METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, July 27, 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); Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner; and Ray Warren. Bill Johnson was not present. Staff members present were Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, Lisa Van de Water, Senior Planner, Barry Carroll, Associate Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Consideration of Sedgwick County Capital Improvements Program for consistency with adopted Comprehensive Plan. GAROFALO “We have Stephanie Knebel here from the County on this item.” STEPHANIE KNEBEL “I am a Senior Project Manager in the Facilities Project Services Department for Sedgwick County. My function in the C.I.P. process is to focus in on the facility is to focus in on the facility projects. David Spears’ job still remains to focus in on the road and bridge improvement projects. It is my understanding that you all picked up a copy of our recommended budget at your meeting two weeks ago. I would like to draw your attention to Page No. 397. I am going to again draw your attention to about the top half of it, which talks about some primary projects that we will be focusing on for this next year in 2001. If you flip another couple of pages back, beginning on Page 401 through about 404, you will see the entire 5-year plan. I am here today to just real briefly summarize the projects for next year and to ask for your consideration and approval that this plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. For the facility projects this year, you can tell that we have some improvement planned for our Juvenile Complex. We have broken that up into three phases. Right now, we are still focusing and planning on those three separate phases. Also, we have indicated in here the construction of a Household Hazardous Waste Facility. We have some maintenance items on our Munger Building and our main Courthouse. The primary projects that are listed in here for 2001 for the road projects include to widen 39th Street South by Lake Afton Park, to widen the KTA bridge on Central Avenue and recondition 101st Street North between West Street and Ridge Road. That is a brief summary. I will stand for questions, but will recommend approval.” GAROFALO “I do have one question. I understood that the County was supposed to do some work on south Hydraulic in conjunction with what the City is going to do from MacArthur on down to 55th. Is that in there? I didn’t find it.” KNEBEL “It should be in there because we did talk about that project in our C.I.P. meetings. We spent time talking about it because it is a good joint project between City and County as far as coordination. Marvin, where did you find that?” KROUT “I am sure it is here. In 17, Page 402. Sixty-third Street South between Hydraulic and K-15. KNEBEL “Yes, that is on Page 402, Item No. 17, about the bottom third. I am going to apologize for the small print in this book. It was a new type of format that we experimented with this year and it didn’t print well, which doesn’t help you at all. What we did do is further back in this same section; we have big 8-1/2 x 11 pages that explain in a little more detail about the projects and funding sources and things like that. Mr. Garofalo, what is the street you were referring to?” GAROFALO “It was my understanding that this was supposed to be from 63rd Street on north.” KNEBEL “There is a project number, No. 31, which has Hydraulic between the west city limits and 63rd Street South.” GAROFALO “Okay. That’s it, then.” KNEBEL “That would be project No. 31.” GAROFALO “Okay, but that is scheduled for 2002?” KNEBEL “That is correct. With the three phases in there, it would be my assumption that we have designs starting in 2002, the right-of-way in 2003 and construction in 2005.” GAROFALO “Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions?” KROUT “Commissioners, I will tell you that I participated as a member of the County Staff Committee and the Land Use, Research and the Transportation divisions reviewed all of those projects in the County C.I.P. that are relevant to the Comprehensive Plan and we did find that the C.I.P. is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That is what we would like you to find.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission finds that the Sedgwick County Capital Improvements Program is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. WARREN moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11- 0). KNEBEL “Thank you very much, Commissioners.” --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 and vacation items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Barfield arrived at the meeting at 1:40 p.m. 2. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations GAROFALO “Commissioner McKay is going to abstain on item 2/2. We are withholding items 2/1 and 2/3. Let’s do this separately; let’s have a motion on Item 2/2.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. PLATT moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. McKay abstained. (11-0-1). 2/2. SUB2000-53 - One-step final plat of SCHNIEPP 2ND ADDITION, located West of Tyler, South of Kellogg. A. A guarantee is required for the extension of sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. An off-site drainage agreement is required. D. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. E. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. F. The final plat tracing shall reference a tie point to a section corner and its distance to the property. G. The lot exceeds the maximum lot width to lot depth ratio of 2.5 to 1. A modification will need to be approved. H. County Surveying has advised that the legal description does not close. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GAROFALO “Okay, can we get a motion on Item 2/4?” MOTION: That the Planning Commisison recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. LOPEZ moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). 2/4. DED 2000-18 -- Dedication of a Utility Easement from Cherrywood Construction, Inc., for property located east of Seneca, south of 31st Street South. OWNER/APPLICANT: Cherrywood Construction Company, 935 S. Woodlawn, Wichita, KS 67218. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east two feet of the west ten feet of Lot 16, Cumley’s Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2000-52, City Engineering required this additional two-foot easement to conform with the ten-foot standard. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. --------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 2/1. S/D 00-07 - Final Plat of ZOO BUSINESS PARK, located on the north side of 21st Street North, East of Hoover Road. A. The applicant shall submit a guarantee for extension of City water and sanitary sewer. A sanitary sewer layout is requested. B. Depending upon the status of City water and sanitary sewer, the Health Department needs to comment on the possible use of on-site temporary facilities for this site. The Applicant has requested a temporary holding tank for a portion of the site for use until municipal sewer is available. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The Subdivision Committee approved one opening along 21st Street. F. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way. County Engineering has requested the dedication of an additional 10 foot of right-of-way for 21st Street North. The requested right-of-way has been dedicated on the final plat. G. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. 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 applicant shall provide a guarantee for the paving of the internal street to the industrial street standards. J. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. K. The recording data on the pipeline easement needs changed from “Book” to “Film”. L. The pipeline company needs to approve the portion of Zoo Park Circle located over the pipeline easement and located within the pipeline setback. M. The west boundary of this plat may need to be revised due to monuments set by Baughman Company for the proposed plat to the west. N. 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. O. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. P. City Fire Department should comment on the length of the internal street, which is approximately 1,300 feet, exceeding the 600-ft limitation required by the Subdivision Regulations. City Fire Department has requested an emergency access easement across Lot 10 connecting with 21st Street North to provide an additional point of access. The requested emergency access easement has been platted. Q. City Fire Department should comment on the plat’s street name. The street name shall be Zoo Park Circle. R. 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. S. 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.) T. 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. U. 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. V. 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. W. 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. X. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Y. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Z. 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. AA. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff, “This is the final plat of the Zoo Business Park Addition. It is located east of Hoover on the north side of 21st Street North. The site was recently annexed into the City and a zone change was approved to ‘IP’ Industrial Park, subject to platting. As you can see, the plat consists of an internal street with access to 11 industrial lots. The plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee last week without a condition that staff had recommended. Staff recommended that the cul-de- sac be extended to the west through the adjoining property to Hoover Road. At last week’s Subdivision meeting, a preliminary plat for the adjoining property to the west, the Burleson Addition. This proposes 5 industrial lots all which have access off of Hoover Road. Staff has prepared this sketch, which is a layout that encompasses both plats. What we are recommending is that the internal street, Zoo Park Circle be extended to the west through the Burleson Addition plat between Lots 4 and 5, right here (indicating) and to connect with Hoover. In addition, the entrance of the internal street we are recommending be relocated 40 feet to the west to abut the three most southern lots of the Burleson Addition was reviewed. That would eliminate the current 40-foot strip between both plats. Currently, the plat proposes the street length here of 1300 feet, and that exceeds the 600 foot limitation of the subdivision regulations. To comply with the Fire Department’s standards, the applicant has platted an emergency access easement, located right here (indicating), through the southeasternmost lot for access back onto 13th Street; however, the Fire Department stated last week that they feel although the current scheme is acceptable, they would prefer staff’s loop street suggestion. Now, the extension of the internal street, Zoo Park Circle, would allow lots in the adjoining plat to have access off the internal street. The two most northern lots in the Burleson Addition would have access off the street right there and the three most southern lots also would have access off of the internal streets. The number of access points, then off of Hoover, a section line road, would be reduced from the four openings the applicant is proposing, down to zero openings. The current policy in both the Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the reduction of the number of driveways onto the street for commercial and industrial plats such as this, both to improve traffic safety and improve traffic flow. Staff recommends that our proposed street layout be required for this plat. Are there any questions for staff?” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of staff? I guess my attention was diverted when you were talking about the emergency access. Would that still be required if we went all the way through?” WARREN “That was a condition of the Subdivision recommendations. A requirement.” STRAHL ”That was a condition that probably could be removed. I would have to discuss that.” GAROFALO “No. I am not arguing that we would. I was just wondering if that changed because of your putting the street through there. So it would remain?” STRAHL “It probably could be removed.” KROUT “If this subdivision developed before the other one, then maybe there would be an option if this other street was dedicated. If that plat went forward and the street was dedicated, would there be an option to cut some temporary roadway through that street instead? So, unless that plat didn’t continue, to eliminate the condition of the secondary access.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are there any other questions?” WARNER “Do the applicants agree to this?” STRAHL “No, they don’t.” WARNER “Oh. So the reason this is here being considered by the full Commission after the recommendations of the Subdivision Committee is that the Subdivision Committee approved something that staff doesn’t like. Is that correct?” STRAHL “That would be correct.” KROUT “Whenever there is an issue, particularly like this one where we think that there is a waiver of the Subdivision regulations, in this case the access controls and also the requirements for streets to continue from plat to plat, that it is good for the whole Planning Commission to take a look at it. Not on every subdivision plat, but ones like this, where there is a platting issue involved. We think that platting is a part of planning like zoning is a part of zoning. I think there is a planning issue involved in terms of the overall quarterly development of this area. So, we do bring it to your attention. I am not going to contest this issue if the Planning Commission votes to approve the subdivision without the street extension, I am not going to make a big deal of it at the City Council.” MARNELL “What is on our agenda, though, is only the right half of this, isn’t it?” STRAHL “That is correct.” MARNELL “I would certainly put my two bits in here that if we had both items here, and we had in fact, the power to do so, this looks like this makes a lot more sense than the other version. But I don’t know if we have the authority to do that.” KROUT “I think what you could do is require on this plat for there to be a contingent dedication that would continue east to line up with that plat and that contingency would be that the other portion of the street would be dedicated when that property plats. If later the Planning Commission decides that they are not going to require that right-of-way or the plat is withdrawn, it would be nothing more than a contingent dedication. If you approve the plat to the west without any right-of- way, then there would be no reason for the contingent dedication any more. This is like the process of sharing access and trying to do planning through the incremental process of one developer developing at a time, trying to make it all make sense in the end. In this case, I think we were fortunate because we saw both of these plats coming at the same time. They are not exactly on track, but the Subdivision Committee could see the preliminary plat on the same day for the plat to the west as this one on the right.” PLATT “I would say first that I think this is a very legitimate item for the whole Planning Commission to take a look at for the reasons that have just been said. Now is the time to look at it from a platting standpoint to make some very good arguments that this makes sense. But before I get into the discussion of that, I have one question of Neil. I assume the applicant will be speaking here, but they did comment that in terms of moving that street over to the west that there was a pipeline easement there on the line going through the property. Does it or does it not represent a problem in putting the street there?” STRAHL “Well, I think something still could be worked out relative to creating a stub right here (indicating) for access to the adjoining lots, even if the existing street was where they propose it to be, to the east.” GAROFALO “Does that answer your question?” PLATT “That speaks to it, yes, but I am not….I think there is a problem here.” MICHAELIS “Neil, I think it needs to be pointed out, too, because I believe, if I remember right, part of staff’s recommendations was that the property to the west would then be subject to bear the costs of the paving and things required in that which, in their plat they said they currently have none. That is quite burden that we are placing upon them through this. For the benefit of the Commissioners that don’t sit on the Subdivision Committee, this was very adamantly opposed by both applicants, not just one; for several reasons, all justifiable.” STRAHL “That is correct. Both owners would be participating in the paving petition and any other associated petitions.” MCKAY “A couple of things. No. 1, the timing of the one to the west, I firmly believe that if the one to the west hadn’t of come in as a preliminary plat, this one would have been approved the way it is. No. 2, if we are going to bring things to the full Commission, that the Commissioners have the same privilege that we had, looking at what we have got here in front of us, so you can see. Because if we move the street over directly, you are setting the entrance to the street on top of a pipeline. You can go across it the other way, but at least the entrance is not on the pipeline as the way it is designed by the applicant. Also, I would point out that the Subdivision Committee voted 6- 0 in favor of the way it was done.” WARREN “I would like to just tack on a little bit to what Commissioner McKay said. It is too bad, if we are going to reconsider this at the full Commission that they don’t have all of the information that we had in Subdivision. We worked on this Zoo plat, I think four times now. But some of the things that haven’t been brought out here, and maybe they will when the applicant is here, and that is the different character of these two developments. They are altogether different. There was a purpose of having his isolated with a cul-de-sac for that very reason because of the character of that development, it is going to be an ‘IP’ if I remember. It’s Industrial Park where the other one is Limited Industrial. Both applicants oppose what staff is recommending, I think that needs to be taken into consideration, and the fact that we are coming up here with final plats that would be changing everything at this point.” MARNELL “The future plat that is not part of this now, could not the access to Hoover be solved by an interior frontage road. I think having 6 entrances along there probably doesn’t make a lot of sense for controlling traffic, but we will try to impose it on the backside.” KROUT “The Subdivision Committee did reduce the number of access points from 6 to 4 on those 5 lots.” STRAHL “Right.” KROUT “One shared access between the first two lots on the south and then one access point per lot for the remainder of the lot, so they did reduce the number of access openings onto Hoover Road in their approval of the plat.” WARREN “You see that is 1300 feet. That is a quarter of a mile in there. That is a pretty good sized plat.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Neil? Is they applicant here? The agent is.” MARK SAVOY “I am with Savoy, Ruggles, and Bohm, here representing the applicant. Now, we have several reasons for not wanting to do this. One of the primary reasons was that we did get Industrial Park zoning. That is a little different than the other one. That one is Industrial zoning with a Protective Overlay. I don’t know all of the details of it. Some of the reserves that that have been platted adjacent to this street were for landscaping and beautification. The pipeline created an opportunity to come up with some of these ideas, but there is a lot of extra land that is being given also to create open space. As our street turns and goes north, we even have a pretty good size reserve on the west side for landscaping to try to make this a little bit different than just a big industrial area. We are truly trying to make it an industrial park, with emphasis on the word ‘park’. We resolved the length of our street by virtue of the emergency access point. We have two ways in that are less than 600 feet to get back to that back area. We did not want to extend the street, it causes us extra expense to extend streets, and to the west we don’t need it. Even in our analysis in trying to justify extending onto Hoover Road, most particularly since we have resolved our emergency access, was that originally we went and asked the adjacent owner before he was in the platting process and zoning process if he would be willing to give us even an access easement across there. It kind of goes right through the middle of a building site as far as from their prospective or their plan. They weren’t really willing to even give us an emergency access easement out to Hoover Road, much less an outright street dedication. It just didn’t seem to benefit them. When we look at it now, we see it as,..I think they have about 300 feet of depth east and west across there that creates, I guess one drive entrance, if you want to look at street openings and drives, counting them as an entrance. It is a heck of a lot of industrial street paving to get across there for what could be a joint drive entrance between two lots, most particularly when it doesn’t even line up between the two lots that they have there anyhow. We are opposed to moving the street over to the south, for a couple of reasons. One is the beautification. One, we moved it far enough east so that we could get inside this property and then be able to have a drive turn and go east into our lot that is east of and adjacent to that entry street. The pipelines are a problem. There are four pipelines there. One pipeline easement; four pipelines. They are very shallow. They are requiring quite a bit of cover over their pipelines and that has caused us a lot of grief in trying to come up with drainage plans for the area because we plan on humping our street over the pipelines because once you start lowering one they are going to make you lower it for a long ways, not just right there underneath that street. It is a terrible expense. So we have worked with them in trying to work out a way to cross their pipelines and try to hold the cost down, still being able to satisfy drainage requirements. I guess my comment last week, even about the pipelines. You are in a situation where you are going to try to be put driveways also over those pipelines. Pipeline companies are a little sensitive to covering their pipelines through there with too much concrete. We are opposed to it. We have tried to work with the consultant for the adjacent property, and they really didn’t see any real benefit, plus we are trying to mix two properties together into what one had visualized as more of a park idea, and now you are bringing a lot of other driveways onto us. We are just really opposed to it. We had asked the Subdivision to consider approving our plat with all of the other requirements in place except for this change in the street right-of-way, and they did agree with us unanimously, and we ask that you make that same consideration. I would be glad to answer any questions. I would mention that the adjacent property owner’s agent is here if you have questions of him.” GAROFALO “Any questions of Mark? Is there anyone else to speak on this item? One way or the other.” RUSS EWY “I am with the Baughman Company. I am the agent for the applicant for the Burleson Addition, shown here. I wasn’t too sure how to take your silence when asked if anybody had any questions of me, so I decided to jump up and reiterate what both members of the Subdivision Committee and Mark Savoy voiced here this afternoon and that is that we are opposed to staff’s recommended redesign of the plat. I think it has obvious negative impacts for our development as well as Mark’s. I would be happy to answer any questions as they relate to the plat that you will be seeing in the final stage here in the next few weeks.” GAROFALO “Any questions of Mr. Ewy? I guess not. Okay, we will take it back to the Commission then. I don’t think there is anyone else who wishes to speak.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved.” MCKAY moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion?” PLATT “This is kind of a tough case in my mind, for the reasons that we have been discussing so far, and also for another reason. That is that when the zoning change was approved for this, I spoke rather strongly against the Industrial Park zoning here in terms of my concern that I felt it wasn’t proper treatment for the entrance to the Zoo. The Zoo folks thought that this was all right, so I ended up voting for it, although I was a little disappointed in them. But the one reason why I did finally go along with approving the zoning was because it didn’t seem to me that there was legitimate reasoning saying that a proposed Industrial Park was going to do a better job of treating the area in terms of its reserves and landscaping than a lot of things that we could have had in there. So I was kind of satisfied that we were perhaps making not the best move for the entrance for the Zoo, but certainly not the worst. So when the question came along of tying this in with the plat to the property immediately to the west, I guess the thing that concerns me the most is that we are going to be taking what we had done to, it seemed to me, to do an industrial park that would have a park-like atmosphere to it, and with the adjoining lots, then really turn it into some sort of an industrial zoning area, which I thought was going to downgrade the whole concept of the original industrial park. So I guess I am still a little inclined to vote for the motion based on those grounds, although I would reiterate that I think the staff is proper is bringing this issue before us for our full consideration.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously with 12 votes in favor. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/3. SUB2000-56 - One-Step Final Plat of ELLSON COURT ADDITION, located south of Central, east of Greenwich. KROUT “This item is related to Zoning Agenda item No. 8, and there have been questions that were brought up by neighbors of this property concerning drainage issues that delayed the platting issues. It would be appropriate, in our minds for you to wait before acting on the subdivision plat to hear the zoning case, and maybe you could hear any comments about drainage that relate to the plat at that same time. We recommend that you just defer action on subdivision item 2/3 for now and continue on, and bring it up along Agenda Item No. 8 later in the agenda.” WARREN “Later today?” GAROFALO “Yeah, when we take up item No. 8. Okay.” ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAROFALO “Okay, we have vacation items. These are public hearing items. Do we have anyone here who wishes to speak on Vacation Item 3/1 or 3/2?” LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning staff “Both of these cases were heard by the Subdivision Committee and I have nothing further to add beyond that presentation, and would recommend approval by the Planning Commission as they were presented.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Lisa?” MOTION: That the requests be approved, subject to staff comments. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). 3/1. VAC2000-00028 - Request to vacate a portion of building setback. OWNER/APPLICANT: Jay & Rebecca Stalkup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north 10 feet of the south 25 feet designated as 25-foot building setback on Lot 1, Block 11, Westlink Village 14th Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas EXCEPT west 25 feet of said lot. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Parkdale and 17th Street North (1804 N. Parkdale) REASON FOR REQUEST: To add third bay to garage. CURRENT ZONING: “SF-6” Single-Family Residential The applicant is requesting to vacate 10 feet of a 25-foot building setback along the street side property line for the addition of a third bay to the existing garage. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in The Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time July 7, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described portion of building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of building setback described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/2. VAC2000-00029 - Request to vacate street and alley right-of-way. OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles & Nancy Mattingly Revocable Trust, c/o Bachus & Son AGENT: Ryan Bendell, The Yard LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Hinton Avenue right-of-way and the east-west alley right-of-way as platted on Hinton's Subdivision, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas LOCATION: South of Central and west of Mead REASON FOR REQUEST: Unused right-of-way CURRENT ZONING: “LI” Limited Industrial The applicant is requesting to vacate unused street and alley right-of-way within Hinton’s Subdivision. The applicants wish to install security fencing around their existing business, which includes installing the fencing across existing right-of-way. This right-of-way was never developed and the applicants own all the property adjacent to it. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in The Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time July 7, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described street and alley right-of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of street and alley right-of-way described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a Restrictive Covenant that ties together all lots in the application area. 2. Any relocation of KGE equipment supplying electricity to onsite lighting shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a Restrictive Covenant that ties together all lots in the application area. 2. Any relocation of KGE equipment supplying electricity to onsite lighting shall be the responsibility of the applicant. --------------------------------------------- ZONING: 4. Case No. PUD2000-00002 - Stan Chilton (Owner/Applicant); Gary Snyder (Agent); Security Self-Storage, c/o Bill Ard (Contract Purchaser); PEC, P.A. c/o Gary Wiley (Agent) request the development of a PUD to allow for self-service storage warehouse on 2.85 acres, described as: Part of Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 on Hillside Ave., together with the East 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent on the West and Lot 12 and part of Lots 14, 16 and 18 on Lorraine Ave., together with the West 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent on the East and Lots 11, 13, 15, 17, and part of Lots 19 and 21, on Lorraine Ave., together with the East 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent on the West and Lots 16, 18, 20 and 22, on Chautauqua Ave., together with the West 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent on the East and part of Lorraine Ave., all in Schumacher's Subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, in Imboden and Oliver's Addition to the city of Wichita, Kansas, and part of Lots 20 and 22, on Chautauqua Ave., together with part of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to said Lot 22, all in Conlan's Subdivision of Lots 3 and 4, in Imboden and Oliver's Addition to Wichita, Kansas, all being more particularly described as beginning at a point on the West line of Lot 20, on Chautauqua Ave. in said Conlan's Subdivision, said point being 21.85 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence North, along the East line of said Chautauqua Ave., 146.85 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 16, on Chautauqua Ave., in said Schumacher's Subdivision; thence East along the North line of said last described Lot 16 and extended 137.02 feet to the centerline of the vacated alley adjacent to said Lot 16; thence North along the centerline of said vacated alley, 50 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 11, on Lorraine Ave., in said Schumacher's Subdivision, extended West; thence East along the North line of said last described Lot 11, and the extensions of the same, 163.52 feet to the centerline of said Lorraine Ave., thence East along the North line of Lot 12, on Lorraine Ave., in said Schumacher's Subdivision and the extensions of the same, 163.5 feet to the centerline of the vacated alley adjacent to said Lot 12; thence North along the centerline of said vacated alley, 143 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 1, on Hillside Ave., in said Schumacher's Subdivision, extended West; thence East along the North line of said last described Lot 1, and said extension, 117.88 feet to a point 110.38 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence South parallel with the West line of Lots 1, 3 and 5, on Hillside Ave., in said Schumacher's Subdivision, 83 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, having a radius of 173 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve and through a central angel of 19 degrees 09'25" an arc distance of 57.84 feet; thence Southwesterly, 606.95 feet to the point of beginning; together with Lot 1, 400 Lorraine Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the southwest corner of Hillside and Lewis. LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing to establish a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district to allow a self- service storage warehouse facility on property that is currently zoned “GO” General Office. In addition, a portion of the application area is property that was, until recently, part of the right-of-way for the Kellogg/Hillside Interchange. The right- of-way was re-acquired from the State by the City of Wichita, and one of the applicants of this request is also under contract to purchase the remaining surplus right-of-way from the City. The total application area for the PUD is 2.85 acres. The application area includes property west of Hillside, south of Lewis, north of Kellogg and east of Chautauqua, excluding the existing homes on the east side of Chautauqua and south of Lewis. Currently, there are three homes on the property zoned “GO” (south of Lewis and Lorraine). The remainder of the property is vacant, but has been maintained as state highway right-of-way. The applicant submitted a site plan for the proposed self-service storage warehouse development. The site plan shows a self-service storage warehouse facility consisting of 13 storage buildings, one of which contains the office/residence, a maximum of 41,620 square feet of building coverage and a maximum building height of 25 feet. Three of the buildings will be climate controlled. Access to the site is shown from Lewis, a residential street that intersects with Hillside, approximately 80 feet east of the entrance to the facility. The site plan indicates that the facility will be enclosed on the north and west by a combination of exterior storage building walls and wrought iron fencing located between the gaps in the buildings. The site plan also indicates that there will be a continuous wrought iron fence along the south and east property lines. The site plan shows a 15-foot landscaped buffer and building setback along the north and west boundaries adjacent to the “TF-3” zoning and 20-foot landscaped buffers and building setbacks along Chautauqua, Lewis, and Hillside. In the landscape areas and the required streetyard landscaping area, the applicant will plant 1.5 times the Landscape Ordinance requirements, which will be one tree for every 20 lineal feet of property line. The applicant also submitted building elevations for the proposed self-service storage warehouse facility (Exhibit A). Exhibit A indicates that all building exteriors will share the same predominate blue, gray, and brick color exterior building materials. The exterior building materials are designated as brick, wood, and metal for all buildings, with asphalt wood- color shingle roofs. The elevations show hip roofs on most structures with a maximum building height of 24 feet on the westernmost building. Signage is shown on the North and East elevations of the office/residence building, adjacent to Hillside and Lewis. This signage shall not exceed 50 square feet for any one sign and shall include a monument sign, not to exceed 12 feet in height, on the corner of Hillside and Lewis. The surrounding area is predominately developed with single-family residential uses to the north and west, Kellogg to the south, and single-family residential uses to the east across Hillside. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are single family homes on property zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential located to the north and west of the site. Planning staff recommends that the site be developed in general conformance with the development standards in the Unified Zoning Code for self-service storage warehouses in the “GO” and “LC” districts. Although general conformance is met with the proposed PUD, the site is not contiguous with a less restrictive zoning district, it does not have direct access to an arterial street, and it does not meet the 25-foot compatibility setback requirement. The Planning Department has received calls from the adjacent neighborhood indicating the need for a park and open space in this area. The Comprehensive Plan maps all the parks in the Metropolitan area, but shows no park within the boundaries of Hillside, Grove, Douglas, and Kellogg. The closest park is in College Hill, across Hillside and approximately ½ mile away from the site. CASE HISTORY: The portion of this property that is currently zoned “GO” was re-zoned in 1977 (Z-1928) and re-platted in 1978 as 400 Lorraine Addition. Despite the “GO” zoning, the use on this property has remained single-family residential. The remainder of the property was acquired for the construction of Kellogg in 1974 and 1975. Not all of the right-of-way was used for the construction of the interchange and has remained vacant since that time. Both the City of Wichita and Mr. Chilton has acquired ownership of the vacant right-of-way, which was deemed surplus by the City of Wichita. The City’s portion of that re-acquired right-of-way is under contract to sell to Mr. Chilton. Security Self-Storage has an agreement to purchase all of Mr. Chilton’s property. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “TF-3” Residential SOUTH: Kellogg Right-of-Way EAST: “SF-6” Residential WEST: “TF-3” Residential PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access to Lewis, a two-lane local street. Traffic volumes are not available for Lewis. Municipal services are available to this site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Low-Density Residential” and “Office” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The Unified Zone Code contains development standards for self-service storage warehouses located in the “GO” and “LC” districts. The Area Treatment Classification Map identifies this general location as a “Revitalization” area. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and the following conditions: A. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body. Any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. B. The third paragraph of General Provision #4-A shall be revised to read, “Portable signs, off-site signs, banners, string pennants and the like shall not be permitted, except for a banner sign permitted for 30 days from the opening of business.” C. General Provision #4-B shall be revised to read, “Building signs shall be permitted on the North, East and South elevations of Building “A”. Said building signs shall not exceed 50 square feet, use individual letters, and be similar to the building signage shown in Exhibit “A”.” D. A General Provision shall be added that reads, “Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted on the site.” E. A General Provision shall be added that reads, “A resident manager shall be required on the site and shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval.” The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is predominately developed with single-family residential uses. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are single-family homes located west and north of the site. South and east of the subject area is the Kellogg-Hillside interchange. There is a dental office at the northeast corner of Lewis and Hillside, and single-family homes beyond that to the east. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: A portion of this property is zoned “GO” General Office. Offices could be developed on the site, however the site has remained undeveloped as this use since it was re-zoned in 1977. The vacant right-of-way is surplus and would not be considered a buildable lot if not used in conjunction with the adjacent property. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental effects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance and the recommended conditions of approval for the PUD zoning. The intended use is a low traffic generator with a manager that resides on the premises. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Low-Density Residential” and “Office” development. Although the self-service storage warehouse use is a commercial use, the Unified Zoning Code places conditions on this type of use when located in a “General Office “ zoning district so that impacts of the use on the surrounding neighborhood are minimized. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property should have limited impact on community facilities. MCKAY “For the record, I have been contacted by the opposition by letter and by phone call.” GAROFALO “Anyone else? The same thing?” LOPEZ “I received a letter.” PLATT “I have been contacted by the opposition in terms of letter, phone call and in person. I have also been contacted in person by the applicant.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I was also contacted by the applicant by phone, and then by letter from the opposition.” GAROFALO “And Commissioner Warner, too.” KROUT “If you received a letter, I assume it was a form letter, let’s make a copy of that for the file. Any materials you receive on this would probably be helpful, for the record. Is there anything about the nature of what was said that you would like to disclose? Any information that may influence your decision on the case this afternoon?” MCKAY “Mine was just related to the fact that it wasn’t in consistency with the neighborhood and they thought it would detract from the neighborhood. It is an older neighborhood. No, it didn’t have any influence one way or another.” GAROFALO “Anyone else?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I think several of us did get the letter.” GAROFALO “I think we all did get the letter.” VAN DE WATER “The contract purchaser, which is the co-applicant on this application, is Security Self-storage. They wish to develop this site for a self-storage warehouse facility. A portion of this property is currently zoned ‘GO’ General Office, while the remainder is currently not zoned because it was taken as right-of-way for the construction of the Hillside/Kellogg Interchange. To the north and west, the property is zoned ‘TF-3’ Two-family residential; across Hillside to the east is ‘SF-6’ zoning, again, right-of-way that was taken for the development of this interchange. (Indicating) This property, shown as ‘LC’ zoning, is actually, we believe, in error in the zoning map, and we would recommend that at a later time this be brought back to you with proper notification for down zoning, or at least the correction of the zoning map, to reflect what we believe should continue to be the ‘TF-3’ zoning district. The surplus right-of-way as was seen in white on the previous slide; Lewis, Chautauqua, Lorraine, extending north of the property, what used to be Lorraine, which is now vacated as a result of the replat of the General Office zoned property. There are three houses existing on the property. This property has never been developed for office uses but it was zoned for in 1977 and replatted in 1978. The applicants have submitted a site plan for this PUD application. You should have copies of this in your staff report. As submitted, the site plan shows 13 storage buildings, three of which are climate controlled; one of which contains a residence for an on-site manager. That building is here (indicating); the residence would be incorporated into this structure. Again, for orientation: Hillside, Kellogg, Chautauqua and Lorraine, north of Lewis. The applicant has provided for building setbacks along Hillside; setback and landscape buffering along all portions which abut residential zoning. No additional landscaping along Kellogg, although currently there is landscaping that was provided for with the interchange development along Kellogg. Elevations, which you also received copies of in your staff report. This particular building is the building closest to Hillside, which will contain the resident, just to give you an example of the construction of those buildings. They do have hip roofs, for the most part. The construction roofing will be shingle roofs, wood and brick siding with brick partially up the sides of the buildings. You do have samples of all of the elevations in your staff reports. I am only showing you the building closest to Hillside and the tallest building, which is the last page of the elevations I gave you. (Indicating) This would be the building closest to Chautauqua on the southwest portion of the site. This will be a climate controlled building. All elevations that will be visible to the north and west will be such that there are no doors facing outward towards the residential districts. The backs of these buildings will act as a screen from the interior of the structure, and between each building, there will be wrought iron fencing. I believe the applicant can go further into detail of what this will look like, and I know that they have color renderings, which will hopefully better enable you to see what this would look like. Self-service storage warehouse facilities are permitted with a Conditional Use permit in the General Office and Limited Commercial districts; subject to conditions that are meant to minimize the impact of the use in areas that are likely to have adjacent residential zoning. They are permitted by right in less restrictive zoning districts, in other words, General Commercial and more intensive. Any use may be permitted within the PUD zoning district, provided it is consistent with the zoning code and an approved PUD plan. Zoning standards and regulations may be varied or modified as part of the PUD plan approval and rezone process, including compatibility setbacks. There is general conformance with this PUD request and the conditions imposed for this type of use in the General Office and Light Commercial zoning districts, except that the site does not have direct access to an arterial, in this case Hillside, and there is no contiguous zoning that is less restrictive. In other words, Limited Commercial or more intensive. Additionally, the plan does not meet the compatibility setback requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. But I should further state that all of these exceptions can be modified through this PUD process. Staff is in support of this request for several reasons. The contract purchaser in this case, Security Self-Storage, has a good reputation for building quality facilities, and the plan and elevation drawings that were submitted as part of this application reflect what has been done in the past. The plan calls for landscaping at 1-1/2 times what is required by the City Landscape Ordinance and will provide buffers to the surrounding residential zoning. All of the doors, the storage rooms, will face inwards or towards Kellogg. A portion of the property is already zoned General Office and currently had the potential for more intensive uses than what is suggested here. The use requested would generate much less traffic than the uses currently permitted on the majority of this site. Staff’s support is contingent on platting within 1 year and conditions. I have listed the conditions in the staff report on Page 4. Items A through C are minor revisions of the conditions that were stated in the PUD. Item D is a general provision that we would like added to the face of the PUD that prohibits outdoor speakers and sound systems. Item E is another general provision addition, regarding the requirement for an on-site manager. In addition, I would like to add one other condition that is not in your staff report, Condition F, that states that the applicant shall submit four revised copies of the PUD to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this application by the governing body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. This recommendation is based on findings listed on Pages 4 and 5 of your staff report. You do have a significant packet of information in front of you that is additional, either submitted from surrounding property owners, surrounding neighborhood associations, or the applicant themselves. You also have a copy of a memo from the D.A.B. #1 representative, recommending denial of this application. The memo itself states that the vote was 6-1. That is in error. It was actually a vote of 9-1 to deny the request. One of the other items that you have is a request for denial from the East Front Neighborhood Association. I also need to state that I received a phone call from Jim Dolenz, President of the Uptown Neighborhood Association, which is north of Douglas and west of Hillside. They also unanimously oppose the request. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions for Lisa?” HENTZEN “Lisa, the zoning slide you had up there that showed green, would you put that back on? Okay, right there. The green is General Office. What is the white?” VAN DE WATER “That is right-of-way that was taken for the development of the Hillside/Kellogg Interchange. It is not zoned.” HENTZEN “It is not zoned. If this thing goes through, it would have to be zoned?” VAN DE WATER “It would have the PUD zoning.” HENTZEN “Okay. That’s all right now.” WARREN “The PUD, then, would overlay the ‘GO’ zoning also?” VAN DE WATER “The PUD would wipe out the ‘GO’. It is its own separate zoning district.” BARFIELD “How many homes will be displaced for this project?” VAN DE WATER “The current homes are on the property that is zoned General Office. There are three homes that sit on this property. They are the only homes that will be removed as part of this project.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? I have a question. Does the City own the right-of-way?” VAN DE WATER “No, actually, Mr. Chilton, who is the owner of the General Office property and the applicant in this application, owns the property. I spoke with Property Management this morning. This is a bit of a confusing issue. This property is owned outright by Mr. Chilton. When the property was acquired for right-of-way in the construction of this interchange, the City obtained a permanent easement over this property. The underlying ownership remained, but the City had that permanent easement for road only. In the 1980s, I believe 1986, when it was obvious that this property was not going to be used for the right-of-way for any of the construction, Mr. Chilton approached the City to see if he could re- obtain fee title on that property. He owned this section here (indicating). This is what used to be Lorraine; this is what used to be the alleys. He owned underlying ownership of this property, (indicating) including the road, and this property, (indicating) which is adjacent to Hillside. There were other property owners that had the underlying ownership. After approval from KDOT, Mr. Chilton was granted fee title of these areas. The City attempted to get in touch with these owners but was unable to. They condemned those properties, paid monies to the courts, which is in holding if those property owners should ever show up. But in essence, obtained fee title on those properties. Subsequently, there was a contract between the City and Mr. Chilton for Mr. Chilton to purchase those properties to make this one cohesive buildable property.” GAROFALO “Okay. I have one other question and then Commissioner Barfield has one. The General Office was platted?” VAN DE WATER “Yes. In 1978. It was rezoned in 1977 to General Office, replatted in 1978. This was all after the right- of-way was acquired in 1974 and 1975 for the interchange project.” GAROFALO “Okay. So that has been zoned for some time?” VAN DE WATER “Yes.” BARFIELD “So you are saying that the property where the houses are located is already owned by Mr. Chilton?” VAN DE WATER “Correct.” BARFIELD “Okay. Can you go back to the previous screen. You mentioned that one area there where the red is that we need to readdress at some point in time, the other in yellow, is that residential?” VAN DE WATER “It is. There are four homes that face Chautauqua.” GAROFLAO “Are there any other questions of Lisa?” OSBORNE HOWES “I am looking through the list of uses for General Office. Which of those uses do you think are a lot more intensive than others?” VAN DE WATER “From a traffic standpoint, the medical office would generate a significantly greater number or daily trips than a mini-warehouse or a self-storage warehouse.” OSBORNE-HOWES “What else?” VAN DE WATER “Well, a General Office complex, for instance, as an example, one of a 20,000 square foot building space would generate also more traffic than the self-service storage warehouse.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Because on a lot of these, I am looking at things like libraries, schools, broadcast studios, funeral homes, learning facility. They don’t strike me as highly intensive.” VAN DE WATER “In looking at what else has developed along Hillside and this somewhat of a medical office corridor, looking towards what would likely be developed along that location, that use seems like a logical one to use for comparison in this case.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Thank you.” BARFIELD “How many units are we talking about?” VAN DE WATER “There are 13 buildings. I don’t have the exact number of actual storage units, but I am sure the applicant can address that.” GAROFALO “Anybody else? Okay, then we will hear from the applicant.” GARY WILEY “Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I am here on behalf of the contract purchaser, Security Self-Storage. First off, I would like to start out by saying that we are in complete agreement with the staff comments, including Item F that Lisa just added. Lisa did mention how this particular development did not comply with the strictest of the zoning district. One, the compatibility setback. Once this is replatted, there area along Lewis would be the front yard, so it does meet the compatibility setback there that we proposed, of 20 feet. Along the westerly line of the property would be required the 25 foot building setback. We have proposed a 15-foot building setback, but increased the landscaping to 1-1/2 times and limited to no doors to face to that direction at all. It would be just a solid brick and wood structure. So we think that that, in fact, would make up for the compatibility setback. It is not located contiguous to a higher zoning district other than the fact that the ‘LC’ is there. Irregardless of that, we do feel that since this is located next to an arterial and an expressway, and it is also in conformance of the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. We think that that ought to be waived with this PUD. Also, it says the use must be located contiguous to an arterial street and have direct access to the arterial street. We would be more than happy to have our access to Hillside; however, I can guarantee you that the Planning Department and Traffic Engineering has already said no. So what we have done is to limit the access to the first 80 feet west of Hillside, so our access will be as close to Hillside as possible. We feel like that is a good compromise in that respect. I know that Ms. Osborne-Howes talked about the traffic generation, and I think Lisa had projected that medical offices can produce about 36 trips per day per thousand square foot of office building. We think 20,000 square feet might be a little much for that area. I calculated about 16,000 square feet that can be put in that existing 1.07 acre site. At 36 trips per day per thousand, that is 576 trips. Once this site is filled, Mr. Ard has traffic counts at other locations. He gets about 30 trips a day with the storage warehouses. If this were developed with residential at four units per acre, you would be looking at 96 trips per day for just residential trips. So we are about one-third of the least development that could happen at this location. I know traffic has been one of the biggest issues here. We feel like this is a good answer for this area here. I know that Mr. Ard has done some private counts along with traffic. His traffic element is approximately 60 percent automobile, 30 percent pick-up trucks, and about 10 percent van-type trucks. There are very few large vehicles that ever come to these sites, so we feel like it is still a residential type. I do know that 50 to 60 percent of the renters are ladies. I can think of several friends of mine that have spaces in antique malls and they buy things on the weekends at auctions and take it to the storage warehousing until they have time to catalog it, or repair it or whatever, and get it back out. I know that Mr. Snyder would like to talk a little bit about the company, so I will shut off here unless you have some specific questions.” BARFIELD “Can you answer the question as to how many units we are talking about?” SNYDER (From the audience) “Two hundred seventy-six actual spaces.” WILEY “There is a total not to exceed 41,620 square feet of building on the side.” BARFIELD “And how do you arrive at the number of visits that you will have?” WILEY “The trips? Mr. Ard has 54 of these, total, in the Midwest, seven of which are located here in Wichita. They have done their own counts as to what traffic does come to these sites. Most recently, you approved one on Douglas and Maize Road. I think that was a little over a year ago. We do have some pictures we can show of that also. “ GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Mr. Wiley?” WILEY “What Gary (Snyder) is handing out is the Douglas and Maize Road project so you can kind of get a better feel for the quality. This site, in fact, will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million to $2 million to develop, as proposed.” GARY SNYDER “I am with Plaza Real Estate, agent for the applicant. Thank you for having us here today. I would like to touch on a couple of things. In today’s paper, depending on which side of town paper you got, some of you may have seen the article this morning in the Neighbors section, particularly the President of the homeowners’ association of the Mill Pond area, which is located in that picture, just to the north side of that. He stated that he was basically happy with the development. I can quote that. We did, in fact, do as we said. It doesn’t have a lot of traffic and he was quite pleased that they allowed that. That was a case that was previously before you that was approved, and prior to that had about a 95 percent protest, and ended up with 95 percent in favor. I would like to discuss a couple of things. Of course, Steve Clark and Bill Ard are on this project. They are local people. They still own the first storage units they had. They have other projects here in town. Their projects do, in fact, incorporate well in the neighborhood. I think some of the things they have tried to do here is to increase the landscape buffers, provide a facility and a building with the pitched roofs, the brick, the siding, no doors facing the interiors, and we even keep the trees that we can keep that are already there so that we can minimize any impact in that neighborhood. Additionally, though, we also looked at this area as part of the redevelopment plan, which I think a lot of you probably approved on February 1 in that Redevelopment Task Force. This happens to lie in the district of the incentive targeted area. Some of the things that were obviously looked at when I presented this site to Mr. Ard as a possible area was tax abatements, financial assistance by the City to get developers to reinvest in the inner city, land assemblage, which was required in this case because additional land would have to be assembled with the existing zoning district in order to allow enough land for even an office building probably in future development along with some flexible construction codes in flexibilities and set backs. The last, of course, was a zone change. We felt like all of those items we weren’t asking for, except the zone change and some setback considerations. In an effort to bring some development into the inner city, we have often been accused of being the suburban sprawlers. We think that we have put our best foot forward in this project. The rendering in itself, we think, would detail what would be proposed on this particular site. But I think the positives for this particular neighborhood are, in fact, that the PUD provides them with something they can count on and they will count on it until it comes before this board or before them again. So, secondly, it does provide lower traffic, and that has been consistent with all of the studies, both nationally and with our in-house studies. The impact of the area, I think, is a lower impact, because even a drivet or any type of office building probably has an architectural style that is less conducive to the neighborhood, because this looks like the garage or house next door. The development to the area, of course, has some economic impact. The project cost is about $1.5 million to $2 million. There are additional jobs that are created by that, so while we have on-site management, and we hope they will become neighbors at some point if this project is approved. We feel that this provides some of the things that we have looked for in the inner-city development plans and likewise fits with the Comprehensive Plan. I can answer any questions, but I think in the final analysis, this complies with the inner-city development and the proposed target areas. It puts the City property back on the tax roles. It sends a message to developers to reinvest in the inner city, to take a look at those vacant parcels and how they can be used. It promotes the economic development that can happen within the inner city. We hope we are consistent, and think that the particular things we are asking for today are consistent with past BZA approvals and also with some zone changes that have happened within the area. I would be glad to answer any questions you have about this project, or even our other project.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Gary?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I guess I’ve got a few. To start with, I have looked through the pictures here, and I think a year ago when you were talking about Douglas and Maize, this was passed out also or something fairly similar to this. Since you have some color renderings up there, I guess I am looking at this and those, and there area couple of things I don’t see here. One is the color of the garage doors and the other is the sign. While I don’t know that that is real important, the color of the garage doors are a bright cobalt blue, not the subtle colors that I see here. The sign is a real bright yellow, neon-type of sign, and I just wonder if the neighbors have seen pictures of those when you are presenting the renderings and such to them.” SNYDER “We are going with a light blue in this particular project because that was discussed before, rather than the darker.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Light cobalt blue?” SNYDER “Would you like a sample of it?’ OSBORNE-HOWES “I would like for the neighbors to at least see that. The reason I mentioned that is when you all came before and as I understand it, one of the reasons that the Planning Department is going along with this is ‘because of your reputation’. I know, having had some contact with the neighbors who live adjacent to the one at Douglas and Maize, that some of them did have some concerns about the colors, particularly because they were promised that it would look like the neighborhood, and then we see the bright neon blue and the bright yellow sign. I will tell you that the majority of the residents that are adjacent to that do not live in Mill Pond. I don’t know whether they have been contacted, but they have had some concerns on this. I guess that was one of my questions. If you are going with a lighter color, it makes me feel like it is more conducive to being a part of the neighborhood. And then another question that I had is on Page 4, under one of the recommendations for approval, under B, the ‘portable signs, off-site signs, banners and the like are not permitted except for one banner sign for 30 days from the opening of the business’. I know that the location at Douglas and Maize had tons of signs out front and that there were complaints and that Central Inspection checked on that. Some of the neighbors talked to me about that. I just wondered if you plan to adhere to this ‘B’.” SNYDER “That is why we put it in there for you.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, no, it was in the last one, too. That is what I am saying. You didn’t do it.” SNYDER “Well, we are doing it now.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, we are talking reputation, and that is a concern that I have.” Man from the audience “I will guarantee that.” SNYDER “And we did change the doors per your request to take a look at that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Just do that with all of your other signs.” SNYDER “There you go.” OSBORNE-HOWES “That is enough for now, I guess.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone else? I have questions, Gary. What makes this site conducive to storage facilities in your applicant’s mind?” SNYDER “I think there are probably a couple of things that make it so. Do you mean why it would be a marketable area for storage?” GAROFALO “Yeah.” SNYDER “I think number one, it is because of the distance to other storage facilities, but more importantly, the immediate neighborhood. Probably 60 percent of our business will come within the first mile or mile and a half. Our users will be both business and residences who will be storing things. In this particular unit, over 25 percent of the units will be climate controlled in a climate controlled unit, you’ve got heating and air conditioning, and you will be storing things that are sensitive to hot and cold and those are typically fine furniture, expensive antiques, books, documents, records and things that businesses may have. When we did our market study, this in fact is a market area for that type of use.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Gary? Thanks, Gary. Is there anybody else here to speak, besides the applicant or agent in approval of this application? Let me have a show of hands of people here who want to speak in opposition. We have 12 people raising their hands. Okay. We will hear from the first one then. State your name and address, please.” TOM FOX “I live at 250 South Erie, in the neighborhood. I would like to speak on behalf of the East Front Association. I believe you all said that you had received copies of a letter from our association indicating some of our objections, so I will try to be brief on that and just add to that letter. The first point, I think, is that we do not believe that this is compatible to our neighborhood. It is an older neighborhood, as you know, one of the oldest neighborhoods in Wichita. Our Neighborhood Association is working to try to make it as safe and attractive as we can. As we said before, this may be a corny phrase, but we think it is a charming neighborhood. It still has a lot of the older residents, but there are a lot of younger people moving in to the ‘fixer uppers’. There are lots of children living and playing in the area, so we are very concerned about that. We circulated a list to see how people felt about this. We have a little over 350 of our residents who said they opposed these storage sheds. The concern is that although the sheds are probably very nice looking and would look really great in some kind of a commercial area, but they are incompatible, we believe, with our residential area. Even those current businesses that are part of our association along Douglas and along Hillside have signed this list. As we indicated, we certainly welcome a chance to improve the older neighborhoods, and I know that you all have put in some sidewalks and curbs and that sort of thing, and that is terrific. It would seem, however, that allowing industrial sprawl on our neighborhood boundaries is not really in keep in the neighborhood improvement. We have a problem with the sound barrier, as we have said. As you know, there are sound barriers to the east of us. At the time this part of Kellogg was put in, there was no sound barrier, so we kind of depend on the trees, such as they are, to do that. You saw a lot of photos from Lisa, showing that the area is heavily greened. There are a lot of older trees there. It doesn’t seem that knocking those down along that strip is consistent with the goal of trying to help us. It would further worsen, in our opinion, the Kellogg traffic noise problem. It is quite objectionable to the southern part of the neighborhood. If you are in the 400 block along any of those streets, it is very difficult to hear with all of the traffic noise along Kellogg. We have been trying to work with the City Park Department to put in some of those 100,000 trees that we were promised for next year. We are concerned about safety. You have heard numerous people say that the traffic increase for the storage sheds would be no worse than and perhaps not as bad as an office building. But it is a little different story. The businesses on Hillside and Douglas are small businesses. They are part of the medical complex and they have access to Douglas or to Hillside. They have been good neighbors. They have worked with us. Traffic for the storage sheds will be 24 hours per day, seven days a week. That concerns us because that says that after hours, after school, on weekends when children are playing in the street or in their front yards, we will have trucks moving through our narrow streets. If you have been in the neighborhood, you know how narrow the streets are with a car parked on the other side, it is very difficult to get any vehicle, especially any kind of U-Haul deal, down through there. In addition, that corner of Lewis and Lorraine, right next to the proposed entrance, is a school bus stop. We indicated in our letter that there would be some traffic congestion. It is suggested that perhaps that is not a problem, but we would submit that if you would notice if you come down Hillside just ready to make the on ramp to Kellogg, just 80 feet off of that is where the entrance to the storage sheds would be. There is a stoplight there and you can appreciate the jam that will occur in that area. Furthermore, if you are coming from the south, you would have to go up past that, around the barriers that are on Hillside, through the residential area, through these narrow streets, and on down to the storage sheds. We think that is a problem. The developer said that they would indicate to their people that perhaps they could go down Kellogg to Oliver, up Oliver to Douglas, down Douglas to Hillside and back to get in. I think we all know that that is not very likely to happen. Lisa has indicated the various things that need to be changed to be in accordance with your plan, but it appears to us that this really doesn’t fit the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. As we look through that, it indicates commercial sites should limit activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. In our opinion, this would have a definite impact on it. It has been suggested that these storage sheds are for us, for the neighborhood. Three hundred-fifty people signed the list saying they don’t need it, they don’t want it. As you also heard, the neighborhood north of us passed unanimously that they don’t need it and they don’t want it. Our College Hill friends have been very concerned about it; the Sunnyside group just south had a similar passing of this kind of an ordinance. We have quite a few elderly residents, as I indicated earlier. As we sent our list around, we interviewed a number of those. I would like to just briefly read one of these before I close here.” GAROFALO “Mr. Fox, your time is just about over. Do you need more time?” FOX “Could I have 30 seconds?” MOTION: That the speaker’s time be extended. GAROFALO moved, BARFIELD seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. FOX “We interviewed a number of the elderly residents there and one of these ladies said she couldn’t make it today, but she would like to have me represent her, so we jotted down what she would have said if she would have been able to have been here. ‘My name is Margaret Gabert. I am 91 years old as of July 22. I live in the 400 block of South Estelle, and have lived here for 56 years. I love this neighborhood, it is a nice neighborhood, and I hope it stays that way. Please don’t allow them to build storage sheds in my neighborhood’. That is all I have, unless there are questions.” MARNELL “Mr. Fox, if the owner of this property would develop it other than this project, what kind of a project do you think would be suitable for that property?” FOX “If it were some kind of a general office project like the current offices they have down on Hillside it would be terrific. We would welcome those people.” MARNELL “Wouldn’t they have the same problem with this particular site with access through the neighborhood?” FOX “If they would put the entrance where it is suggested here, just off of Hillside, the answer is yes, sir, they would.” MICHAELIS “Earlier, you were talking about traffic about being a concern. If we are looking at a usage here that is considerably less than a medical facility would be or another general office would be, you would be okay with the increased traffic?” FOX “It is not necessarily the amount of traffic that bothers us as much as how it would have to go through there and the type of traffic. Our concern is truck traffic and after hours and on weekends with children playing in the area.” MICHAELIS “I concur with a statement you made that people are going to go the shortest way, whichever it is, regardless of what is in there.” FOX “That is absolutely correct, sir.” BETH KING “I live at 4222 East English, in the College Hill area. I am currently Vice President of the College Hill Neighborhood Association, but please be very clear that the College Hill Neighborhood Association has not met, so it has not considered this item. There has been no official posture by the College Hill Neighborhood Association. The applicant was kind enough to come out and visit with members of the College Hill Neighborhood Association Board, and I can tell you from that informal meeting, of which we are very appreciative, no one on the College Hill Board felt very excited about the project. I am here to express to you my personal opinion. I find this to be an inappropriate use of this particular property. I would remind you, as you all know better than I, that the first zoning district wherein storage units are permitted by right is General Commercial. General Office and General Commercial is a vast difference between the two of them. I personally welcome the development of this property and when the property is developed, there will be additional traffic and there will be additional noise. There will be additional problems with buffers, and perhaps the loss of trees, but I don’t believe that this is an appropriate redevelopment or an appropriate use of the zoning as it is intended, either. As someone on a professional basis who was recently hired by the City of Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Housing Services and the Oak Lawn Improvement District Board, I will tell you that from my prospective, that I think is very important in this city, as we consider redevelopment and infill, is something very nebulous called image enhancement. I think there are areas in the City and in the County as well where inappropriate land uses have left us with a questionable feeling about whether or not we are doing something to enhance areas. In my opinion again, this is an inappropriate use of the property, particularly, and I realize it is subjective, because of the image enhancement that I think is appropriate along the Hillside corridor. Because we have an arterial and an expressway, I understand that you might be a little more liberal with the development that you see possible here, but again in my opinion, this is an extreme alteration of the Zoning Code as it sits today, and the intent of the Code, and in my opinion, the intent of the long term Comprehensive Plan for this area, both East Front and College Hill, all surrounding neighborhoods. Any questions?” WARREN “One use that is a permitted and allowed use that hasn’t been discussed here is a hotel/motel. I see that as a greater threat than about anything that has been discussed here because of its accessibility to that Interstate. When we look at these different uses, we ought to consider that that is another one that may go in that location.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mrs. King? Okay, thank you. We will hear from the next speaker.” JUDY LOGANBILL “Good afternoon. I live at 215 South Erie. I am quite a ways over, but this does impact me. I think you have heard over and over again that this neighborhood does not want the storage units. We have heard the developer say that the people that will use the storage facilities are coming from within a mile of the neighborhood. Every time that has been mentioned, every time I have been at one of these meetings, everybody’s head shakes ‘no, I don’t have a need for storage units’. Again, you have heard the concern with the traffic. The facilities that are on Hillside do have immediate access in there. I think of my eye doctor, and I don’t think he has over 36 folks a day to come up and down. But what we are talking about is traffic that is going to go up to Waterman, go on Waterman and come down on Lorraine and again, these are very narrow streets, and they are brick, not the regular streets like now. So any type of damage that is done to these streets, the City is going to have to come in and repair and the streets are going to be repaired as they were before, so you are going to repair them with brick again in order to keep the flavor of our neighborhood. This is an older neighborhood and the brick buildings and the wrought iron fences do not fit in with the neighborhood. If you travel in this neighborhood you are going to see wood frame buildings, you are going to see bungalows from the 1920s and the 1930s. You are going to see developed yards with full trees. You are not going to see a bunch of brick storage units in this neighborhood. I personally have a problem with the concept that in order to develop what is called ‘inner-city neighborhoods’. We develop it with storage units. To me, that is not in the keeping of good inner-city development. I, myself, would much rather see a playground of some sort. This is a neighborhood that is developing over the years. I have been there for 14 years and each year, my property values have increased. I, for one, am extremely pleased when my property value goes up, because to me, that says that the neighborhood is growing and is becoming a vibrant neighborhood. We have a lot of younger families that are coming into our neighborhoods and they have young children in the neighborhood. That is the kind of development that the East Front Neighborhood Association wishes to see in the neighborhood. Once again, we do not wish to see storage units. If I were a business owner and I were being confronted with an association that said ‘we don’t want it, we didn’t ask for it’; I don’t think that sets up a very good relationship between all of the parties. This is an area that needs to be developed for homeowners; it does not need to be developed for someone who is going to come in and put in storage units. I did hear, and perhaps someone can answer the question about tax abatements. Are they suggesting that they would be given some tax abatements for several years in order to have this come in? Because if that is the case, I think we have a major problem, because then what does that do to help the tax rolls in the City? I think by offering a tax abatement, that defeats the whole purpose. Frankly, there are other areas in the City that are much better suited for this type of endeavor.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mrs. Loganbill? Thank you . Next speaker.” SUSANE GRUNING “I live at 3010 Oakland, which is just kind of directly north of where you want to put the storage sheds. We first bought our home around nine years ago. We bought it because of the way the neighborhood looked. My one concern, living on Oakland, was the commercial property right behind my back yard. But with the full grown trees and the fence, the value of the property at the time, on which we have done a lot of renovation, compensated for that, knowing that that was all there was going to be. I am probably not going to say anything different than the rest of my neighbors are going to say or that you haven’t already heard. I am a simple person. This is my home. You guys all have homes as well. This is our neighborhood. We don’t need storage sheds. I think it was mentioned that probably 25% of us might use these storage sheds. I think that was in error. I think if we were asked, the answer would probably have been a blank ‘no’. Ms. King did bring up a really good issue that I thought of as well, as far as the redevelopment for the inner city. I don’t consider that re-development. I don’t see how that benefits us 10 years down the road. When we bought our house, and the last woman that spoke mentioned the increase of our property value, and we worked hard to make that happen. Don’t take that away from us. Thank you.” GAROFALO “Any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Next speaker.” RACHAEL MURPHY “I live at 401 South Chautauqua. The reason we moved into our neighborhood is that we have small children and it is a very nice neighborhood for small children. There are lots of them on Chautauqua. There are also lots of them on Lorraine. We understand that these storage sheds are going to be really nice. The new ones that they showed you are really nice. But that is a new neighborhood. The streets are wider, the people are younger. This is an older neighborhood that is safe. We had a representative from the Police Department come out and he told us that we have one of the safest neighborhoods in Wichita. We don’t have much crime. We don’t have many burglaries because we look out for each other. He said one of the first things that happens is that the burglaries increase because the person who is putting it in said that there would be antiques there, there is going to be nice furniture there, there are going to be computers there. There is going to be things that people are going to want and will come in and take their chances to take. That puts our children in danger, it puts our women in danger, and we don’t want it. They said 60% comes from the neighborhood. We have done everything we can as simple people to show you that we don’t want it. There are signs in our yards, we have gone on television, and we signed everything we can. We have children that get off at bus stops in the areas where they want to bring in their big trucks. Please consider what this would do to your own families, your own homes and your own children. We aren’t just faces, we are people who have worked hard to build what we have. Thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Ms. Murphy? Thank you. Next speaker.” DON MURPHY “I live at 401 South Chautauqua. Right, as you can see, in the ‘hot spot’ of this area. We have two three- year-old daughters; we have a six-year-old daughter and an eight-year-old son. I understand the traffic being the major issue; it seems, on this. Even if these are not large trucks that are going through our neighborhood, even if they are light trucks, or they are passenger cars, I would like to submit to you that if one child, at any point in time in the evenings or on the weekend were to forget what their parents told them and dash out from amongst the parked cars and get hit by one of these vehicles, these storage sheds would not be worth that trouble. GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Next speaker.” CELIA GORLICH “I live at 402 South Crestway in College Hill. I am also the president of the College Hill Neighborhood Association. I will be very brief. I am here mostly to support, along with Beth King, the East Front Uptown Neighborhood Association and everyone who will be directly impacted. College Hill will be impacted, of course, not quite as much as those neighborhoods, but you know us well for fighting for our neighborhood. The one thing that no one has brought up is precedent. Bringing in a facility such as this in neighborhoods that are inner- city, urban neighborhoods, we get a lot of lip service in this town to not letting the inner-city or the urban neighborhood fall through the cracks. We feel that this would be allowing it to start something snowballing. Other developers, who might not be as thoughtful as the gentleman representing this storage facility, might come in and it would be a little bit easier, I think, the next time, to bring something into the neighborhood that we don’t need or want. So we are going to stand our ground as much as we can. Thank you for listening to us.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Next speaker. “ PHIL MURRAY “I am really outside of the area as far as my residence, but I am the president of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, which is just across Kellogg to the south, adjoining East Front. I don’t have any other points to bring out. I think they have all been eloquently stated, but I wanted you to know that the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association executive board voted unanimously against this project. We think they are wonderful sheds, but we feel that it is an intrusion, as everyone has already stated. That is really I wanted to present to you from the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Murray? Thank you. Next speaker.” PATRICE DOLENZ “Hi. I am from the Uptown Neighborhood Association. We also agree that this is not an appropriate use for this neighborhood at this time. I also want to remind you that the D.A.B. voted last week to agree with the East Front that this is not an appropriate use of this area at this time. I live at 405 N. Chautauqua, and I use this little strip a lot to go onto Kellogg. I guess my own personal feeling is that I have just always thought that it was a really nice greenway. I didn’t know that it was owned and zoned for commercial at this time. I guess I have a problem with the City when they have surplus property that some of the surplus property that the City does have is well posted, like the area down on Topeka off Kellogg, and it seems that some of the property that the City has for sale is not posted with ‘for sale, City of Wichita surplus property’. Possibly then the homeowners in this area or the people in the City of Wichita would have a chance to know that the property is up for sale and maybe they would buy it to have a buffer from Kellogg or a greenway, just another green area that would be nice and enhance their property. I guess that is the one great problem I have. I don’t know if maybe the City needs to develop a group that might oversee surplus property that the City has to sell, instead of like, all of a sudden, somebody approaches the City on the side that doesn’t really want to live in this area, but wants to develop it and make money off of it. Maybe just a little tiny public notice in the paper that says that this is happening, and a lot of us miss it. Thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Next speaker.” BEVERLY AUDE “I live at 341 South Hillside. I am one of those yellow squares on Hillside, and I know about the traffic. I know that during the day it is terrible. We have hard time even getting out of our driveway. I do know that on Saturdays and Sundays and at night, when all of those other offices go home, it is very peaceful. I really don’t see that this is appropriate property for storage units. Couldn’t we look at something that would beautify that, just like we beautified the section going on the Kellogg Interchange with the time clock and all of that? Why would we want to put storage units just a mile down from all of that beauty? Thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Next speaker. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this? Seeing none, the applicant has two minutes for rebuttal.” SNYDER “I hope you can see, by the aerial photo, that we can blend with a neighborhood. Some of the things I think have been brought up, I would like to address briefly. We absolutely are not asking for a tax abatement. We are simply saying that there were some incentives in that program that were shown as incentives for developers. We are not asking for that, we simply want the zoning. There are 32,000 to 34,000 people living in a one-mile area. That is one of the reasons we picked this area. We have 350 people who are choosing not to say that they support this, and I appreciate that. Fifty percent of our customers are women. Fifty to sixty percent of our traffic is cars; the other 30 percent are trucks. Other than that, we have about a 10 or 15 percent, which will probably be a moving van of some sort. Again, 50 percent of our people are women who come in. Our doors are very light, they are very quiet and they are made accessible to people to get in and out easily. We have 24- hour operation, but I would venture to say that there are office facilities that do that and there are medical facilities, minor emergency centers, and telemarketing systems. All of those can have 24-hour traffic. One of the concerns is about the traffic in the neighborhood. People usually call us when they want to rent a storage facility. They first want to know what it costs, what sizes we have, and do we have any availability. When they do that, we have worked with our managers extensively to turn around and let them know that there is a way to get there and what the best way is. We are on freeways in Dallas, Texas, and I will tell you that you have to go 2-3 miles to an exit ramp to get to us. We advise them how to get to us without going through the neighborhoods. They do do that, and people are accustomed to that. Last but not least, I would like to say that our systems are secure, you can’t get in without a credit card. We are video taped at all times, and if a door opens, we know it and we know which unit it is. We are probably one of the most secure things that is going to be in the area. Are there any questions?” BARFIELD “Sir, in Texas, are your facilities located in residential neighborhoods?” SNYDER “Yes, they are.” BARFIELD “Thank you. You mentioned that about 50 percent of your customers are women. As you have witnessed here today, 80 to 90 percent of the people that are against this that have spoken here are women. Your brochure says ‘What will the neighbors think?’ The neighbors have spoken. I think one of those speakers said that she didn’t think that this would be an ideal situation to make for a good relationship between your client and the neighborhood when the feelings are as mixed as they are. Does that weigh any at all on your client’s position?” SNYDER “What we are doing here today is the same thing we have done in almost every single project we have put in in all 54 of them. We have neighbors and we offer to try to meet with them. I only got to meet with a very small amount of them. If we would have had a chance and we could have had dialog, we maybe could have had a few less neighbors with some concern here. I really feel like today their issues are not so much about what I am doing, they just don’t want anything there. They don’t want anything other than what it is already zoned for. I still give you that we are less impact to that neighborhood than what can be put on there today by right. I would hope you would take that into consideration, because I do think we would be less traffic. I would tell you that a 91-year-old person could be a storage user tomorrow. I would hope not, but she could be. How does that happen? It happened to me. I didn't need a storage unit a few years ago, but when my mother passed away, I had all of my parents’ stuff and I had to go put it in a storage unit. My daughter didn’t need a storage unit three years ago, but when she had a car accident, I had to take her out of college and rent a storage unit. This is happening to all of us. We may not need a storage unit today, but I will bet every one of you, if the need arises, probably know where it is. Every one of you probably has one in mind, and it is going to be the closest one to your home. So that is where we want them. We want you to be able to get in and out of them. So all of our units are in residential areas. The old systems go into industrial areas. We don’t do that. We don’t build metal buildings, orange doors and brown buildings. We build a very expensive, residential-type building. That is what works. That is what works for us. We have been doing it for over 20 years, and we don’t want to change.” BARFIELD “What are your hours of operation?” SNYDER “We are open 24 hours. We have an on-site manager that allows them to get in.” HENTZEN “Gary, you indicated it was from $1.5 to $2 million investment. What would the yearly property taxes on that?” SNYDER “Well, 30 percent of that times the mill levy. I really didn’t figure that, Mr. Hentzen, but it is a pretty good number. I don’t have a calculator with me, but being a commercial property, unlike a residential property, it is tacked at 30 percent. He says it would be $40,000 to $50,000, plus we just recently gave the City $120,000 plus for the property. Mr. Chilton did that.” MARNELL “Mr. Snyder, do you know the percentage of use of this type of facility during what would be considered normal business hours, as opposed to overnight, maybe.” SNYDER “Probably 90 percent. This is during the day time.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I guess I have one question. Since you were kind enough to offer the color of the doors, I would like to have it entered into the record.” SNYDER “That would be great. The actual color is a light blue than the dark blue that we had on Maize Road ones. That was suggested earlier by the Planning Department that that might be a better color, so we agree to that.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. We will take it back to the Commission now. What is the pleasure, if any?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I don’t know how I am going to vote yet. I am sure hoping for some discussion on his. I did want to ask one question and that is that someone commented that a hotel or motel could be there. I looked up some of the information and I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t think it is big enough and I think there are some other restrictions on that that probably wouldn’t put a hotel or motel there. Marvin, am I right about that?” KROUT “That is accurate. There are special conditions for a hotel in a General Office district and one of those is that it has to have direct access as well as frontage to an arterial street. The State of Kansas Transportation Department controls the Hillside access and will permit no access on Hillside.” OSBORNE-HOWES “And then I have another question to go along with that, just a real brief one. On Page 3 of the staff comments, you put an odd paragraph in here, and I guess I am going to ask what it is doing in here. It says that you had received calls from the adjacent neighborhood indicating the need for a park and open space in this area. Of course, I know we might be getting all of this big money for parks now, which I read about in the paper, but it shows no park within the boundaries of Hillside and the closest park is in College Hill, over half a mile away. What was the intent of that?” KROUT “We were just trying to provide you with all of the information available about this case. One of the issues that was brought up was that this land was in public ownership, and as you heard this afternoon, some people think that maybe that is the way it should stay.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Okay, I was just curious.” BARFIELD “I have a question for Marvin. You stated that in General Office a motel could not be built, but it is my understanding that this is not zoned property.” KROUT “If that tract that is zoned office had frontage and access to Hillside, then a motel could be built, but it can’t because it doesn’t have direct frontage or access.” GAROFALO “And it is not likely to get it.” KROUT “It is not likely to get it.” WARREN “But it is not impossible.” PLATT “This is kind of an interesting case, I think it would almost be nice to have it on film. I think we have what I think was a very carefully prepared and developed proposal requiring a zone change. We have a very organized opposition, which is exactly the sort of thing that makes an interesting case in terms of a planning decision. I want to compliment the applicant on doing a good job of preparing it, and I want to compliment the various neighborhood associations that were represented here today. I think it is really superb that we have a situation where neighborhood associations do get together and support each other, which seems to me to be one of the important parts of the planning process works, so it is kind of a good case. It seems to me that we could probably simplify the whole process and speed it up a little bit if we stop and remember that not too long ago, we approved some storage units that were separated from a neighborhood that was as strongly opposed to them as this group is, but they were separated by a railroad track. There were no storage units that in any way touched the neighborhood properties. It was absolutely impossible to get to the storage units by going through the neighborhood. You had to use the arterial street. The City Council sent that back to us and said very firmly, ‘you can’t treat neighborhoods this way’. So, it seems to me that we already have gotten the answer to this from the City Council that this is not a proper way to treat a neighborhood. “ MOTION: I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be denied. PLATT moved, BARFIELD seconded the motion. HENTZEN “I really wanted to make a statement before he made that motion, but now I will be forced to make a substitute motion.” 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 surrounding area is predominately developed with single- family residential uses. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are single-family homes located west and north of the site. South and east of the subject area is the Kellogg-Hillside interchange. There is a dental office at the northeast corner of Lewis and Hillside, and single-family homes beyond that to the east. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: A portion of this property is zoned “GO” General Office. Offices could be developed on the site, however the site has remained undeveloped as this use since it was re-zoned in 1977. The vacant right-of-way is surplus and would not be considered a buildable lot if not used in conjunction with the adjacent property. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental effects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance and the recommended conditions of approval for the PUD zoning. The intended use is a low traffic generator with a manager that resides on the premises. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Low-Density Residential” and “Office” development. Although the self-service storage warehouse use is a commercial use, the Unified Zoning Code places conditions on this type of use when located in a “General Office “ zoning district so that impacts of the use on the surrounding neighborhood are minimized. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property should have limited impact on community facilities.)That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the application be approved, subject to the following: 1. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body. Any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 2. The third paragraph of General Provision #4-A shall be revised to read, “Portable signs, off-site signs, banners, string pennants and the like shall not be permitted, except for a banner sign permitted for 30 days from the opening of business.” 3. General Provision #4-B shall be revised to read, “Building signs shall be permitted on the North, East and South elevations of Building “A”. Said building signs shall not exceed 50 square feet, use individual letters, and be similar to the building signage shown in Exhibit “A”.” 4. A General Provision shall be added that reads, “Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted on the site.” 5. A General Provision shall be added that reads, “A resident manager shall be required on the site and shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval.” 6. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the PUD to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this application by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.” HENTZEN moved, WARREN seconded the motion. WARREN “I would also like to speak to this. I don’t think there is anybody here, again, that would say that we are not sensitive to the concerns of these people out here in the audience, but the thing that I am hearing is two or three things that are of concern. The traffic, we’ve heard of that. We have ‘GO’ zoning out there now, and if it isn’t this use, it could be, I think, a fairly major medical facility. We are not talking about some little doctor’s office. This thing has enough land associated with it to have a pretty substantial medical facility out there generating traffic again, possibly 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. And, we could have a pretty major office complex there. It has been suggested that this be a park, or this be some other use, but that is simply not a practical application of this. These people have money in this land. One thing we know we can’t do, and that is to deny them all viable economic use, and that is the words of the Supreme Court. We can’t do that. We haven’t done that, and we are not trying to do that. They already have the zoning. So we are talking about the lesser of the evils. And in my opinion, this is the lesser of evils as it would relate to traffic and interference of that neighborhood that a fairly major medical facility out there or a fairly major office complex, and I haven’t discounted the possibility of getting a hotel/motel in that location. I think it is very possible. So I will support it just on the basis that it is the lesser of evils.” BARFIELD “I don’t have anything against storage facilities. I think that from everything I have seen, these people will probably build a very nice looking unit. I do have a problem, though, with the area that they want to build this in. Also, it has been mentioned by the agent for the applicant about the economic development issue. I don’t see any economic development, but I do think that if we were talking about a major medical facility or a hotel, or even a small doctor’s office, it would offer more economic development than what this proposal does as we see it today. So, while I am not against storage units, I am against a storage unit in this particular location because I don’t feel that that this makes for the best use of that property.” HENTZEN “I offered this motion based on these things: In the past year or so, we have heard more about infill development than almost any other item. In fact, I heard a new term today, not urban sprawl, but industrial sprawl. I don’t know what that means, but here is an attempt to build, in what many of us feel is an infill area. One of my questions earlier was what are the taxes going to be when this thing is done? We heard that they will spend $1. 5 million to $2 million, and the property taxes will be somewhere near $50,000 a year. I am just going to guess that those three houses that are on this owner’s property now, probably that property doesn’t have to pay much over $3,000 to $5,000 per year. Now, there are a lot of things that need to be done in this City as regards infrastructure in older neighborhoods. In fact, I think there was a big article in the paper yesterday or today about how many million dollars it is going to take to fix the sewer lines. But just on a business basis, you’ve got to let somebody develop this land to pay the bill to do the things that this City needs. Now, it has been sitting there for 22 to23 years and nothing has happened. Playground and park area has been mentioned, and I haven’t heard or seen anything that the City Council has discussed about this particular spot of land as going to be a park or a playground or something. If that is what they want, all they have to do is buy it from the owner and let’s do it. You know, in regards to the type of idea that they have presented, there is no air pollution, there is no ground pollution, there is no lighting all night that will keep the neighborhood all lit up. There is really no noise. We heard a pretty good analysis that there is not a serious traffic problem. So, I don’t know what would be better to be put there and pay $50,000 a year in taxes. And you know what? The staff recommended approval, and I take great pride in supporting their decision.” OSBORNE-HOWES “First, I would like to ask Mr. Hentzen as part of his substitute motion also allow that the applicant offered a lighter color of door?” HENTZEN “No, I don’t think we ought to be deciding the color of the door.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Normally, I wouldn’t either, except that this particular applicant has made such a case, even in the past of wanting to fit in with the neighborhood, and showing designs that two other neighborhoods when they have made the same case. That is the reason why.” HENTZEN “What they have showed me today and what they have said today satisfies any requirement I have on what it is going to look like. I don’t think we ought to be picking the colors of the doors.” KROUT “Susan, I think you can consider that they have amended their application and that is part of what is on the table today.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, I guess part of the reason for that is that I have had so many phone calls from the other neighbors of the other places that I guess I would like to make a comment. I have been going back and forth on this one, not really sure how I would be voting, but a couple of things have probably swayed it for me. One is when we talk about development and we talk about infill that is suitable, I must say that the true measure of economic development is not just the investment in the land and the use of that land, but also the employment that goes along with that. There is not going to be much additional employment on this, just as a side comment. I guess one of my concerns is that if you are talking about infill development in a sensitive area, particularly an older neighborhood, I think you really have to question the kinds of development that go in there. I think that if this were truly designed to meet the needs of the local neighborhoods, that locating it near to a major arterial probably wouldn’t be as important. I am guessing that part of the traffic coming into this facility will be from outside of the neighborhood as opposed to inside of the neighborhood. I am also very concerned that anything that gets developed along here is not accessing onto Hillside, but rather accessing onto a local and narrow street. Another thing that did it for me, too, is looking through the current uses allowed for General Office. I must say that not only do I not see them as particularly intensive, but that the neighbors also don’t seem to see that. This isn’t an area that has been vacant and not developed for a variety of reasons for 20 some years, it is actually a fairly unusual kind of thing. And lastly, I don’t see this as anything major. I don’t think it could be developed into a major medical facility. There is no way that I can see a hotel or motel being on there. So I guess because of those reasons, even though I think that the applicant has done a good job of developing the concept, this is nothing against the applicant, but I will not support the motion.” MOTION: That the question be called. MICHAELIS moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). GAROFALO “Let’s have a roll call vote on the substitute motion to approve.” VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: The motion carried with 8 votes in favor (Marnell, Warren, Warner, Carraher, Lopez, Hentzen, Michaelis and McKay) and 4 in opposition (Osborne-Howes, Platt, Barfield and Garofalo). Johnson was not present. KROUT “This case does go on to the City Council. The Council’s policy is not to have an additional public hearing, but anyone who spoke at this meeting and signed up will receive a notice of when that meeting will be scheduled. -------------------------------------------------------------- McKay left the meeting at 3:40 p.m. 5. CON2000-00025 - Judges 331 Company, Tulsa, OK (owner), Jamed G. Razook and Lindy Andeel (applicants) and Kim Edgington, Austin Miller (agent) request a Conditional Use to allow the sale of used cars on property described as: Odd Lots 1 through 23, inclusive, on Meridian, Garfield Park Addition to Wichita, Kansas, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the east 10 feet for street. Located on the southwest corner of Harry and Meridian (1611 South Meridian). 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use to permit used car sales on a platted one-acre tract of land. They indicate a desire to offer up to a maximum of 50 vehicles for sale. This property is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is located at the southwest corner of Meridian and Harry Streets (see map). Access to the site is from Meridian and from Harry. There was a convenient store at this location but has been vacant for over two years. The property north of the application is a transmission shop and zoned “LC” Limited Commercial, the property to the south is a vacant lot and is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial; to the east is a bar that is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial; to the west is a gravel alley and there are houses zoned “TF-3” Two-Family District. Outdoor vehicle and equipment sales in the “LC,” Limited Commercial, district is permitted if: the location is contiguous to a major street; visual screening of areas contiguous to residential zoning is provided; storage and display areas are paved with concrete, asphalt or other comparable material; outdoor lighting shall employ cut-off luminaries mounted at a height not exceeding one-half the distance from the neighboring lot unless evidence is shown that the light source is not visible from the neighboring lot; no noise amplification system within 500 feet of the site; no repair work maybe conducted except in an enclosed building; and no body or fender work is permitted. Code required parking is at the rate of one space per 500 square feet of building area, plus two spaces for the first 10,000 square feet of area used for sales, display and storage, plus one space per 10,000 square feet thereafter. This site contains approximately 40,650 square feet of sales, display and storage area and approximately 2,554 square feet of building area. Six parking spaces would b