METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 30, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, March 30, 2000, at 1:30 p.m., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Frank Garofalo, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; Susan Osborne-Howes (late arrival); George Platt; Ray Warren; and Harold Warner, Jr. Chris Carraher; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis and Deanna Wheeler were not present. Staff members present were: Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Lisa Verts, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Associate Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1a. Approval of MAPC minutes for January 27, 2000. GAROFALO “Are there any corrections or changes to these?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I think there must be a page left out. I am sure I talked more than it shows. That is the only comment I have.” GAROFALO “Is that on the minutes for the 27th?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I think so. I’m sorry I am late. I think that is the meeting I noted that on.” WARREN “I couldn’t hear her comment.” GAROFALO “She said there may be some of her comments that may be missing.” OSBORNE-HOWES “It was toward the end of Item No. 12, Other Matters. But that is all and I don’t want to slow things up for that.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes of January 27, 2000 as submitted. WARREN moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). 1b. Approval of revised minutes for special MAPC meetings of February 3, 2000 and February 10, 2000. LOPEZ “I have some corrections on the February 3 minutes. I will give them to the secretary.” GAROFALO “Is there anything else on the February 3 minutes?” WARREN “I’ve got one on Page 16. I will give it to the Secretary, too. It isn’t that much, just a couple of words.” GAROFALO “Okay. Can I have a motion, then?” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Department approve the minutes for the February 3, 2000 special meeting.. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). GAROFALO “And now the minutes for February 10.” HENTZEN “I have just two minor changes on the February minutes. On Page 1, in the large paragraph next to the last paragraph. I was making some comments and it reads ‘it is an overflow of the media saying to government that when two City Commissioners or two County Commissioners or two of any body talk about something, it is absolute proof of conspiracy, that they are conspiring against some fellow citizen’. Then I said ‘that is a bold-faced lie’. It says live. Then on Page 3, down near the bottom where Commissioner McKay is speaking, ‘We got this from Mr. McGinn’ should say ‘Mrs. McGinn.’ That is Carolyn McGinn, the County Commissioner. And that is all.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anything else?” PLATT “I have a few words to change on Page 8. I will give them to the secretary.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes for February 10, 2000 as amended. JOHNSON moved, WARNER, and it carried unanimously (9-0). -------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Review final language on Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and authorize Chairman to sign resolutions approving the 2030 Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. GAROFALO “Does anybody have any questions or comments on the final changes? To me, they look like they are changes that we had approved.” LOPEZ “I have a question. On No. 61 under MAPC policies, it references Page 14, then we have bold, italicized and italicized. Are both of those changes? The one that says Page 14 replace. We have that bold italicized and then we have italicized.” GAROFALO “Oh, I see what you are saying. The objectives are in bold.” WARREN “We are striking the bold italicized?” LOPEZ “No, we are striking the italicized.” WARNER “One is what staff recommends and the other is what we approved.” LOPEZ “The bold italicized is what we approved?” WARNER “No. We are going to change the bold.” GAROFALO “To be consistent with the way the rest of it shows.” PLATT “The one we approved? That doesn’t make sense.” GAROFALO “That was taken directly off of Commissioner McGinn’s suggested wording.” PLATT “Dave Barber is here if you have questions.” LOPEZ “So the bold italicized is what we are approving.” GAROFALO “Right.” LOPEZ “Then, on Page 20, the italicized there. We are approving that also?” GAROFALO “Right.” LOPEZ “Okay.” GAROFALO “Now on the map that goes along with that, are we going to delete that corridor line or whatever we had?” DAVE BARBER “Yes. Jamsheed plans on deleting that from the map in the Transportation element.” GAROFALO “Okay. Does everybody understand that? Is there anything on Page 32 changed? It just dawned on me that on Strategy 11a. 2 on Page 32, that we say ‘enforce existing housing codes and statutes’. Should the word state be in there?” BARBER “I think it is a generic term that would apply to state and local regulations. That is the wording that you approved a few weeks ago.” GAROFALO “Right. Okay, does anybody else have anything?” LOPEZ “Jamsheed just passed out these corrections.” GAROFALO “These are things that we have already tentatively approved. Is that right, Jamsheed?” JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff “That is right. We talked about this soon after the public hearings, and we are changing one whole paragraph in its entirety, primarily to deal with the Northwest Bypass project, and then the southeast transportation study. So this is new language to replace the previous paragraph. That is what I called Page 2, regional highways. On Page 3, we are just striking out three words ‘for turning movements’ and just leaving it at ‘additional lanes’. The next one is a footnote at the bottom of a table where we have KDOT projects that we consider to be KDOT responsibility over the 30 year period. We just want to identify that these are based on our assumptions of what would be the funding sources at that time. KDOT approval has not necessarily been granted yet. And then the final one, Map 7; some of these are corrections, like we need to show Kellogg as a freeway all the way to wherever it intersects with the Northwest Bypass. It was approved, but we inadvertently left it out in our graphic. Then we already talked about the Southeast Bypass and the Corridor. That is out, to be replaced by a study. Then, 21st Street on the east side between Rock and Webb does not need to be widened any further. And west 13th will remain as a four-lane facility as it is, to be replaced by intersection-type projects but not arterial improvements.” GAROFALO Okay, does anyone have any questions on those changes? Okay, then why don’t we have a motion to approve the final amendments of the Comprehensive Plan. I guess we can take both of those together.” MEHTA “This action is also for you to sign off on a Resolution. If you recall, two weeks ago we didn’t have a Resolution prepared for you then, so we are basically back-dating it.” GAROFALO “Right. I was thinking that we would give approval to these amendments first and then approval of the Resolution.” OSBORNE-HOWES “If you don’t support the Plan and you did not vote to support it, I can understand voting for the amendments, but what should you do about the Resolution then, vote against the Resolution?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Okay. So if you don’t support the plan, you vote against the Resolution.” PLATT “The way it is written here, the Resolution has already been approved.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Yeah. We did approve it.” GAROFALO “Okay, then I guess we did.” MEHTA “This action is only to formalize the previous action in terms of the Resolution so that we can forward it further to the federal agencies. Your official vote was what it was on March 16.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So if enough of us vote against the Resolution, we cannot pass it on? I am just curious.” GAROFALO “The Resolution just substantiates what we have already done, right?” MEHTA “Yes. We are bringing you a Resolution two weeks after the fact.” WARREN “This is just an acknowledgement as I understand it, of what we did.” GAROFALO “That is what I thought and I didn’t think we would need a vote on the Resolution.” MEHTA “Right.” GAROFALO “Okay, I will just sign the Resolution then. Do we have a motion, then, to approve the amendments as presented?” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Department approve the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as presented, and authorize the Chairman to sign resolutions approving the 2030 Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. JOHNSON moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). -------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GAROFALO “We are going to pull items 3/5 and 3/9 for discussion. Are there any others to be pulled? Is there anyone here to speak on any of the other Subdivision items?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Someone contacted me about 11 o’clock last night about item 3/3, the Highland Springs Commercial Addition. I just felt I needed to disclose that.” 3. Subdivision Committee items 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/6, 3/7 and 3/8 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. PLATT moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). 3/1. S/D 99-78 - Final Plat of HARRISON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION, located west side of Broadway, North of 45th Street North.. A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. The Applicant proposes a storage use for the site, requiring no additional on-site sewage disposal. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A revised drainage plan is required. A drainage easement is needed in Lot 5. D. The plat proposes five access openings along Broadway, including one joint opening between Lots 4 and 5. County Engineering has approved the access controls. The joint access opening shall be established by separate instrument. E. County Engineering requests the dedication of additional right-of-way. 60-ft of half-street right-of-way is required from the centerline of Broadway. . F. The recording data and location of the pipeline shall be included on the face of the plat. G. The designation of Broadway as U.S. Highway 81 shall be removed. H. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/2. S/D 00-12 - Final Plat of BENCOR ADDITION, located on the southeast corner of 13th and Woodlawn. A. Existing municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The alley adjoining Lot 2 shall be denoted on the final plat tracing. E. The plat proposes one access opening along each perimeter street. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings being located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. F. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. G. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for additional right-of-way. In lieu of the standard 75-ft half street right-of-way, the Applicant has dedicated an additional 10 foot of right-of-way in conjunction with a “corner clip”. The Applicant shall dedicate a 15-ft contingent right-of-way. The final plat has included this requested dedication of right-of-way. H. The private drive shall be established by separate instrument. I. Traffic Engineering needs to indicate the need for improvements to perimeter streets. No improvements are required. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/3. S/D 00-15 - Final Plat of HIGHLAND SPRINGS COMMERCIAL ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 135th Street West and Central. A. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required. A drainage easement is required. D. The definite location of the KGE temporary easement needs to be provided on the plat. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along the south side of Central, including two joint openings. On the north side of Central two access openings are proposed, including one joint opening. Along 135th St. West, the plat proposes one access opening north of Central and two openings south of Central. For Lot 2, Block B, 150 feet of complete access control is required along 135th St. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. In accordance with the Subdivision regulations, any access openings located within 250 feet of the intersection of Central and 135th St. West are limited to right-turns only, and shall be referenced on the face of the plat; or a guarantee provided for the future construction of a raised medial. The final plat shall reference the access controls in the plattor’s text. F. In accordance with the CUP, the following improvements are required: a) a guarantee for the construction of Central to three lanes between 135th St. West and where the realigned street meets the present location of Central and b) construction of a three lane roadway between the south line of Lot 2, Block A, and the north line of Lot 2, Block B along 135th St. West. G. A temporary road easement for Central Avenue will need to be established by separate instrument until the improvements to the new alignment of Central are completed. H. The joint access openings need to be established by separate instrument. I. A cross-lot circulation agreement shall be provided between the non-residential lots. J. 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. K. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-233) and its special conditions for development on this property. L. 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. M. 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.) N. 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. O. 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. P. 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. Q. 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. R. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. S. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. T. 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 requests a temporary easement to cover their line until Central is realigned. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this plat shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. U. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3/4. SUB 2000-11 - One-step Final Plat of PLAZA CENTRAL OFFICE PARK 2ND ADDITION, located on the south side of Central, east of Greenwich. A. The site is located within the Four Mile Creek sanitary sewer system and will be served by the County. 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. County Engineering requires a sanitary sewer layout. Applicant is reminded that sewer impact fees are significantly higher for development of this plat. B. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A guarantee is required for the extension of City water. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. County Engineering recommends a potential drainage easement on the west line of Lot 1. A utility easement is requested along the south line of Lots 2 and 3. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. In accordance with the Protective Overlay, the plat proposes one access opening along Central and two access openings along Jackson. The access controls are approved. F. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings being located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. G. A cross-lot access and circulation agreement shall be provided. H. Traffic Engineering shall comment on the need for street improvements. A petition was provided with the Plaza Central Office Park Addition to the east which guarantees the paving of Jackson to commercial street standards. Distances shall be shown for all segments of access control. No improvements are required. I. A Notice of Protective Overlay indicating the Protective overlay has been filed with the MAPD shall be submitted. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. T. City Fire Department requires the renaming of Jackson to Jackson Heights. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/6. DED 2000-02 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Julie Gile and Raymond A. Bachicha for property generally located on the south side of Tenth Street, east of Sheridan. Legal Description: The west 4 feet of the east 124 feet of Lot 72, Valley Acres Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the north 10 feet thereof. As a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-05, city Engineering required this additional 4-foot easement to bring the total easement to the 20-foot standard. Planing staff recommended the granting of this dedication be accepted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/7. DED 2000-03 - Dedication of a Street Right-of-Way from Julie Gile and Raymond A. Bachicha for property generally located on the south side of Tenth Street, east of Sheridan. Legal Description: The north 10 feet of Lot 72, Valley Acres Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the west 125 feet thereof. Purpose of dedication: As a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-05, this dedication is being made for the purpose of additional Right-of-way along 10th Street. Planning staff recommended the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/8. DED 2000-04 - Contingent Street Right-of-Way Dedication from Julie Gile and Raymond A. Bachicha for proeperty generally located on the south side of Tenth Street, east of Sheridan. Legal Description: The Lot 72, Valley Acres Additin, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the west 125 feet thereof. Purpose of dedication: As a requirement of a Lot Split No. SUB 2000-05, this Contingent Dedication is being dedicated for the future extension of Mt. Carmel. Planning staff recommended the granting of this dedication be accepted. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 3/5. Case No. SUB 2000-12 - One-Step Final Plat of SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT NO. 3 (NW) ADDITION, located on the north side of 37th Street North and the east side of 135th Street West. A. 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/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. County Engineering requests the extension of the Floodway Reserve going north along the small tributary, and northeast along the large tributary. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along 135th St. West and one opening along 37th St. North. The access controls are approved. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for improvements to 37th St. North and 135th St. West. The applicant shall guarantee the construction to the two-lane rural pavement standard of 37th St. North from 119th St. West to 135th St. West, and of 135th St. West from 37th St. North to the northern entrance of the site. 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. Southwestern Bell requests additional easements. 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. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff, “This plat was approved last week by the Subdivision Committee. The site was previously approved for a conditional use permit for a sewage treatment plant, a public park and a fishery. Although this site is located within the City, the perimeter streets are currently township roads. County Engineering required that the applicant, who was the City of Wichita guarantee the paving of 37th North from 119th Street West to 135th Street West and pave 135th Street from the 37th Street North intersection to the northern entrance of the site. This was approved by the Subdivision Committee as a condition of plat approval. The City objects to the paving requirement due to the minimal traffic generation, although a traffic generation study hasn’t been completed for the site. The Water and Sewer Department estimates that approximately one truck per week would be needed for this unmanned facility. The estimated construction time for the site is approximately 3 years. Again, the Water and Sewer Department desire that the paving requirements reflect that fact. That concludes the staff comments.” JOHNSON “I guess the only thing I would like to say is that I know that I asked that question when we saw it before. We were assured then that all access was going to be paved. Now it seems like they want to change it. If it was an applicant other than the City, would we back up on something that was agreed? I guess I would like to see the minutes of that meeting.” LOPEZ “The minutes on which meeting?” JOHNSON “I guess it would have to be the one where we approved the Conditional Use permit.” GAROFALO “When was that, Dale, do you remember?” MILLER “It was two meetings ago. We do have a legal opinion on that. The comments that were made were basically saying that the City is willing to do what they need to do. It is just the timing, I think, is what the issue is. If we can guarantee that all up front when it is going to be. If it is going to be two or three years before this thing goes that they would like to put off the guarantee until it is actually operating and have a better sense of what is going on in the area. David Warren was here and Gary Wiley is here to speak on that.” GAROFALO “Okay, let’s hear from Gary Wiley.” GARY WILEY “I am here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Warren was here earlier and had another meeting that he had to attend. He asked me to discuss this particular issue. As was commented, the paving of 37th North and 135th West, that is a mile and a half of paving that the County has required would have a cost of somewhere between $500,000 and $600,000. We understand that during the construction phase of this that there will be considerable traffic on this site, but what the applicant would like to do is to perhaps offer to maintain the roadways during the construction time. It could be part of the construction process to maintain the road. We have talked about moving the main entrance through the construction phase clear to the southeast corner, so it is just half a mile from 119th Street West. Mr. Warren has also been in touch with the County and others regarding maybe some shared costs for some of this paving. As was brought up, once the plant is functional, they have about one truck per week that will go to this site. That is an awful lot of money to spend for one truck per week. We have two bridges in the area that cross the Cowskin that both overtop every time it rains practically, so we are not going to make a great deal of improvement by just putting some blacktop down. I would be happy to answer any questions. We would like to see this particular item deferred until a later date.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Gary?” PLATT “Whose idea are these public restrooms you have on the plat?” WILEY “That comes much later, George. Much later in the process. That will not be developed; the Wetlands and everything will not be developed with the plant itself.” WARREN “I don’t have any questions of Mr. Wiley, but I would like to hear from the County Engineer.” GAROFALO “Right. I was going to ask Jim to come on up.” BARFIELD “I have a question for Mr. Wiley. Did you say you would like to have this postponed for a while? What is your reason for that?” WILEY “Not the plat. The requirements for any pavement. We would like to be able to work something out between us and the County on this issue and not have it a requirement by the Planning Commission to pave these roads today.” BARFIELD “Are you aware of any conversation between Mr. Warren and the County?” WILEY “I am. I know there has been contact. Mr. Weber can probably relate to that.” HENTZEN “Is this contiguous with any City property or is it an island annexation?” WILEY “It is an island annexation. That is one of the other issues. I know Mr. Weber didn’t feel like it should be the township’s responsibility and I am sure he will talk to this about maintaining those roads and I have made a suggestion that maybe the City ought to annex the roads and get them out of the township’s jurisdiction and be responsible for the maintenance of them.” HENTZEN “What are you asking for now, to delay this?” WILEY “To eliminate the requirement of the paving at this time.” HENTZEN “Not to eliminate it, just to delay it.” WILEY “Yes, until something more efficient can be worked out.” HENTZEN “And do you think they are talking about County standards or City standards?” WILEY “They are talking County right now. That is a 6 inch asphalt mat, but we are still talking about $500,000 to $600,000.” HENTZEN “Yeah, and what I was thinking was that they are trying to put something in there to attract people.” WILEY “That comes much later, Bud.” HENTZEN “I understand.” WILEY “And at that time it will be different.” HENTZEN “That is what I am saying. Well, if you do that, you should have decent roads going to it.” WILEY “I agree, and I think the City agrees to that, too.” OSBORNE-HOWES “The way the plan was presented in the paper, it looked as if this was going to be a very nice public facility, and now you are saying much later. What are we talking about?” WILEY “Well, we are talking three years, probably, before the plant starts and then another two or three years for a completion period. So we are talking quite a few years down the line.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, when you say much later, I want to know what it means.” WILEY “Yeah. Probably six to ten years later.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Gary? Okay, let’s hear from the County Engineer.” JIM WEBER “I am Deputy Director for Sedgwick County Public Works. I will keep this short like I did last week. I am going to back this up (slides). This is a really nice plan, by the way. We have several concerns. One is that once again we have been looking at their site plan, which does show more than one public use area up there and we have a concern that this will attract people to the area. We are concerned because this wastewater treatment facility is a significant industrial complex and the construction of that is going to require a great deal of concrete and steel, a large number of people, equipment, things coming in and they talk about an extended construction time. They are talking about a couple of years’ worth of construction here. We take that and we draw parallel with the subdivision requirement that if this were a single-family residential subdivision half a mile off of paved road, that developer would be required to get this road paved to County rural standard before the very first building permit ever got pulled in here. We think that this is out in the County, some distance from the City. It is a significant development occurring out there and it is easy to say that these things are going to happen later, but I think that the purpose of the subdivision process is to get all of the guarantees in place when the plat is going in to make sure that will happen. If we don’t put the requirement in here now and figure out if they are going to do part of it and petition part of it, or whatever it is going to be, if we don’t get the requirement in here, then we are all left on our side of the street with trying to explain to people why that didn’t happen. So we continue to request that you leave that requirement in to get this thing paved and have it done at least during construction phase, whatever they are going to be using for construction, and whatever else they need later, but as long as they have entrances to their plant site and their public areas shown up half a mile north of 37th Street, I think we need to consider that that needs to be a paved road. We are talking about the same standard we would apply to residential subdivision. There is nothing extreme here or particularly unusual. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.” JOHNSON “Mr. Weber, in the event that we left it in there, that still wouldn’t keep you guys from meeting and determining whether there would be some alternatives that you could work out and accept, right?” WEBER “That’s right. I mean, if their site plan changed, for example, and they suddenly decided they didn’t need access at the north end, that they were going to route everything to the south end, we are not unreasonable people. We could probably work that out.” GAROFALO “Okay. So you wouldn’t necessarily be talking about paving everything at this point?” WEBER “Well, right now we are, because there is no connection there, so this is the only entrance to this construction site, which is back in this corner. This is where all of the action is going to happen for the first three years, and then once this is developed, I can only expect that if Mr. Wiley is correct, then you develop this as a park area that they are showing and that still brings people up. Another thing I want to bring up, and I think maybe Neil misspoke just a little bit. What they had said previously was that this was going to have a person in the plant every day, one truck a day. The one truck a week, and I am a little fuzzy on this yet, is that there are going to be bio-solids that have to come out of this facility and get trucked down to their Plant No. 2. I am not sure how many trucks that really takes to do it, but those are going to be semi tractor- trailers, which is what they use now inside their own facility to haul the stuff around, so if this stays as a sand facility, and I think it has been pointed out, we have a crossing of the Cowskin here and here (indicating) and right now, today, you might be a little ‘iffy’ getting out of there right now without pavement. I think it is acceptable to have the water overflow the road for a short period of time like it probably does, but this thing is not easily maintained in the way it is now, and if the construction traffic and everything is going, we will have a real mess out there.” WARREN “Clarify County standards for me in terms of this being a blacktop, open ditches,….” WEBER “Six inches of asphalt on 6 inches of stabilized sub-grade, either flash or lime; twenty-six foot wide; two lanes and open ditches that have a minimum of 4 to 1 slopes, etc., but it would be open ditch, wouldn’t have any storm sewer. They might have to lengthen or replace some cross road culverts or something in there, but it would be the minimum standard thing for a county road.” WARREN “No curb gutter or storm sewer?” WEBER “No.” BARFIELD “Are you in agreement with Mr. Wiley regarding the estimated cost?” WEBER “We have told the Water Department to figure on $350,000 to $400,00 per mile, so that is going to be $600,000 and we agree with what he is saying.” GAROFALO “But Jim, in response to Commissioner Johnson’s question, what I got out of that was that if we leave the guarantee in here that you all could get together and decide what portions would have to be paved during construction and that sort of thing?” WEBER “What I am trying to say is that if they changed their site plan, this is what we are working off of, this is the site plan that is here, was in the paper, everywhere. This is what we are showing everybody we are doing. Right now, it says that the only was into this plant is right here (indicating). If they want to change their site plan, and I don’t know that they will, but if they do and develop this road (indicating), and make it for crossing over this little drainage system here to get up into their plant and maybe back around to this park area, maybe they could have an emergency access over here, but not to turn this into paved regular daily access, but bring everything half a mile over and front it in here and work it around from this direction, I think that may be a reasonable approach to take. But given the site plan that everybody has, what we have to conclude is that they are either coming across 37th Street and up to get here to do everything or they are coming across 45th Street and down. It is a mile and a half either way. Of course, coming around and down doesn’t get you into this public use area down here, so that wouldn’t make any sense either.” GAROFALO “But it would appear that initially, all of the action, and I doubt that the site plan is going to change, but all of the construction and what-not will be confined to the plant area.” WEBER “The construction is here, but every concrete truck is going to come across 37th Street, across these two bridges (indicating) and up here, and then back in.” GAROFALO “All right. Any other questions?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Before this plant is operational, will the roads be paved?” WEBER “Our suggestion is that they need to pave the access to it before they ever start building.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I understand that, but I am asking when it becomes operational one way or the other, they will be paved?” WEBER “I haven’t heard them say that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Yeah. There is no guarantee of that. So there are really two issues, sort of.” WEBER “I think so.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Okay, thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? Gary, do you want to add anything in rebuttal?” WILEY “I did think of something else I would like to say. Like I said, we are thinking of several different alternatives now. I think Bill brought it up good that maybe something could be worked out with the County at a later day. Maybe right now we look at maybe a phase petition that would have more than one phase in it. I think that might satisfy Mr. Weber in that respect, depending on where the construction entrance might be. I know that Mr. Warren still wants to visit more with the County Commissioners in this district and perhaps even some City staff before he totally agrees, but I think maybe if we could go with the phase petition, that might work.” WARREN “I guess this is coming back to us now? Okay. I have about three thoughts on this. One is that I am impressed with the fact that if this were a developer putting in an industrial plant what we would demand and require of him. I am concerned with that. Two, if it is going to happen anyway, even if they are talking about a reasonable time of somewhere between 3 and 5 years, then I would say why wouldn’t we go ahead and do it so it is done prior to construction or along with construction.” GAROFALO “Yeah, and let them work it out.” WARREN “Right. It is not like it is going to be done or not going to be done, it sounds to me like it is a question of when it is going to be done. Again, if we are going to treat developers this way, I guess we all ought to play by the same rules.” MILLER “I think, just from seeing some notes, I think the answer to that is that that is what their thinking is that they can program this as Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P) projects as opposed to coming up with money out of a separate funding source.” WARREN “Can they fund it with the project? I assume that is going on a general obligation bond, isn’t it?” MILLER “I am not sure how that is set up, I just know that in talking when we were doing the initial stuff, when I asked about paving, I was told that that wasn’t part of this budget. So what they are trying to do is use C.I.P. money, which needs to be spread over a series of years in order to take care of that. I think that is what they are after. If it has to come all at once then I think the utility has to pick it up as part of the rate payments.” JOHNSON “But Dale, all of the hearings that we had on this, I mean it was almost as involved as the Comprehensive Plan, and it seems like all of the things we heard, when they were wanting to get the Conditional Use for it, was that yes, the roads would be paved and all of this, and that is a statement that was made. That is the problem I have with this. Now, all of a sudden, they are ready to start and they want the plat finalized and they want to renegotiate. I thought that was already in that budget.” MILLER “I can understand what you are saying, and I guess what I am trying to emphasize is that I don’t believe that the Water Department is trying to say ‘we are not going to do what we need to do’. All they are saying is that we need to phase it in and time it with the overall project.” WARREN “In answer to that, I am not a fiscal agent and wouldn’t claim to be, but I do know that if working this into their C.I.P. is a hardship, I have known these projects to go in on special assessment bonds with ten years and the city- at-large as a benefit district. Maybe Gary could comment on that. But they could get ten years to pay for it. They don’t have to put it on a C.I.P. obligation bond.” WILEY (From the audience) “The only problem is it’s a County road and you can’t have city obligation bonds on a county road.” WARREN “If they accept it. Take the annexation on out to include the road.” WILEY ”I have suggested that, Mr. Warren, to take all of the road from 119th and let the City be responsible for it.” KNEBEL “The City can’t annex a road unless they have property adjacent.” WARREN “I guess what I am saying is that there is a way for them to spread that cost.” MILLER “There may be. I don’t know anything about it.” WARREN “Yeah. I wouldn’t use that as a very strong criteria for not doing it.” PLATT “I guess I am a little embarrassed by all of this. After sitting in on the public hearings, we had a great deal of people out on the west side of the City very upset about this whole process. It seemed to me that the City was doing everything they could to assure folks that this was going to be a first-class operation and how nice it was going to be. The picnic areas and the parks. And people said these are dirt roads...we are going to have dust. They said ‘oh, no’, they were going to take care of that. And I am embarrassed to come back now and to be asked to be a part of backing out on what I thought we were trying to tell the public was a first-class operation. Secondly, at the Subdivision meeting last week, the first proposal by the City as the applicant was to simply say ‘we don’t want to have to guarantee the paving of the roads’. They didn’t talk about a partial payment plan or phasing it in, which they could have brought to us, they said they didn’t want to do it. MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the plat be approved as submitted by the Subdivision Committee. PLATT moved, BARFIELD seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion?” WARREN “That is subject to all of the conditions that are in the staff report?” PLATT “Yeah.” JOHNSON “I wanted to make sure that if they submitted a different site plan or whatever, that the County and City could work together.” PLATT “Sure.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I absolutely agree with Commissioner Platt.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 9 in favor. There was no opposition. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 3/9. S/D 00-21 - One-Step Final Plat of LORAC FIRST ADDITION, located on the north side of Harry, east side of St. Francis. A. Municipal services appear to be available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A 20-ft utility easement shall be dedicated to cover the existing sanitary sewer line. A hold harmless agreement shall be provided. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. City Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along St. Francis, three access openings along Santa Fe, and two openings along Harry. In accordance with the Protective Overlay, the Applicant shall guarantee the closure of the westernmost driveway opening along Harry. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. Two access openings along St. Francis and two openings along Santa Fe have been approved. E. The County Surveyor has requested additional boundary measurements. F. The legal description in the plattor’s text needs to reference the “Perrys” Addition in addition to the section, township and range. G. The Applicant is reminded of the screening requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance along the north, east and west property lines. H. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way along Harry. Engineering requests the dedication of an additional 20-ft of right-of-way. The portion of that dedication over the existing structures may be a contingent dedication. The plattor’s text shall state that this dedication would be contingent upon removal of the existing structures. I. The final plat tracing should reference a tie point to a section corner. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. STRAHL “This plat is located on the north side of Harry, on the east side of St. Francis. It is a one-lot plat, and the northern portion of the plat was approved for a zone change to ‘LI’ Limited Industrial for the expansion of an existing industrial use. You approved this plat last month. The applicant has requested a reconsideration of this plat today, due to his objection to item ‘H’ in the staff report. That is in regards to right-of-way. Traffic Engineering had asked for an additional 20 foot of right-of-way along Harry to comply with our subdivision regulations, which require a 50-foot half-street right-of-way for arterials. There will be a portion of that dedication over the existing structure and engineering has recommended that that be a contingent right-of-way. That would be triggered upon the removal of that structure. City Engineering does reiterate that they do need that 50-foot half-street right-of-way. Again, all of the other issues have been resolved. That is the only issue that is outstanding and being objected to by the applicant. Are there any questions for staff?” WARREN “I think you made the statement that they said they needed that. I didn’t get that from what I heard in Subdivision. Maybe we will want City Engineering to speak to that. They said it was Subdivision regulation that we do this. In fact I said ‘is there any plan to widen Harry Street?’, and they said ‘no’. I said ‘how would you get the rest of the land if you did?’, and they said ‘well, we would have to buy it’. I submitted at the time that I thought this was the taking of land that we really have no right to with no project that looks like it will be in the future. That is what I heard from City Engineering. I agree that that should be dropped. The other thing we are doing is that we are encumbering that man’s buildings and it is going to show up on title policies, it is going to show up if he tries to mortgage them, and it is going to be a tremendous encumbrance on that land if we try to take that 20-foot easement, one of which we don’t have any need for and don’t have any plans for. I would like to see us delete item H.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, then, is the applicant here?” DOUG KLASSEN “I am with Austin Miller, the agent for the applicant. The applicant is also present. I think he would like to say a few words, but if I could just say first that Harry Street from the river over to Hydraulic, virtually all of the properties are 30 feet half-street right-of-way on both the north and south sides. With the exception of some of the intersections, this would be the only property that would have that 50-foot right-of-way, so as Mr. Warren said, there are no plans by the City to do a project at this time along that corridor and if there were, they would have a great deal of property to obtain. I don’t know that this one would make that much difference. Also, the applicant has indicated to me that he is planning an expansion at this time, but if he is going to have to give up that 20-foot of right-of-way, then he is probably not going to be able to do that expansion at the risk of losing his main two buildings for his operation. The applicant, Bob Herring and I would like to ask him now if he would like to say a few words on this.” ROBERT HERRING “Good afternoon. I live at 643 North Brownthrush here in Wichita. In 1986, I started a business of building window-well covers, and I put an ad in Penny Power and my first week I was in business. I started out, quite frankly, making them out of wood in my garage. Since then, we have evolved. We have a good business, we have coverage across the United States to cover daylight window-wells. We also have now gone into manufacturing parts for other companies and we also do powder coating. We presently have 18 employees and would like to hire more, but we have no place to put them. The dedication request on these two buildings would approximate 3,000 square feet of an approximate 12,000 square feet facility. In addition to that, it would simply eliminate the southeast corner building and it would probably reduce my other building in half. Of course, if I have to do this, remove the existing structure, it is going to be up to Code when I bring it back. The cost is going to be unreasonable, so I feel it is unfair to request something that you have done here that there are no immediate plans in the future that you need the area for. If, at some time down the road, you do need the area, fine. I am sure we could work something out. But I would like some remuneration. I don’t think I should be held responsible for the extreme dollar amount that I believe would be involved if the decision is made and you decided that you wanted it. Does anyone have any questions?” WARNER “On your building now, do they encroach on this 20 feet? Are they on this 20 feet at this time?” HERRING “No, sir.” KLASSEN “They are across the requested 20 feet. They do cross that. One of them by the full 20 feet. (Indicating) This one, as you can see, the building lies right on the property line, so the full 20 feet would encroach that building, and then this one (indicating) approximately 10 feet.” HERRING “I might point out that that corner building is a two-story building, so we have more than just the approximate 2,000 square feet, we have 4,000 in effect.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So the building is there now and you intend to have it stay there?” HERRING “We would like to have it stay there, yes. We have recently acquired some adjacent property with the intention of building another building.” OSBORNE-HOWES “In addition to this building?” HERRING “In addition to what we have now, but if it starts cutting it back so much, I don’t know how much more adjacent property we can get, so we may be limited as to what we can do in the present area.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this case?” VICKI HUANG “I am from City Engineering. The 50-foot standard right-of-way is in the Subdivision Regulations for arterial streets, so this is to adhere to the Subdivision Regulations. We are not asking them to remove the building at this time because the contingent street dedication will be contingent upon the removal of the building. So the building stays. That is still his ground, but I think it is important to start and adhere to the Subdivision Regulations for the arterial street. As you can see, the existing pavement is almost to the property line. There is no room at all to that. We don’t know when, but in the future there will be a need to widen Harry Street. We have to start somewhere. Along the way, if anybody comes in to plat, we will make the same requirement.” JOHNSON “Vicki, since that is a contingent dedication, and as long as the structure is there and they are using the structure, you can’t use it for right-of-way. What can trigger that? Is the only thing that can trigger that is in the event that the owner tears the building down?” HUANG “If they tear it down, then they cannot build back into the same area, or if the City really got a project going, and the building is still there, then the City will have to condemn the building and buy that at that time.” WARREN “I don’t want to question this too much, but I would certainly like to have a legal opinion on what she just said. I think that a contingent dedication is a conditional deed, and I think the only thing to trigger that is their desire to widen that road. I don’t think that there is anything in those contingent dedications that requires that they go in and start compensating somebody. I want to see that. I think what we have done is given the City a conditional deed that they can trigger. Let’s ask her questions and then I have another comment or two.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Vicki then?” MILLER “I would just remind the Commission that if you go back and look at the history of planning, one of the earliest things that Planning Commissions ever did was to make sure that streets made sense and that they lined up, and that you had adequate right-of-way to take care of the proposed development. I would just echo the fact that you have to start somewhere. It may be years before a project goes on, but if you don’t get it as piece-by-piece, and you look at a lot of the square-mile maps that we have, there are little pieces here and there and eventually they all line up and make sense, and you can use them, but you have to get them when you have a chance to get them, when they come through, or you won’t get them.” LOPEZ “I have just a procedural question for the Chair. We, as the Subdivision, approved this on February 17, 6-0. Then, the whole Planning Commission approved it on February 24, 12-1. Procedurally, then, this should have gone on to the City Council, correct?” WARREN “I don’t think we did. I thought it was withdrawn.” LOPEZ (Indicating) “No. Right there is the proof. It should have gone on to the City Council. Then, if the City Council would have felt that there was reason for reconsideration, they would have sent it back to us. My question is why is it back to the Planning Commission?” GAROFALO “Well, that is a good point. I didn’t realize that we had already approved this.” STRAHL “It never did go to the City Council. The applicant requested that it be reconsidered today.” LOPEZ “Is that going to be the procedure now that every time an applicant doesn’t like what is going to happen?” STRAHL “He was appealing that item.” LOPEZ “Well, I am saying from now on any applicant that doesn’t like the decision that is made can start bringing it back before it goes to City Council? Who approved it to come back? Somebody had to approve it to come back.” MILLER “The applicant has the right to appeal a condition established by the Subdivision Committee to the full Planning Commission.” LOPEZ “But the full Planning Commission had approved it on February 24. I remember it. It should have gone on to the City Council, shouldn’t it?” MILLER “Yeah, I am not sure why it is back.” GAROFALO “That is a good point, Richard. I think maybe we should just let it proceed on to the City Council. It was already approved. Let it proceed to the City Council. Would they hear an appeal from the applicant at City Council?” STRAHL “Our regulations say that the City Council approves dedications, so that probably would be the case.” OSBORNE-HOWES “You all know that our agendas are pretty long anyway, and it seems to me like the time for the applicant to do this was at the time we looked at it. It seems to me that we ought to just send it on.” WARREN “There has been a lot of comment on this, and I agree a little bit with Dale, we do need, as new developments come up, to get the necessary rights-of-way, but I don’t think that our Subdivision Regulations making these demands can go back into old developments and say ‘I want to take this case’. This fellow wants to build a building, he didn’t want to plat his land. We said to build this building and to get an application, we wanted him to plat. So we sucked him into the platting process. In that platting process we said ‘now, you come under our subdivision regulations and now we want some of your land’. Of course, I think he will beat the hell out of us in court, and I hope he does.” MOTION: That the case be forwarded on to the City Council. LOPEZ moved, PLATT seconded the motion. GAROFALO “I’m not even sure that we need a motion to do anything. But I guess it would be all right. Is there any discussion?” HENTZEN “I just want to tell you that we are working diligently on certain cases to try to keep businesses and people from moving away from the core area or center city, and I know of another case exactly like this where the owner of the business wants to build a building, but the city got a 30-foot dedication or setback and for that reason, he can’t do what he wants to do with his own property in the downtown area. We are trying desperately to not let this property all die. I realize that the Subdivision regulations contain what the staff says that there is a 50-foot requirement on an arterial street, but it doesn’t say that they get it free. If the City wants that land, then buy it. If they are going to use eminent domain or use our power of not giving the applicant what they want, then to make him give it to them free, I think it is an absolute taking of the man’s property. Now, I think it is significant that there is nothing planned for down there on Harry Street, and it could be a long time before anybody on this board that is still here that would be able to think about it and talk about it at that time. So what I am saying to you concerning the procedure that Mr. Lopez brought up, I think it is a good idea. What is this doing before us? It should be worked out. We should make it easier or whatever we can do, but I am telling you that I am not in favor of taking people’s property without paying for it.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I think as much as possible we ought to stick to the specific issues here. Those are things that we ought to save for a time when we don’t have long agenda. But my thought is that this person is not being kept from doing anything. At this point, it sounds like his agent ought to talk to the applicant. He just may not understand this exactly. Maybe the agent doesn’t, I don’t know. I suggest we move it on.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 8 votes in favor (Lopez, McKay, Johnson, Osborne-Howes, Garofalo, Platt and Warner), and 1 in opposition (Warren). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- GAROFALO “There are two ladies here who wanted to speak on Subdivision item 3/3 and apparently misunderstood the procedure, so I think we will hear from them so that their comments can be in the minutes. “ DOROTHY OVERFIELD “I live at 601 North Forestview Court. I am sorry, I was waiting to hear you say Highland Springs name mentioned, and I don’t believe I did, not to my knowledge. I would just like to say that I hope you can help me to understand the decisions that are being made considering the Far West Side Policy. I know this won’t make a change in your vote, but maybe it will help me to realize. This is a copy of the Far West Side Commercial Development Policy, dated April 23, 1996, signed by Marvin Krout. I just want to refresh your memory about the Far West Side Policy. The scale of development at nine intersections of Maple, Central and 13th Street North, with 119th, 135th and 151st Streets west should be limited as follows: Our corner is Central and 135th. In fact, our wall is in the right turn lane, right across from 135th Street. The assigned commercial within one mile of there are Maple and 135th, 28 acres; 13th and 135th, 24 has been assigned; 119th and Central, there is 10.6; 151st Street and Central, possibly 24. It has been identified as a major commercial corner in the Wichita Land Use Guide, so it will probably 24 acres. That means there is over 85 acres of commercial property within our one mile. I am not going to read all of this, but there area couple of paragraphs that I would like to read to you from the MAPC minutes of October 15, 1998. Commissioner Fulp asked this question. ‘In light of the strong opposition by the local residents to this project, and what appears to be a lack of conformity, per se, of the Westside Development Policy, and the CPO’s unanimous vote to reject this, and even our own recent MAPD survey, which we saw a presentation of earlier today, where 65% of those surveyed indicated disagreement with commercial on every one mile corner. I don’t quite understand staff’s recommendation to approve this, other than some of the generic language that we see in recommendations on almost every project that comes before us, could you elaborate on this in light of the opposition, and in light of the things I outlined’? Mr. Krout said ‘we have an official policy that has been adopted by the City Council, and we think that it is still applicable. It is interesting information that we found out from the survey that a lot of people apparently don’t think that the policy of commercial at every mile intersection is necessarily a good policy. But I think that that is a discussion that the Planning Commission needs to hold over the next several months’. I am not sure you all have had that discussion yet. Then he also said ‘out of a dozen or so policies that were adopted as the Far West Policy, there is only one that this one is technically violating. They are complying with all of the others. The one that they are asking for, two more acres on one of these two parcels that they are gaining by way of alignment. Two more acres than the four acres per corner, which is the guideline and the policy’. And of course, Highland Springs has 10.84 acres, not counting the road that they are going to be putting through. And I know that this isn’t up today, but Ziegler’s property on the northeast corner of this area has 2.3 acres that has been approved, subject to platting. So I guess what we are really wanting to know is where it is going to end? And what about all of the petitions that we had signed, a lot of signatures and the protest petitions that we had, 87 per cent. You know, when we come before you, we would like to think that our neighborhood has an input in these decisions, but it seems to be between the City and the developer. That is all I have to say. I appreciate your taking the time to listen to me, even if my voice was a little shaky.” GAROFALO “Ma’am, the information that we are given here is that the City Council did deny the zone change and it went to court and the court reversed the denial.” OVERFIELD “Right. And that is another thing. Why aren’t we notified? We didn’t know that this had even happened.” GAROFALO “About the court case?” OVERFIELD “Well, we knew that the developer had a lawsuit against the City, but we were never told when it went to court. Who gets to testify? The neighbors didn’t have any input; the opposition. And also, on Ziegler’s land, I might say, it was supposed to have been platted by February 9 of this year and we didn’t hear anything, so we thought ‘oh, gosh, good, they have changed their minds’. Well, unbeknown to us, the City had given them a years’ extension and we would not have know that if we hadn’t asked if they changed their minds. They said no, but they are not required to notify us of the extension. We just feel like we are kind of left out of things.” MILLER “We try to notify folks if we know they are interested. The court case thing, it is just not standard procedure to notify folks. There is a whole separate process that the courts follow when those cases are filed.” OVERFIELD “Well, that is what we were told that they are not required to notify us.” MILLER “We try to do courtesy notices as best we can and maybe we could have done better on this if we had known. You are raising issues for the first time, at least with this current staff about who needs to be notified and when that we have not had before.” OVERFIELD “We had also asked to be notified when they did the platting of the Ziegler’s property, which was flooded in the Halloween flood, and I know that you all don’t take flooding into consideration, but being we hadn’t been notified we thought that nothing was done, and yet it was a letter that we asked them to send us a copy of later, and it was signed by Chris Cherches and Mayor Bob Knight.” MILLER “So far they hadn’t submitted a plat, and until they submit one, we wouldn’t notify you.” OVERFIELD “But why does it say that if it is not platted within a year that it is considered denied and void, and yet they turn around and say in another letter that they have an extension?” MILLER “Because there is a procedure that allows them to request an extension and they can get that done. It is standard process. But your request was to be notified when a plat was turned in and a plat hasn’t been turned in.” OVERFIELD “Well, I appreciate your time. Thank you. And please, if possible, try not to give us any more commercial property out there. Or keep it to where it is Neighborhood Office so there isn’t the noise and lights all night in our back yards, which it literally will be.” GAROFALO “Well, apparently that attempt was made by the City Council, but the court said otherwise.” OVERFIELD “Thank you very much for letting me speak.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone else? Ma’am, did you want to speak? Okay.” ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. VAC2000-00001 - Request to vacate a portion of a 25-foot platted building setback, located south of Central at the NE corner of Cedar Downs and Cedar Downs Court. Legal: That part of Lots 3 and 4, The Havens, an Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner common to said Lots 3 and 4, thence N09deg51’26”W along the lot line common to said Lots 3 and 4, 16.11 feet to a point 15.00 feet normally distant northwest of the southeast line of said Lots 3 and 4, and for a point of beginning; thence southwesterly parallel with the southeast line of said Lots 3 and 4, being a curve to the left, having a central angle of 16deg20'47" and a radius of 151.71 feet, an arc distance of 43.28 feet, (having a chord length of 43.14 feet bearing S51deg40'29"W), to the P.T. of said curve; thence S43deg30'06"W parallel with the southeast line of said Lot 3, 7.55 feet to a point 25.00 feet normally distant northeast of the southwest line of said Lot 3; thence N46deg29'54"W parallel with the southwest line of said Lot 3, 10.00 feet to a point on the 25 foot building setback line as platted in said Lots 3 and 4; thence N43deg30'06"E along said 25 foot building setback line, 7.55 feet to the P.C. of a curve to the right; thence northeasterly along said curve, having a central angle of 17deg39'04" and a radius of 161.71 feet, an arc distance of 49.82 feet, (having a chord length of 49.62 feet bearing N52deg19'38"E), to a point on the lot line common to said Lots 3 and 4; thence continuing northeasterly along said curve to the right, having a central angle of 09deg09'19" and a radius of 161.71 feet, an arc distance of 25.84 feet, (having a chord length of 25.81 feet bearing N65deg43'50"E), to a point 25.00 feet normally distant northeast of the lot line common to said Lots 3 and 4; thence S09deg51'26"E parallel with the lot line common to said Lots 3 and 4, 10.16 feet to a point 15.00 feet normally distant northwest of the southeast line of said Lot 4; thence southwesterly parallel with the southeast line of said Lot 4, being a curve to the left, having a central angle of 09deg48'18" and a radius of 151.71 feet, an arc distance of 25.96 feet, (having a chord length of 25.93 feet bearing S64deg45'02"W), to the point of beginning. Reason for Request: To reduce the platted 25 foot building setback to a 15 foot side street setback along Cedar Downs Court, in accordance with a lot split requirement. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time March 9, 1000, 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 petitioners (s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a building setback described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning staff “This vacation case was heard before the Subdivision Committee last week and approved. This was essentially a condition of a lot split and it was to shift the side and front yard setback. Other than that, staff has no further comments.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone here to be heard on this item? No one. I will take it back to the Commission then.” MOTION: That the Planning commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). --------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 5a. Case No. SCZ-0793 - Box Development, LLC, c/o Walter Morris (owner); Austin-Miller, P.A. c/o Tim Austin (agent) request zone change from “SF-20” Single-Family Residential to “B” Multi-Family; and 5b. Case No. DP-245 – Box Development, LLC, c/o Walter Morris (owner); Austin-Miller, P.A. c/o Tim Austin (agent) request the creation of Catamaran Cove Community Unit Plan on property described as: A tract of land in the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 26 South, R-1-W of the 6th Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence S 89o32’08” W a distance of 60.00 feet to a Point of Beginning; thence S 89o32’08” W a distance of 1268.35 feet; thence N 00o02’29” W for a distance of 2592.20 feet; thence N 89o29’08” E for a distance of 451.51 to the Northwest corner of Lot 8, Block 1, proposed Hoskinson 2nd Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence S 00o07’35” W for a distance of 206.00 feet; thence N 89o29’08” E for a distance of 294.00 feet; thence S 37o14’41” E for a distance of 42.27 feet; thence S 03o39’56” E for a distance of 275.60 feet; thence S 00o04’46” E for a distance of 220.00 feet; thence S 08o16’47” E for a distance of 68.73 feet; thence S 18o44’14” E for a distance of 713.11 feet; thence S 43o08’57” E for a distance of 68.62 feet; thence S 24o27’58” E for a distance of 139.62” thence S 08o13’33” E for a distance of 141.85 feet; thence N 89o31’53” E for a distance of 120.00 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, proposed Hoskinson 2nd Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence S 00o07’35” W for a distance of 794.05 feet to the Point of Beginning. Generally located on the southwest corner of 37th Street North and Ridge Road. 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 applicant is requesting the creation of a 58.3 acre development, named Catamaran Cove Community Unit Plan, for apartment development near the southwest corner of 37th Street North and Ridge Road. Parcels 1 and 2, comprising 26.5, acres would be zoned “B” Multi-Family, and the Reserve area, comprising 31.8 acres, would be zoned “SF-6” Single Family but be occupied by a lake (Drainage Reserve). The owner of the C.U.P., Box Development, L.LC, is the same owner as DP-242 Ridge Center C.U.P. Together, these developments occupy an area that extends along Ridge Road for one- half mile south of 37th Street North, and is one-fourth mile deep. Ridge Centre C.U.P. was approved for commercial development last year. Parcel 1 of Catamaran Cove is 6.95 acres is size and is located along the southern portion of the C.U.P. It is shown with one point of access onto Ridge Road, immediately north of the location where the Big Slough North that forms the lake in the drainage reserve flows under Ridge Road. Parcel 2 is 19.55 acres and has no point of access shown on the proposed C.U.P. It is an interior parcel, bounded on the north and east by the Reserve, the south by Parcel 1 and west by property owned by a separate property owner, which also contains a lake. Floodplain issues will be a major concern for this tract during the platting process. The boundary of the Drainage Reserve corresponds to the edge of the floodway on the Big Slough North. Approximately 75 percent of the land area in Parcels 1 and 2, shown as the parcels for apartment development, are within the 100-year flood boundary based on the 1986 FEMA Floodway map. The applicant proposes that each parcel would be limited to 30 percent maximum building coverage and 40 percent floor area ratio. A setback is shown along Ridge that is irregular, due to proximity to the crossing of the Big Slough North. No specific setback is shown along the property lines, but there is a notation for a 5-foot wall easement. A screening wall six feet in height constructed of masonry would be required along the western property line where the adjacent property is zoned for residential use, as well as a landscape buffer. The applicant proposes that Parcels 1 and 2 be permitted all residential uses allowed in the “B” Multi-Family District. The theoretical maximum allowable dwelling units requested by the applicant would be: Single Family Duplex Multi-Family Parcel 1 29 45 168 Parcel 2 101 154 944 It is unlikely that the applicant could approach the theoretical limits on conventional single-family or duplex style units due to the floodplain constraints on the property. The applicant has not requested the maximum permitted densities allowed in the “B” Multi-Family District of 75 dwelling units per acre. However, achieving even the multi-family density requested, for a yield of over 1,110 dwelling units, would be extremely difficult given the constraint of the maximum gross floor area of 40 percent for the parcels. When comparing the maximum gross floor area of the parcels with the requested densities, the size of the units are quite small. The maximum per unit square footage of floor area for Parcel 1 is 720 square feet; for Parcel 2 it is 360 square feet. Further, when an apartment building is designed, all common areas, halls, covered porches, patios and decks, carports, etc. are included in the gross floor area calculations. Therefore, the actual square footage available for the apartment space decreases by at least ten percent in a typical project. This would result in unrealistically small apartment units. Likely, the developer would chose to build fewer units that offer more living space. The applicant has not requested a specific height limit. The height allowed by “B” zoning is 55 feet at the minimum required perimeter building setbacks, plus one additional foot in height for every additional foot of setback beyond the minimum required setbacks. The property to the south is zoned “LI” Limited Industrial and is currently being offered as “heavy commercial” property by its owner. However, in the past there was a proposal to develop this property as single-family. If so, then the wall and landscape buffer would be needed along the southern property line of Catamaran Cove. General Provision #16 prohibits windows directly facing a single-family subdivision to the south within 150 feet of the property line. Signage would be limited to one monument style sign at the major entrance on Ridge Road. The applicant proposes all parcels maintain a compatible architectural character, color, texture, but has not suggested language that they be of the same predominant exterior building material. The site is located in an area that is undergoing urban development. The tract to the east, DP-237 Ridgeport C.U.P. is the being developed with a medical offices and is the proposed site for a new hospital facility for Via Christi. Housing, offering a range of densities and types is being developed in the area surrounding Ridgeport C.U.P. There is a multi-family tract approved for “MF-29” zoning that could yield a total of 229 units, plus a small pocket of duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes along Ridge. The balance of the tract is being developed as single-family. The property immediately to the south of the application area is undeveloped; the remainder of the area to the south/southwest is developed residentially with Forest Lakes Addition. The adjacent property to the west is a large residential holding, consisting of a home and a lake. Further to the west, the property remains in agricultural use with scattered residences. The property to the north has been approved for commercial development, DP-250 Starwest C.U.P. CASE HISTORY: The application area is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-20”; “LC” Vacant SOUTH: “LI” Vacant EAST: “SF-20”; ”LC" Vacant, under development (commercial, office and residential) WEST: “SF-20" Residence with lake, agricultural PUBLIC SERVICES: The property is located along two major arterial streets, 37th Street North and Ridge Road. Ridge was recently reconstructed to four-lane standards. 37th Street is still an unpaved county road. Traffic volumes along Ridge Road in 1997 were 7,717 ADTs (average daily traffic). This was projected to increase to 15,275 ADTs in the 2020 Transportation Plan, but this projection did not anticipate the volume of development occurring in the vicinity (Via Christi, Ridge Centre, etc). Improvements to 37th Street North and Ridge Road were included in approval of Ridge Centre C.U.P. Because access from the site to Ridge and 37th is hampered by the floodway, the applicant has requested only one point of access onto Ridge Road. However, this would bring all potential apartment traffic onto Ridge and not provide a second point of access. As will be discussed later, a point of access onto 37th would be needed. Water and sewer services are not currently available to the property. The applicant will need to guarantee extensions for water and sewer services. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Wichita Land Use Guide” of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for “agricultural”. However, the continued northern expansion of urban development and recent widening of Ridge Road, the proximity of the K-96 freeway interchange, and the ultimate plan to extend sewer service to that freeway suggests that this area is becoming ripe for urban development. The “Residential” objective is to encourage infill and higher density residential development maximizes public investment in facilities and services. Strategy (5) is to consider new requirements for medium and high density development which would involve development plan and architectural review to ensure compatibility with surrounding low density residential areas. The “Residential Locational Guidelines” that relate to this proposed application are: (1. & 2. Omitted because they do not apply to this case). 3. Medium-density residential may serve as a transitional land use between low and high density residential uses, as well as serve to buffer lower-density residential from commercial uses. 4. Medium-and-high-density residential areas should be located within walking distance of neighborhood commercial centers, parks, schools and public transportation routes and be in proximity to employment concentrations, major thoroughfares and utility trunk lines. 5. Medium-and-high density residential should be directly accessible to arterial or collector streets so that their traffic does not pass through less intensive land uses. 6. Medium-to-high density residential areas should be sited where they will not overload or create congestion in existing and planned facilities and utilities. RECOMMENDATION: While the proposed site partially meets the residential locational guidelines for multi-family use, the scale of the proposed development exceeds the realistic ability of the site to accommodate the proposed density of use. Conceivably, higher densities could be achieved by relying on high-rise style apartment development. In this case with the large amount of the site in the flood fringe, the flexibility of going taller gives more flexibility to locate development outside the flood fringe. The applicant has proposed only one point of access, on Ridge Road. This would create additional congestion on Ridge Road. Already, it is extremely difficult for residents living south of the application area to cross Ridge Road at 29th Street North during peak travel hours. The preferable situation would be to have a second point of access on 37th Street North, aligned with the major opening for Starwest or for Ridge Centre and channeling traffic to the signalized corner with Ridge. Along Ridge, the opening should be aligned with 34th Street North. This would require moving the opening northward 150 feet. The use of this property for intense residential development would be in stark contrast to the single-family area to the southwest and the large acreage to the west. Further it is anticipated that the land west of the application area, when developed, would also be low-density residential. The presence of the lake on the site to the west offers a potential buffer for high-intensity residential use; but it should be emphasized that this land is in separate ownership and used as a private residence with a private lake, and is not included in the application. As proposed by the applicant, the buffer provided by this C.U.P. is minimal, a five-foot wall easement, the minimum required landscape buffering, and no provision for setbacks beyond the minimum required by the Unified Zoning Code. Although the residential C.U.P. provides a method to incorporate imaginative design to soften the points of impact between dissimilar land uses, this application has not incorporated such techniques in the proposed design. Based on these considerations, plus the information available prior to the public hearing, staff feels that this request is excessive in terms of the realistic amount of residential development that can be accommodated on the site, given its access limitations and site constraints, and that development should be limited to single-family and duplex uses unless and until the property to the west is developed as multi-family, and a second point of access is provided to serve the property. Further, due to the constraints of the site, the number of dwelling units permitted should be limited to 500 dwelling units. Staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to platting of the entire property within one year and subject to the following conditions. A. APPROVE the zone change (SCZ-073) to "B” Multi-Family, subject to platting of the entire property within one year. B. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-245), subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be limited to single-family and duplex uses unless and until the property to the west is developed as multi-family, and a second point of access is provided to serve the property. 2. If the conditions contained in Condition Number 1 are met and the property is developed for multi-family use, the number of multi-family dwelling units permitted on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, combined, shall be limited to a maximum of 500 dwelling units. In the case that a portion of Parcel 1 or Parcel 2, or both, are developed with single-family or duplex units, the amount of multi-family units permitted on the balance of the parcel(s) shall be reduced commensurately by the amount of acreage in single-family or duplex use as a proportion of total parcel size. 3. No development shall occur until such time as municipal water and sewer services are provided to the site. 4. A point of access on 37th Street North, shall be provided, aligned with the entrance of Starwest connecting to the major opening for Ridge Centre C.U.P. The entrance shall provide a short right-turn southbound decel lane plus a through lane for inbound traffic, and a left-turn lane plus a through/right-turn lane for outbound traffic. 5. A Parcel Description for the “Reserve” area shall be added. 6. Parcel Descriptions for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be revised to reflect a total density of 500 dwelling units combined. 7. General Provision #4 shall be revised to state that signage shall be in accordance with Article IV of the Unified Zoning Code. Maximum sign height shall be no more than 12 feet above grade. 8. General Provision #14 shall be revised to state that parking shall be in accordance with Article IV of the Unified Zoning Code. 9. General Provision #18 shall be revised to state that if the Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 or both are developed with multi-family use, the multi-family buildings shall share uniform architectural character, color, texture, and the same predominate exterior building material. Building walls and roofs must have predominantly earth-tone colors, with vivid colors limited to incidental accent, and must employ materials similar to surrounding residential areas. 10.A general provision shall be added to state that prior to issuing building permits, a plan for a pedestrian walk system shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. This walk system shall link sidewalks along Ridge Road and 37th Street with the proposed apartment buildings within the subject property and provide for internal circulation as determined necessary by the Director of Planning. 11.Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 12.The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit Plan does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended. 13.All property included within this C.U.P. and zone case shall be platted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. by the Governing Body, or the cases shall be considered denied and closed. The resolution establishing the zone change shall not be published until the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. 14.Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-250) includes special conditions for development on this property. 15.The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The area to the east and north is approved for commercial and office development, and some multi-family. While the tract to the immediate south of the application area is zoned “LI”, the remaining land to the southeast, and south are single-family residential. To the west the land is zoned “SF- 20” and is not in urban use; it is large lot residences or agricultural. If it were to develop, it would most likely be as low-density residential. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property could be developed with a small number of residential units that would be similar in character to residential development to the south in those areas outside the floodplain area. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of this C.U.P. will increase the likelihood that other properties to north and west will seek to be developed more intensively. There are no natural barriers west of the Big Slough North to separate higher intensity commercial and residential use from lower density residential use, except for the lake immediately adjacent to the subject tract. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this are as agricultural, however, changing factors have pointed to the need to reconsider that designation, as discussed earlier. Medium density residential development is recommended as an appropriate buffer between low-density uses and commercial or high-density use. As proposed, this development would be high density instead of medium density and would not serve as an appropriate buffer. Medium-to-high density residential is viewed as appropriate along arterial streets and situated near commercial services and employment centers. This would be descriptive of the area when it is fully developed. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will have a significant impact on community facilities. Unless the two access points channel traffic to signalized intersections, with the majority being directed onto 37th Street North, ingress/egress would be difficult for residents and it would create congestion on Ridge Road. GOLTRY “This is a case that we heard last time, so I will only give you a little bit of basic background and then we will call your attention to the memo that I presented on your desks today, which reflects some additional discussions that we have held between the applicant and the staff. As I have said, this is an application for multi-family; it involves a 58-acre tract which has a lake in this area (indicating). An old sandpit lake. As shown right now, there are two parcels here although the applicant has requested that those be combined into one parcel for multi-family use. To put it in some context, this is along the Ridge Road development corridor that we seem to have quite a few cases coming along about. We will have one later in the day today. If you could please look back to the three sheets that have been stapled to the top of last time’s staff report. These three sheets reflect the discussions that we have held between the applicant and ourselves and the agreements that we have come to terms on. It also raises what remaining issues there are, which would probably be issues between related to the wall on the western property line. The main issues were access and the appropriate number of units to be developed on the property. If you look down in the language that I have presented you, I have highlighted in bold and italics those changes that represent substantive changes from the recommendations on the staff report in the previous week, and to look down to Condition B(1) in particular. We are looking at recommending that the development be limited to a gross floor area, which is equivalent to a 40% floor area ratio or 775 dwelling units, whichever is more restrictive. The height limit would be 55 feet. The development would be limited to 50% of this floor area ratio or dwelling units, whichever is more restrictive unless and until access is provided along 37th Street North. If you recall from last time’s discussion, one of the points of discussion was initially there was only going to be one way to get to the property. (Indicating) “This is looking at Ridge Road and the one point of access is that we have requested it be aligned with 34th Street and is going to connect with the Via Christi property. It is right along in here. We are also requesting that there be another point of access along 37th Street. We didn’t stipulate the exact location, but that it could either coordinate with the CUP to the east, which is Ridge Center CUP or it could coordinate with the opening to the north, which is Star West CUP. There are some changes in transportation improvements, which are highlighted in bold on Page 2. I believe that the applicant is in agreement with these recommendations for transportation. It is really pretty standard recommendations, particularly, as I have already mentioned, we are aligning the entrances on 37th Street with one of the existing entrances or coordinating with the one to the east of it, and then participating and providing accel/decel lanes and a left-turn center lane on 37th Street North along Ridge Road. The requested improvements would be basically that they would have a driveway entrance that is 3 lanes in width with one lane coming in. The drive coming in would allow for right-turn decel lane and then two lanes going outbound from the site, and that they would also provide a left-turn center lane along Ridge Road and the applicant participating up to 25% in installation of a traffic signal along Ridge Road at the intersection with the major entrance when warranted. I have already described change No. 5, which is Parcel descriptions for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 be combined to form one large parcel. Initially, my understand was when they were developing this as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. It was in reference to the fact that some of the property to the south at one time was considered to be potential single-family, but it is really zoned ‘LI’ Limited Industrial, so they would request that it all be considered as one parcel. Probably if you would look down to General Provision No. 19, that one is the one that deals with the wall on the left. I believe that we are fortunate today, we do have the owner of the property to the west who was not able to be here at the last meeting. He is present and can speak on his own behalf. We were trying to clarify that no matter what kind of residential development occurs so long as there is single-family zoning in use to the west that there would be a 6-foot wall. It is my understanding that he will be requesting, perhaps, that the wall be 8 feet. The other changes in Item 11, I have just made reference to the fact that compatibility setback and height standards shall be provided in accordance with Article No. 4 of the Unified Zoning Code, which I had intended to be something that we all knew by reference, but I thought it was probably useful to state that so we all know we are on the same page on that. It is my understanding that we are in agreement with the agent on all of those items. Are there any questions?” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Donna? Thanks, Donna. We will hear from the applicant now.” TIM AUSTIN “I am with Austin Miller, agent for the applicant. Donna is correct; we are in agreement after we met. The only comment I would have after that is that we would still rather have a 6-foot wall as opposed to an 8-foot wall on the west property line. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Austin?” LOPEZ “At the last Commission meeting where we discussed that second point of access on the northwest corner that you had alluded to that you were talking to the applicant about acquiring property to have that second access, where is that?” AUSTIN “Right. No further than it was the last time I was here, which is why we’ve agreed to a 50% density at this point until that second access is open.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thanks, Tim. Is there anyone else to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone to speak in opposition?” MICHAEL POPP “I am the landowner adjacent to the west side. I live a 7717 West 37th Street North. Let me state that I am not opposed to this. Anybody in this day and age that thinks that progress isn’t going to happen is a lunatic. The one thing that Tim, Donna and I have talked about is that I am a big believer in liability. I was there way before this development was ever conceived, of course, and I also do believe that an 8-foot wall would be beneficial from the aspect that it is a little bit higher than what a 6-foot person is, and a kid would be down here (indicating) from that. That is my big thing is the liability aspect, the public safety and the liability. I don’t want anybody to come over and have a chance to drown and then of course I would lose everything, or the insurance goes sky-high. That is my big thing. I am a believer that it will help to increase property values so I am not opposed to it by any means. So, from that aspect, that is my big case.” GAROFALO “So your main concern is the height of the wall?” POPP “Yeah, and then you know, the liability is there as Tim and I have talked before, the liability is there, no matter what. But as more and more people get there, the chance of something happening increases ten fold, because there is nobody there now. I just want to ensure that my peace of mind is a little more at ease not having to worry about other people. I am one of those kind of people that believes that I should not be responsible for somebody else’s stupidity. Unfortunately, lawyers can make a case of that.” LOPEZ “You are talking about the wall on the west property line? And there is the area that is considered the floodway?” POPP “Right, the floodway reserve.” LOPEZ “How is that going to be handled?” POPP “There really is no way that it can be handled. Can you get that back up on the screen?” GOLTRY “Yes, I can.” POPP “Okay, thanks. Up there to the north, there is no doubt that that is going to be a problem area, but my house is (indicating) roughly off in this area. As far as control-wise, I would have a little better visual control over it.” LOPEZ “The wall is going to run up to how far north.” POPP “From all indications on this 300-foot reserve right in this area, it will run up to probably there (indicating on screen). Isn’t that correct, Tim?” AUSTIN “Yes.” POPP “And my house is probably right off in this area.” LOPEZ “Well, my question is that you are concerned about liability. There would be nothing to prohibit youth from just walking around a wall.” POPP “Outside of the fact that I don’t believe there is going to be a house right there in that corner. Yeah, they are going to take a journey no matter what, if they want to. Okay. But it is a lot more apt to, having residential right here, as a kid knowing that somebody is there keeping an eye on things as opposed to not having anything at all clear down here. From the aspect of yeah, there is a lack of control right there. Somebody suggested to me that if I was actually worried about it, if it is that bad, I can go ahead and put more up myself for that matter, on my property. It would be a pain in the butt, and I don’t think because of somebody else making money on this, that I should be held liable for that. That is my case.” GAROFALO “Any other questions?” HENTZEN “Is the wall coming straight down where you were pointing from?” POPE “Yeah, right in here. It will be right along this property line, correct Tim? Yeah.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Okay, the applicant has two minutes for rebuttal, if you wish.” AUSTIN “I understand Mike’s concern with respect to liability, and we both agree that the liability is there one way or another. The only thing, I guess, just a couple of things to keep in mind is that he already has a lot of exposure along the south edge against some of the Forrest Lakes development. He still has that risk there. The other thing is, and if you remember the last time I was here, the discussion about the site development cost, to add another two feet to that wall is a considerable amount of money, as far as adding to the site development cost, and we are already pushing the value of the land right now with the improvements that we are guaranteeing already. It is kind of a cost issue. I could have gotten over an 8-foot wall when I was a kid. So, I don’t know.” HENTZEN “When you put a swimming pool in a back yard here in Wichita, how high does the wall have to be? Is a wall even required?” MILLER “A fence is required by the Health Department. I don’t know that I know the height. I know we permit permits with fences over 6 feet tall, but I don’t know what the minimum height is.” WARREN “It would be less than 6 feet.” HENTZEN “I might tell you that having lived in the County and having to fence a lagoon, it was a 4-foot fence. All I am saying is that that is a pretty high wall, and I don’t think you could keep anybody out that really wanted to get in anyway.” PLATT “I have a question of Tim. Going back to your closing comments before your rebuttal, I just want to be sure, are you in agreement with the B-1 in the staff report, or not?” AUSTIN “Yes, we are in agreement with that.” PLATT “I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” OSBORNE-HOWSE “Have we, on developments similar to this, required 8 feet walls?” MILLER “I don’t recall that you have required an 8-foot wall on much of anything.” GAROFALO “No more questions? We will bring it back to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The area to the east and north is approved for commercial and office development, and some multi-family. While the tract to the immediate south of the application area is zoned “LI”, the remaining land to the southeast, and south are single-family residential. To the west the land is zoned “SF-20” and is not in urban use; it is large lot residences or agricultural. If it were to develop, it would most likely be as low-density residential. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property could be developed with a small number of residential units that would be similar in character to residential development to the south in those areas outside the floodplain area. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of this C.U.P. will increase the likelihood that other properties to north and west will seek to be developed more intensively. There are no natural barriers west of the Big Slough North to separate higher intensity commercial and residential use from lower density residential use, except for the lake immediately adjacent to the subject tract. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this are as agricultural, however, changing factors have pointed to the need to reconsider that designation, as discussed earlier. Medium density residential development is recommended as an appropriate buffer between low-density uses and commercial or high- density use. As proposed, this development would be high density instead of medium density and would not serve as an appropriate buffer. Medium-to-high density residential is viewed as appropriate along arterial streets and situated near commercial services and employment centers. This would be descriptive of the area when it is fully developed. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will have a significant impact on community facilities. Unless the two access points channel traffic to signalized intersections, with the majority being directed onto 37th Street North, ingress/egress would be difficult for residents and it would create congestion on Ridge Road.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: A. APPROVE the zone change (SCZ-073) to "B” Multi-Family, subject to platting of the entire property within one year. B. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-245), subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be limited to a maximum gross floor area of 461,690 square feet (40 percent floor area ratio) or 775 dwelling units, whichever is more restrictive. Height shall be limited to 55 feet. Development shall be limited to 50 percent of the floor area ratio, or dwelling units, whichever is more restrictive, unless or until access is provided along 37th Street North. 2. No development shall occur until such time as municipal water and sewer services are provided to the site. Transportation: A. A point of access on 37th Street North, shall be provided, aligned with the entrance of DP-250 Starwest C.U.P., or connecting to the major opening for DP-242 Ridge Centre C.U.P. The applicant shall participate in providing accel and decel lanes, and a left-turn (center) lane on 37th Street North. B. On Ridge Road, the entrance to DP-245 Catamaran Cove shall be aligned with 34th Street North. The driveway shall include one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. A left-turn (center) lane shall be provided on Ridge Road at the intersection of the major entrance. C. The applicant shall participate up to 25 percent in the installation of a traffic signal on Ridge Road at the intersection with the major entrance, when warranted. D. A Parcel Description for the “Reserve” area shall be added. E. Parcel Descriptions for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be combined into one parcel and revised to reflect Condition Number 1. F. General Provision #4 shall be revised to state that signage shall be in accordance with Article IV of the Unified Zoning Code. Maximum sign height shall be no more than 12 feet above grade. G. General Provision #14 shall be revised to state that the Landscape Plan shall be prepared in conformance with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. H. General Provision #18 shall be revised to state that all multi-family buildings shall share uniform architectural character, color, texture, and the same predominate exterior building material. Building walls and roofs must have predominantly earth-tone colors, with vivid colors limited to incidental accent, and must employ materials similar to surrounding residential areas. I. General Provision #19 shall be revised to state a six (6) foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the west property line of the C.U.P. within a wall easement where residential uses are adjacent to Single- Family Residential zoning, and the south property lines of the C.U.P. with a wall easement where high density residential uses are adjacent to Single-Family Residential zoning. J. A general provision shall be added to state that prior to issuing building permits, a plan for a pedestrian walk system shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. This walk system shall link sidewalks along Ridge Road and 37th Street with the proposed apartment buildings within the subject property and provide for internal circulation as determined necessary by the Director of Planning. K. A general provision shall be added to state that compatibility setback and height standards shall be provided in accordance with Article IV of the Unified Zoning Code. L. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. M. The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit Plan does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended. N. All property included within this C.U.P. and zone case shall be platted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. by the Governing Body, or the cases shall be considered denied and closed. The resolution establishing the zone change shall not be published until the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. O. Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-245) includes special conditions for development on this property. P. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. WARREN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Case No. ZON2000-00001 - Francis I. Smith (Applicant/Owner) requests zone change from “LC” Limited Commercial to “B” Multi-Family District, on property described as: A tract in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 27 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as beginning 30 feet East and 392.66 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 49.84 feet; thence East 150 feet; thence North 49.84 feet; thence West to the point of beginning, formerly described as the South 12.34 feet of Lot 29, all of Lot 31 and the N/2 of Lot 33, on Hillside Avenue, Baldock’s Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located approximately 100 feet north of 12th and east of Hillside (1312 North Hillside). BARRY CARROLL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant indicates that he wishes to “down zone” property currently zoned “LC” Limited Commercial to the “B” Multiple-Family District. The site contains a small, wood framed, residential building. The property is ¼ acre in size and is platted. The applicant intends to sell the property to the two tenants who have lived in the single-family dwelling for a number of years. A residential category is needed so the applicants can apply for a mortgage loan application. The adjoining properties are zoned “B” Multi-Family or “LC” Limited Commercial. The application area is a rectangular shaped parcel and is located approximately 100 feet north of 12th and east of Hillside (1312 N. Hillside). The property north of the application area is vacant and zoned “B” Multi-Family District and “LC” Limited Commercial, the property south is used for residential purposes and is zoned “B” Multi-Family District and “LC” Limited Commercial, east is “LC” Limited Commercial that is used residentially and the property to the west, with a commercial use, is also “LC.” The “B” Multi- Family areas have a mixture of single and multiple family residential uses. Access to the site is currently from Hillside