is big enough for them to make it?” MEYER “Yes, sir.” MARNELL “Thank you.” JOHNSON “Phil, how wide is that easement, or that agreement?” MEYER “It will be 24-foot wide. The existing alley is 20 foot. Their access out through the parking lot would be 24 foot.” JOHNSON “Is there anyway to make it a little bit wider?” MEYER “Not without impacting the number of parking stalls we have on site, or not without removing landscape islands. Neither of which we would care to do. Could we make it wider? Yes. But it is going to have an adverse impact on our site plan." JOHNSON “Do you know how far the parking is off of the property line to the south? There appears to be a strip of ground there.” MEYER “I am guessing…that looks to be 5 to 6 foot wide in comparison to the rest of the dimensions.” JOHNSON “Now, is that a landscape strip there?” MEYER “Yes, a buffer strip. We want to do some good landscaping for downtown. That is why we hate to take out the parking island.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I am still sitting here trying to imagine a trash truck or a large truck making that turn. Maybe it is possible. My other question is did you contact or share this with any of the tenants or people who are located south so that they could understand it?” MEYER “I personally have not. Last week, at Subdivision, there were two people that opposed this. Mr. Luinstra was one of them. There was also a lady down at the very far corner that was opposed to it. I spent some time talking to her after the Subdivision meeting and showing it to her and explaining it to her. I don’t believe she showed up today. I think I answered her questions. I will be glad to meet with Mr. Goad out in the hallway and show him what we are doing. I will be glad to talk to him. We have not kept anything a secret from anybody. We will be glad to show him.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions for the applicant? Thank you.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I do have a question for staff. Is there a precedent set for vacating alleys in downtown Wichita?” KROUT “Yes. We have done that many times and the most recent example that I can point to where I have done something similar to this with an access easement through a parking lot is for USD 259 for the school that is down on south Broadway. The school was being sold to a private individual who was redeveloping the school and wanted to expand into the southern portion of the alley and also agreed to provide similar ‘L’ access with an access easement through a parking lot.” OSBORNE-HOWES “And has that worked out okay?” KROUT “Yes.” GAROFALO “I guess I am just wondering….I am not saying necessarily that this shouldn’t happen, but we are closing an alley there and there are property owners to the south, at least one that is speaking out in opposition. I was wondering whether, if this is such an important alleyway, and if there is a lot of traffic up and down there, deliveries and what not, I was wondering if something like this shouldn’t be looked at by the District Advisory Board for that district. It is just a thought. It seems like an important alleyway.” KROUT “It would be the pleasure of the Planning Commission. Our policy has been that when we thought there was a larger neighborhood impact as a result of vacating a street or alley, we would take it to the District Advisory Board or the C.P.O. before that. But when it was dealing only with the property in the single block, which I think this is, they are the only ones who are affected, that it is not having a wider neighborhood impact, so it can be handled by the Planning Commission.” OSBORNE-HOWES “This seems like a viable concept. I guess my only comment is that it would just make so much more sense if the entities involved shared this information with people who might be affected. In particular, the applicant and the agent have set through numerous meetings where we have talked about businesses and neighborhoods and the need for them to be informed. I am just really disappointed that that effort hasn’t been made in this case. Maybe they would like to respond to that.” MEYER “I would. I think it is key for you to know, and I guess I said this at Subdivision, but I didn’t say it today, but we tried to vacate the entire alley. We could not obtain all of those signatures. Mr. Luinstra’s signature was one of them that we could not obtain. The other thing, and I know this is a battle that we can’t solve here at the Planning Commission, but we are in disagreement with the amount of traffic they are saying is going up and down that alley today. We are on that alleyway quite a bit and we just don’t feel that there is quite as much traffic going up that alleyway as they are describing to you. That is one of the reasons, and we have several, but that is one of the reasons we don’t think we are adversely impacting the people to the south. There is traffic on that alleyway, I am not going to tell you that there is not, but it is not a heavy amount of traffic that goes up and down that alleyway.” JOHNSON “The downtown area where you are seeing some re-development, which I think is a key, yeah there are going to have to be some people who are going to have to give a little bit. But I have a feeling that between traffic and the Fire Department, they have looked at this plan and determined that they can get a fire truck through there. If they can get a fire truck through there, I would think they could get a trash truck or whatever through there. Yeah, I wish it was a little wider. It can’t be. I would like to see maybe one or two of those parking spaces maybe not be there where you could get a good radius there, where somebody could get a truck out of there. And of course, the last thing is, probably when the downtown was developed and laid out with the alley, it wasn’t used to the type of equipment they deliver with that they are driving today. So it is not a good thing no matter what we do. But I have to support the redevelop because I want to see the downtown have some redevelopment.” GAROFALO “Can I ask the applicant what Commissioner Johnson is suggesting, to do some sort of a little compromise, to eliminate one or two of those spaces so that you could definitely get in and out?” MEYER “I don’t know if I can eliminate any spaces on parking code. We would be glad to look into that. We can probably make that drive wider, moving the curb line to the south. That is going to impact the landscape buffer, so there is a give and take there. We would be glad to widen that out, but it will impact the buffer we are giving.” JOHNSON “That is kind of what I was looking at before, even if you didn’t eliminate all of it. If you just took a foot or two out of it there and maybe a foot or two out of that island, you would have 28 or 29 foot of drive, which is almost as wide as a city street that they are driving trucks down now.” MEYER “I think we can do that. Wess was telling me we are at parking Code, so we can’t give up parking stalls.” JOHNSON “Well, then we don’t want to.” MEYER “We can add probably 3 or 4 feet to that drive and widen that thing out. That will help.” JOHNSON “That would be a good solution.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions or commentary by the Commission? What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MARNELL moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “I just want to make sure that the motion included what the applicant just offered?” MARNELL “Yes, it did.” CARRAHER “Does the second concur?” HENTZEN “Yes.” CARRAHER “Any further questions or commentary regarding the motion? Seeing none, we will move to a voice vote.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 12 votes in favor. There was no opposition. McKay abstained. KROUT “Let me just explain to the people who were here that the City Council has the final decision on this case, but they will not have a public hearing. They will rely on the testimony in the minutes. The Planning Commission has the official public hearing. This will be sent to the City Council for a final decision, but there will not be a public hearing at the City Council.” ------------------------------------------------- CHRIS CARRAHER, 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ZONING: 5. Case No. ZON2000-00036 - Ernest A. and Doris Irene Jordan (Owner/Applicant); Stephen m. Jordan (Agent) request a zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family residential to “NR” Neighborhood Retail and “TF-3” Two- Family Residential on property described as: Lots 1-10, inclusive, Block D, West Maple Gardens Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the northwest corner of Taft and Julia. SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning Staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family Residential to “NR” Neighborhood Retail and “TF-3” Two-Family Residential on a 3.7 acre platted tract located at the northwest corner of Taft and Julia. The applicant proposes to develop the site’s Julia frontage (2.4 acres) with a commercial center of approximately 20-25,000 square feet and the site’s Brummet frontage (1.3 acres) with approximately five duplexes (10 dwelling units). The surrounding area is characterized by large-scale commercial development south of Taft and single-family residential development north of Taft. The property west of the site across Brummet is zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and is developed with single-family residences. The property north of the site across University right-of-way (street not constructed) is zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and is undeveloped. The property east of the site across Julia is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with two single-family residences and three vacant residential lots. The property south of the site across Taft is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with a Wal-Mart. The surrounding area also is characterized by its proximity to the Mid-Continent Airport. The subject property is located under the approach to Mid-Continent Airport approximately one mile north of the end of the runway. Due to its location, the site is subjected to significant noise from aircraft. CASE HISTORY: The site is in the West Maple Gardens Addition, which was recorded February 1, 1956. An application for “LC” Limited Commercial zoning (Z-3317) on the entire subject property was submitted by the applicant on February 22, 1999 and was subsequently withdrawn prior to hearing by the MAPC. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” Undeveloped SOUTH: “GC” Retail, General EAST: “SF-6” Single-Family WEST: “SF-6” Single-Family PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has access to Taft, Julia, Brummet, and University. University is right-of-way only, and the street has not been constructed. The applicant has indicated that University may become a cul-de-sac off Brummet through the replatting process. Brummet is an unpaved local street. Planning staff recommends requiring Brummet to paved as a condition of replatting. Taft is a four-lane collector street with traffic volumes of approximately 10,500 vehicles per day. Julia is a two-lane collector street with traffic volumes of approximately 8,500 vehicles per day. The 2030 Transportation Plan does not estimate future traffic volumes for Taft or Julia. As proposed, the commercial center would generate approximately 850-1,075 additional vehicles per day. Planning staff recommends requiring additional right-of- way, access controls, and turn lanes on Taft and/or Julia, as appropriate, as a condition of replatting. Public water and sewer service are available to serve the site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Low Density Residential” development. The Low Density Residential category provides for the lowest density (1 to 6 units per acre) of urban residential land use and consists of single-family detached homes, zero lot line units, cluster subdivisions, and planned developments with a mix of housing types that may include townhouse and multi-family units. The Commercial Locational Guidelines indicate that commercial convenience centers ranging in size from 2-4 acres are typically expected to develop at one or more corners of arterial intersections and may be appropriately located at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street, where proper turn lanes are in place or planned. The subject property is located at the intersection of two collector streets with traffic volumes approaching those of an arterial street. The Residential Locational Guidelines indicate that medium-density residential uses may serve to buffer low-density residential uses from commercial uses. The proposed duplexes would serve to buffer the low-density residential uses to the west from the proposed commercial center. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following objective: encourage residential redevelopment, infill, and higher density residential development, that maximizes the public investment in existing and planned facilities and services. The objective is intended to be achieved through the following strategy: use Community Unit Plans, Planned Development Districts, and zoning as tools to promote mixed use development, higher density residential environments, and appropriate buffering. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon numerous factors, planning staff finds the subject property appropriate for neighborhood retail and medium-density residential uses. First, the high traffic on Taft and Julia and the site’s proximity to a regional commercial center make it unlikely that single-family residences will develop on the subject property. Second, the site is significantly impacted by noise from Mid-Continent Airport, which further reduces the likelihood that the site will develop with single-family residences. Third, the owners of the nearby properties along Julia are actively marketing their properties as commercial properties even though they are zoned residential, thus indicating a market realization that the Julia corridor between Taft and Maple is appropriate for commercial development. Fourth, the proposed rezoning provides a step-down in zoning to buffer the existing single-family residences to the west from the commercial development proposed along Julia. Fifth, the proposed residential use is of a density (7.5 units per acre) that is slightly greater than the density (7.25 units per acre) that would be permitted by leaving the property in the “SF-6” district and replatting the property into smaller lots. Sixth, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that commercial convenience centers are appropriate for high traffic intersections if proper turn lanes are provided. Based upon these factors and information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to replatting within one year, with consideration given to sufficient right-of-way dedication, access controls, and traffic improvements. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is characterized by large-scale commercial development south of Taft and single-family residential development north of Taft. The property west of the site across Brummet is zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and is developed with single-family residences. The property north of the site across University right-of-way (street not constructed) is zoned “SF- 6” Single-Family Residential and is undeveloped. The property east of the site across Julia is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with two single-family residences and three vacant residential lots. The property south of the site across Taft is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with a Wal-Mart. The surrounding area also is characterized by its proximity to the Mid-Continent Airport. The subject property is located under the approach to Mid-Continent Airport approximately one mile north of the end of the runway. Due to its location, the site is subjected to significant noise from aircraft. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential, which accommodates moderate-density single-family residential development and complementary land uses. Given the site’s location along high-traffic streets, near a regional commercial center, and under the approach to an airport, it is unlikely that the site will develop with single-family residential uses. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Detrimental affects should be minimized by the step-down in zoning, which provides a buffer from the commercial development along in the form of duplexes with a similar density to single-family lots. 4. Length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned: The subject property was platted into single-family residential lots in 1956 and has yet to develop with single-family residential units. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: Although the Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Low Density Residential” development, the Commercial Locational Guidelines indicated that commercial convenience centers ranging in size from 2-4 acres may be appropriately located at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street, where proper turn lanes are in place or planned. The subject property meets these criteria since it is located at the intersection of two collector streets with traffic volumes approaching those of an arterial street. The Residential Locational Guidelines indicate that medium-density residential uses may serve to buffer low- density residential uses from commercial uses. The proposed duplexes would serve to buffer the low-density residential uses to the west from the proposed commercial center. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following objective: encourage residential redevelopment, infill, and higher density residential development, that maximizes the public investment in existing and planned facilities and services. The objective is intended to be achieved through the following strategy: use Community Unit Plans, Planned Development Districts, and zoning as tools to promote mixed use development, higher density residential environments, and appropriate buffering. The proposed use of the of the subject property is a mixed-use, higher-density infill development with appropriate buffers from existing single-family residences. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Community facilities should not be adversely impacted as long as sufficient right-of-way, access controls, and traffic improvements are provided for through the replatting process. KNEBEL “The applicant has requested to change the eastern portion of this property to Neighborhood Retail and the western portion of the property to ‘TF-3’ Two-family residential. The size of those two parcels would be 2.4 acres for Neighborhood Retail and 1.3 acres for ‘TF-3’. The site is currently undeveloped. It has been platted for over 40 years and has never developed. It is primarily a residential area, north of Taft and a commercial area south of Taft. This area is also in close proximity to Mid-Continent Airport. The subject property is under the approach of the east runway and is located approximately one mile north of the end of that runway. The site has access to three existing streets and the right-of-way of a fourth street. As you can see, University Street as shown, is platted through this area. It has not been constructed, so at this point, it is just right-of-way only. The remaining streets, Taft and Julia are both collectors. Taft is four lanes and Julia is two laned. Brummet is an unpaved local street; it is shown as being platted with through traffic to Taft, but actually none of the north/south streets there go through any longer. They all dead-end at Taft. The commercial center that is proposed would be approximately 20,000 to 25,000 square feet and would generate approximately 850 to 1,075 additional vehicles per day. The vehicle counts on Taft and Julia today are in the neighborhood of some of the arterial streets that we have. Therefore, staff is recommending that as a condition of platting that the access controls and turn lanes as appropriate be looked at when this property is replatted as a condition of the approval of the zoning. The Comprehensive Plan shows this site as appropriate for low-density residential development, which is how it has been platted, as I mentioned previously, for over 40 years, nearly 50 years now. It has yet to develop. The Commercial locational guidelines, if you look at those in the Comprehensive Plan, indicate that the commercial properties are appropriate for the arterial intersections, or the intersections of arterials and collectors. We feel that the traffic counts on Taft and Julia make this locational criteria applicable, given the fact that you have over 10,000 vehicles and are approaching 10,000 vehicles on the other street. The applicant has also proposed a buffer of the commercial property with duplex zoning on Brummet Street. That is another one of the guidelines that is in the Comprehensive Plan that states that commercial uses should be buffered from low-density residential uses with other types of uses, be it multi-family or office. There are numerous factors that the Planning staff used in coming up with a recommendation for approval. One that I mentioned previously was the high traffic counts on Taft and Julia make it unlikely, especially along Julia that the properties that are fronting that street would develop as single-family residences. In addition to that, the site is significantly impacted by Mid-Continent Airport and the noise that is generated from that, again making it less-likely that residential uses of the entire site would be occurring anytime in the near future. The owners of the property that is located here (indicating), here and here have marketed it in the past as commercial property. As you can see, it is currently zoned residential. We think that indicates that there is at least some realization from the property owners in the area that the frontage there along Julia is appropriate for commercial development. You have a letter that you received today that was handed out, from one of those property-owners that indicates that same point. The proposed zoning, as I mentioned before, provides a step-down as a buffer between the commercial development along Julia and the residential development along Brummet. The residential development that is proposed, while it is duplex zoning, is proposed at a very similar density than what would be permitted under the current zoning today, were the site to be replatted into smaller lots. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the type of commercial convenience center that is proposed is appropriate for intersections, as long as there is appropriate turn lanes provided. Based on these factors, the Planning staff has recommended approval, subject to replatting. We have added the caveat in there that consideration should be given to providing sufficient right-of-way, access controls and traffic improvements at the time of platting. With that I will conclude and stand for questions. Oh, there is one point that I should mention. You also received, at your table today, an item from the District Advisory Board from District V indicating that they had heard this case and had voted 8-1 to approve. There are also indications there of the comments provided by citizens at that meeting.” CARRAHER “Are there any questions of staff? I see none. Would the applicant like to speak?” Barfield arrived at the meeting at 2:17 p.m. STEVE JORDAN “I live at 1237 Lulu in Wichita. I am representing my Father and Mother, who are the property owners. My Mother is ill. I would like to submit, if you will, a zoning application that was made in March of 1999. It was Case No. Z-3317. This request was originally submitted for Light Commercial zoning. We felt it was the best use for the property. We had had it on the market for several years with J.P. Weigand, with Chuck Lambertz, and we found it difficult to sell the property as zoned. In fact we didn’t have any good offers. The pictures that Scott showed earlier depicted the property that is zoned Single-Family, but that they are asking for Commercial zoning for, so we felt it appropriate for Light Commercial. Approximately a year later, we were given notice that we must move forward with this application. We had discussed things with MAPC. We felt, at that time, that it would be best to downgrade to ‘NR’ and a combination of the multi-family duplex. The reason was that we felt that it was apparent that we would get opposition from both residents and the MAPC for ‘LC’ zoning. Just a couple of weeks ago, we met with the District Advisory Board, and as a result of that meeting, it was clearly shown that I was incorrect. We had four landowners show up that opposed duplex zoning. Instead, they were in favor of commercial zoning. They wanted to see a wall put down on our property to divide them from that commercial zoning. They also insisted that any additional home building dwellings built on Brummet Street would increase a traffic problem that is already in existence. They talked about difficulty in getting out onto Maple Street from Brummet Street, and they were pretty adamant about having 10 more families, or even 5 more families making the same attempts. I know we are here to suggest ‘NR’, and the duplex zoning, but I wanted to show you that it was our plan initially to zone this Limited Commercial. It appears that the current citizens want commercial instead of the proposal put before you. At the time I lowered our request from ‘LC’ to the proposed, I had asked the MAPD to refund my Dad $200 because there is a difference in fee schedule. I would gladly pay the $200 to have the appropriate fee paid for the ‘LC’ zoning that I did ask for. I would like to ask you to vote for the citizen’s wishes on this matter and the landowner’s wishes and approve ‘LC’ zoning. Last I would say that if we chose to rule again today in favor of the proposal in front of you, then I ask the Commission to waive the fees for a re-application to ‘LC’ which will be submitted. Are there any questions?” CARRAHER “Are there any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody in the gallery who wishes to speak in favor of this issue? Seeing none, are there any members of the gallery who are in opposition to this issue? Okay, we will bring it back to the Commission.” HENTZEN “Marvin, do you think that the property north of there that empties up to Maple is going to be requested to be commercial?” KROUT “We haven’t had any inquiries, but probably at some point in the future, yes. Some type of non-residential.” HENTZEN “On the east side of this corridor there are a few houses between there and Maple. Not very many. But there is also some empty property. Since we have closed all of the streets west of Julia down to Taft, it made Julia really an arterial street. There are a lot cars coming into Julia going west on Taft and then getting into those businesses down west. I think it is even going to increase because there is a new hotel built there and a new furniture building. A brand- new big installation on the east side of the Julia area. So what I am thinking about is that if this applicant wants to apply for Light Commercial, as opposed to what has been asked for today, that we should reject this request and ask him to go ahead and apply for the Light Commercial. I have no problem with voting for the request today that gives him some commercial on Julia with the duplexes on the back of the lot, but it just appears to me that that whole street up to Maple, if it be properly divided by one of these nice masonry walls, would be appropriate all the way up to Maple. I am just prepared to vote for the request, but I don’t think that the residential will ever expand on Julia Street on the west side or the east side. So lets try to do something that would make it interesting to an investor to put some commercial in there.” CARRAHER “Are there any other questions or commentary on the issue?” JOHNSON “Marvin, what are our options on something like that?” KROUT “You can’t approve a more intense zoning category than what has been applied for or advertised. I think that you could direct the staff to re-advertise this tract for ‘LC’ zoning. You don’t have the authority to waive fees, and I think because we would be doing a new advertising and new notice that we ought to collect the difference in the fees to help pay for that anyway, but I think that if you feel that ‘LC’ may be an appropriate category for the entire acreage, you could direct us to go through a re-advertisement. We would send new notices out and then about 6 weeks from now, we probably would be back, talking about ‘LC’ zoning for the entire tract. I am not suggesting necessarily that staff would recommend that, but you could certainly do that.” JOHNSON “Who, from staff, was at this D.A.B. meeting?” KNEBEL “I was there.” JOHNSON “It appears that the neighbors were not in favor of the duplex zoning.” KNEBEL “That was quite clear in their comments that at least the four people who came would be more interested in seeing commercial rather than duplexes.” GAROFALO “I want to ask the applicant a question. Will you take the podium? Clarify for me, you would rather have Light Commercial on the whole site?” JORDAN “Yes. For several reasons.” GAROFALO “Okay. I think I got the reasons. That is all I wanted to clear up. You aren’t wanting the duplex zoning on the west side.” JORDAN “I guess clarification is in order. We felt we were bowing to pressures to go with ‘NR’ and duplex zoning, so we acquiesced and went from ‘LC’ to the other. We always wanted ‘LC’ and felt that this street deserved that kind of zoning, or would benefit from that type of zoning. The reason for the change is a little more complex. If we are going to have additional street right-of-way dedication, and I am working under the plan before you, that takes away from a 174 foot lot, precious frontage for both landscape and the street-right-of-way. So with the neighborhood opinions being voiced, with the compounding issues, we feel that the entire plot is best served in the ‘LC’ zoning. I would accept the current zoning if I can’t get the waiver of fees because it wouldn’t make much sense to come out of this meeting room without anything. So if we vote in favor of the current plan before you today, then I guess it is up to me to pay a new fee and re-submit it for ‘LC’, which I could decide at a later date.” WARREN “Just a couple of points for clarification. He was never denied Limited Commercial, he just simply didn’t go ahead with that 1999 application. Is that correct?” KROUT “Right.” WARREN “So now I guess we either have to act on this…we can’t do anything other than act on this request or can we defer it to another point?” KROUT “You could act to approve what he has requested; you could act to approve Neighborhood Retail and Single- Family zoning on the back if you think duplexes is not what the neighborhood wants and you have a concern about that. My other suggestion was that you could direct a re-hearing and we would collect the $200 for the larger area and the change to ‘LC’ zoning and then do a re-advertisement and notification. But I do hear the applicant saying that he doesn’t want to pay that additional fee.” JORDAN “Excuse me, Marvin, if the $200 is acceptable to the upgrade instead of a new $850 fee, then I would be glad to submit that.” KROUT “Sure. We would do that.” MOTION: That the item be deferred, and that the applicant pay the difference between what has been paid and a request for Light Commercial. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion. KROUT “We will have to calculate it, but whatever the difference is between what has been paid and what the fee would be for ‘LC’ on this tract, and then we will re-advertise it and go to the District Advisory Board again.” GAROFALO “Just a point of order, I guess. Since this is a public hearing, don’t we have to ask if there is anyone here to speak one way or the other?” CARRAHER “We already did.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I heard staff say that they may not support that if it comes to that. You are the ones that initially talked to him about Neighborhood Retail as opposed to Light Commercial, is that right?” KROUT “That’s right, but we may come back to you and recommend Neighborhood Retail on the whole acreage instead of Limited Commercial and then your option is to approve anything from ‘LC’ down. This just gives you more options.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Okay, thanks.” PLATT “I just want to make it clear that while I am prepared to support the request today, I have some concerns about approving ‘LC’ zoning on the west side of the site, which seems to me is moving into a residential neighborhood. The fact that there were four people who wanted the whole thing commercial, I don’t think has anything to do what might happen if a hearing were advertised to turn that side of the side into a commercial activity. We could have an entirely different approach then if we are going to have commercial all along Brummet. Right now I would be strongly opposed to commercial activity along Brummet. I think that would be defeating the whole purpose of trying to screen residential neighborhoods from commercial activity. So I have no objection to postponing, but I certainly don’t want people to think that I am going to support ‘LC’ zoning in that whole area.” WARREN “For clarification, Marvin. If we come back with a new application for Limited Commercial, we could, then opt to downgrade that to ‘NR’ without any other applications?” KROUT “Yes. You could go ‘NR’ and Single-Family; or ‘NR’ and duplex.” HENTZEN “Now, what is the motion? I couldn’t hear it very well.” JOHNSON “It’s to defer it and re-advertise it for ‘LC’ Limited Commercial zoning and that he pay the fee for an ‘LC’ application in lieu of what he has already paid…the difference.” HENTZEN “What is the time frame on that? How long will the staff need to process that?” KROUT “Four to six weeks. To the next Planning Commisson hearing. We have a notice list that is probably up-to-date, so we will just have to look at the next agenda.” HENTZEN “Okay.” CARRAHER “Are there any further questions or comments regarding the motion? If not, we will move to a voice vote.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor. There was no opposition. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Case No. ZON3000-00035 - Andy P. Stephens and Robert C. Nelson (owners and contract purchasers); Edward E. and Wanda L. Boyles (owners); PEC c/o Rob Hartman (agent) request a zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family to “NR” Neighborhood Retail on property described as: We hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct list of the property owners of the hereinbefore described tracts and lots within a 200 foot radius of: A tract in the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 27 South, Range 1 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the East line of said Section 20, 1173 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence West parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 230 feet; thence South 94.7 feet; thence East 230 feet to a point in the East line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 94.7 feet to the point of beginning. The East 40 feet thereof being reserved for road purposes. and A tract in the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 27 South, Range 1 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the East line of said Section 20, 983.6 feet North of the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 20; thence West parallel with the South line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 20, a distance of 230 feet; thence North 94.7 feet; thence East 230 feet to a point in the East line of said Section 20; thence South 94.7' to beginning, the East 40 feet of said tract reserved for road purposes. Generally located on the west side of Tyler Road approximately 1/3 mile south of Central. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting “NR” Neighborhood Retail on two unplatted tracts of land located on the west side of Tyler Road approximately 1/3 mile south of Central. Each tract is 17,993 square feet in size. Combined, the application area is 0.83 acre. The applicants, Robert C. Nelson and Andy P. Stephens, own the southern tract and have a contract to purchase the northern tract. They have indicated they would like to construct a medical office on the southern tract and a retail optical outlet on the northern tract. The applicants originally requested “NR” for the entire application area. However, the building being planned for the southern tract is approximately 5,000 square feet on the main level, with a 5,000 square foot basement. This would be 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, which would exceed the size limitation of 8,000 square feet for a single commercial use in “NR.” Therefore, they have changed their request to “GO” General Office for the southern tract in order to accommodate the larger building size. This revision can be incorporated into this application since “GO” is a less intensive zoning district than “NR.” However, there may be other limitations that restrict the size of the building. These would include compatibility setbacks along the south property line, landscaping along Tyler Road and the south property line, and parking requirements. Also, additional dedication of right-of-way on Tyler would be anticipated at the time of platting, which would further limit the size of the tracts. The property is located immediately south of the entrance to Westlink Village Apartments, which is part of DP-9, Westlink Center. Most of the property north of the apartment complex entrance is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial, including an AutoZone and the shopping area at Westlink Center on the southwest corner of Central and Tyler. All corners of the Central and Tyler intersection are developed with a variety of retail uses. There is one house immediately north of the AutoZone that was rezoned in 1996 to “LC.” Three houses remain zoned “SF-6” between the AutoZone and the intersection, with two being currently offered “for sale.” Wilbur Middle School is located across Tyler to the east. To the south, the property is zoned “SF-6” and is occupied by several residences. There is a drainage ditch along the west. The property beyond the drainage ditch and Wood Lane consists of single-family residences. The northern tract, which adjoins the entrance to Westlink Village, is vacant. A single-family residence is located on the southern tract. CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted. A zoning request from “AA” Single-Family to “BB” for the southern tract was denied (Z-2742) April 1, 1986. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC”; “SF-6” Apartments, retail uses, three residences SOUTH: “SF-6” Residences EAST: ”SF-6” Wilbur Middle School WEST: “SF-6” Residences, drainage ditch PUBLIC SERVICES: The property is located along Tyler Road, an arterial street. Traffic counts for 1997 were 18506 ADTs on the south leg of the intersection of Central and Tyler. Projected volumes for 2030 are 24,499. The southern tract has one existing drive entrance onto Tyler. There is no curb cut to the northern tract. Tyler is improved as a four- lane arterial with no left-turn storage or right-turn lanes in front of the subject property. Currently, a short right-turn accel/decel lane begins at the northern edge of the AutoZone and ends at the edge of the major opening to the Westlink Village Apartments. The major opening has a divided entrance with one lane entering and two lanes exiting onto Tyler. Tyler carries a heavy volume of through traffic. Also, the presence of Wilbur Middle School on the eastern side creates heavy turning movements during the beginning and ending of the school day. The CIP has scheduled addition of a continuous two-way left turn lane from Maple to Central in 2007. Public water and sewer services are available. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Wichita Land Use Guide” of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as “low density residential.” The adjacent property to the north is identified as “commercial.” “Commercial Locational Guidelines” for small-scale commercial sites include (1) being located adjacent to arterial streets that provide needed ingress and egress in order to avoid traffic congestion, and not feeding directly onto local residential streets; (2) having required site-design features that limit noise, lighting and other aspects of commercial activity that may adversely impact surrounding residential areas, (3) being in compact clusters rather than strip developments, and (4) guiding commercial uses located in planned centers toward established areas of similar development. “Office Locational Guidelines” include (1) being located adjacent to arterial streets; (2) local, service-oriented offices being incorporated within or adjacent to neighborhood and community scale commercial development, and (3) having low- density office use as a transitional land use between residential uses and higher intensity uses. RECOMMENDATION: This property represents the edge to commercial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. The character of Tyler Road from Maple to 21st Street North is that of heavily traveled arterial street with commercial uses clustered on the corners of the intersections at Maple, Central, 13th and 21st. The mid-mile locations, however, were developed with residences, most of which face directly onto Tyler. Other mid-mile location uses include Wilbur Middle School, churches, a cemetery, a day care, and several offices. There are several mid-mile office uses already located along Tyler, primarily north of Central. The unifying characteristic of all mid-mile office locations is that they all are developed in a residential character, including a pitched roof and building materials compatible with the surrounding residential areas, or are located in residences that have been remodeled for office use. The result has been to encourage continued residential use in the mid-mile locations along Tyler Road. The application area has served as the boundary between residential and commercial use on the western side of Tyler, south of Central. Any zoning change to these tracts needs to retain a strong buffer between the residential and commercial uses, and restrict any negative impact of traffic flow along Tyler. Based on these considerations and upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and subject to the following. A. APPROVE the zone change to “NR” Neighborhood Retail for the northern 94.7 feet of the application area. B. APPROVE the zone change to “GO” General Office for the southern 94.7 feet of the application area. C. The property shall be subject to a Protective-Overlay with the following conditions: 1. The property shall be developed with a building that has a residential character, and that includes brick, masonry, wood or composite siding; a double-pitched roof with a minimum vertical rise of 4 inches for every twelve inches; and a maximum height of 25 feet. 2. The southern 94.7 feet shall be restricted to only those uses permitted in the “NO” Neighborhood Office district. Property development standards, including but not limited to minimum lot size, width and setbacks shall be those of the “NO” Neighborhood Office district. 3. Freestanding signs shall be monument type with a maximum height of 10 feet. 4. The northern 94.7 feet shall have no point of access onto Tyler Road; the southern 94.7 feet shall be restricted to one point of access onto Tyler Road. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The land north and northeast is commercial; the land to the northwest is multi-family. The property across Tyler Road is zoned “SF-6” but is the site of Wilbur Middle School. All property to the south and west is residential, and includes other residences facing onto Tyler and a drainage ditch along the rear of the application area. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: In particular, the northern tract has remained vacant, probably due to its proximity to the commercial uses to the north. It is unlikely any “SF-6” development would occur on this property. The southern tract is developed with a residence and could continue to be used in this manner. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: “GO“ General Office allows office uses, a few commercial uses, a wide range of public and civic uses, and a range of residential uses that would not be permitted in “SF-6” district. Approval of the zoning request might increase pressure for more office uses along Tyler Road south toward Maple. However, the P-O to restrict the “GO” tract to “NO” uses would eliminate the more intense commercial uses. Additionally, the site size eliminates some of public, civic, and higher intensity residential uses. The drainage ditch provides rear yard separation between the adjacent tract and the residences to the east. This eliminates some of the potential conflicts between the “GO” uses and the “low density residential” uses. The separation of the “NR” tract with a “GO” tract that has been restricted to “NO” uses should reduce pressure for encroachment of other commercial uses to the south. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The requested change in zoning classification is not in conformance with the Wichita Land Use Guide, although there is a precedence for “office” designation on the Land Use Guide in other similar locations along Tyler Road. The “NR” tract would be a buffer between the “LC” tract to the north, which is in conformance with Commercial Locational Guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The major impact is the projected increase in traffic along an arterial street where turning movements would impede the traffic flow. This could be mitigated by limiting driveways as recommended, and extending the accel/decel lane across the front of the property. GOLTRY “This request was originally filed for ‘NR’ Neighborhood Retail for this small tract on the north, which is about .4 of an acre and ‘GO’ restricted to ‘NO’ uses for this equally sized, about .4 of an acre site here (indicating). It is located along Tyler Road, 1/3 mile south of Central. The applicants would like to build an optometrist’s office on the southern tract, which is the office use, and have a retail outlet for eyewear; an optical shop, on the northern tract. The reason for the request for ‘GO’ rather than for ‘NO’ is because they had potentially thought that their building would exceed the 8,000 square foot maximum size limits for ‘NO’ Neighborhood Office. That is because they were looking at building a 5,000 square foot building on the main level with a 5,000 square foot basement. Immediately to the north of the tract is a divided entrance to the Westlink Village Apartments, which is zoned ‘LC’. Then we have the AutoZone. There is a little house that has been rezoned ‘LC’. I believe an application was filed on Monday for the rezoning of these two houses (indicating) to ‘LC’. The rest of this tract is ‘LC’, all the way up to Central, then you have commercial activities and you come down to the Braum’s. Then there is a transition to a different type of land use. We have Wilbur Middle School. When you go south of the application area, we are into residential zoning and residential