METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 2002 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, September 12, 2002, 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: Bud Hentzen, Vice-Chair; Ron Marnell; Don Anderson; Harold Warner; Frank Garofalo; Ray Warren; Kerry Coulter; James Barfield; David Wells; John McKay, Jr., Elizabeth Bishop and Dorman Blake. Jerry Michaelis, Chair and Bill Johnson were not present. Staff members present were: Mike Lindebak, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Jamsheed Mehta, Supervisor, Transportation Planning and Valerie Robinson, Recording Secretary. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. Election of Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Chair. MOTION: Appoint Bernard A. Hentzen as Chair WARREN moved, WELLS seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). Election of Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Vice-Chair. MOTION: Appoint Kerry Coulter as Vice Chair. WARREN moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). No other nominations for Chair or Vice-Chair were made. ----------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of MAPC meeting minutes for August 8, 2002 and August 22, 2002. MOTION: Approve the August 8, 2002 minutes, subject to changes discussed today. MCKAY moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). Approval of MAPC minutes for August 22, 2002 MOTION: Approve the August 22, 2002 minutes subject to changes discussed today. MCKAY moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). Mr. Blake arrived. ----------------------------------------------------- 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee Recommendations items 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 be taken as one Motion. MOTION: Take the above items in one motion. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ----------------------------------------------------- 3-1. SUB2002-00018 – Final Plat – SECOND ADDITION TO BENTLEY FARMS, located south of 101ST Street North and on the west side of 103rd Street West. A. This site is located over the Equus Beds aquifer. The Equus Beds Management District has approved the use of sewage lagoons for the site. B. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. County Code Enforcement has approved the site for sewage lagoons. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan has not been approved. An agreement with the property owner(s) to the west is needed verifying that they will continue to accept the water and not block the discharge. E. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed streets. The two Chinook Courts need to be built to 36 feet wide and 6 inches thick rock standard. The Applicant is advised that although the streets are under construction, no street plans have been approved. F. On the final plat tracing, the contingent dedication of right-of-way needs to be referenced in the plattor's text. The language should state that "the contingent street dedications are hereby contingently dedicated as street right-of-way to become effective upon the platting of any adjacent subdivision having a street connecting thereto. The costs of constructing said street, are to be borne by the person(s) or agency that owns said adjacent subdivision." G. The Applicant is advised that if platted, the building setbacks may be reduced to 35-ft from the section line roads and 30 feet from the interior streets. H. Lots 6, 7, 11 and 12, Block 2 do not conform with the 200-ft lot width standard which is measured at the building setback line. The Subdivision Committee has approved a modification contingent upon each lot conforming with the 100-ft frontage requirement. I. County Fire Department/GIS needs to comment on the street names. The street names are approved. J. The maintenance responsibility of the drainage detention easements needs to be noted in plattor's text. K. Lot 6, Block 2 does not have a side yard utility easement. L. County Surveying has requested that all curves need central angles need to be shown. M. In the plattor's text and the register of deeds certificate "Book" needs changed to "Film". N. Utility easements should be continuous along the property lines. Several on this plat are discontinued at drainage and/or detention easements. The easements should be relocated to function properly. O. Chinook Court has angles for the street and the right of way. These should be redesigned to have radius bends. P. Access drives to any structures in excess of 150' from the edge of the roadway will need to be installed prior to final framing inspection preferably before the start of any above grade construction work. Such drive to be installed according to fire department specifications: - 20' of drivable surface is provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather. - The surface will need to be an all weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4" in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed). - The streets are to be installed in accordance with Sedgwick County roadway standards and be accepted by the county prior to individual lot development. Q. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". R. On the final plat, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "J.D. Michaelis, Chair". S. The signature line for the County Commissioners Chairman needs to reference "Ben Sciortino". T. 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. U. The pedestrian/equestrian easement and tree easement should be platted as reserves. The final plat tracing shall state in the plattor's text the purposes of the proposed reserves as well as the ownership and maintenance responsibilities. V. 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. W. 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. X. 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.) Y. 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. Z. 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 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. AA. 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. BB. 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. CC. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. DD. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. EE. 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. Westar Energy has requested additional easements. FF. 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. GARY SEILER, 9449 N. Maize Road, I live south of this property that is being developed. I farmed it prior to it being sold to the Roaches. I know how the ground lays, and I know that there is an area on the west end that holds water. Any excess runoff of the field always runs into that. I never had any water, that I know of, that went beyond that. With them putting a road in, and plotting this off, making a ditch down through there; you know, you take a road and a ditch, the water is going to run on down. That is where you had a field before, and the water soaked in. I am not willing to accept any water running off this development into my property. If it is, I will probably dike it up. Also, the nitrate that is in the soil, the water tests high in nitrate out there. I wonder if these people that are moving out there know that they have to put a well in, and they will have problems with nitrate in their water. Also, the Equus Beds informed me that the lagoons are above ground; lagoons that are lined with liner inside the lagoon. It is not, or they are not okaying, a pit to be dug there for a lagoon. It is above ground with a liner in it. That is all I have to say. Any questions? MARNELL Anybody have questions of the speaker? WARNER You say your concerns are the water running south or west. SEILER Both, my brother farms grounds on the west side and he is concerned about that too. I am the one on the south side, and I am concerned about that. We originally farmed all of that. I sold it to Gregory L Smith. About seven days later he flipped a deal over to the Roaches, and it went into this development stage. It originally was supposed to be one house, a retirement for Mr. Gregory L. Smith. Any other questions? GAROFALO Mr. Chairman, should we now hear from the County Engineer? I think he is here. HENTZEN Jim, why don't you see if you can help us out? JIM WEBER, Sedgwick County Public Works, The area is very flat, and does not drain very well. We do have a concern about drainage to the west. That is the reason that the Subdivision Committee put the requirement in last week for the cross-lot drainage agreement with the property to the west. From looking at the plans we have at this point, I don't believe there will be any runoff to the south except out to the road, on Maize Road, and perhaps south there along the road; but not cross-lot to the south. We are still working with them on the overall drainage plan for the property. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. BLAKE When you said you don't believe, do you know or don't you know about the property to the south? WEBER I know with relatively good certainty that there is not a problem with it draining to the south. GAROFALO According to this Item D, it says that the drainage plan has not been approved. The agreement with the property owner to the west needs to be verified if they will continue to accept the water, and not block the discharge. Where is that at? Currently, from the previous speaker, the property owner to the west is not too happy about it either. WEBER At the meeting last week, I think for the Planning Commissioners that were there at the Subdivision meeting, the applicants or the agent indicated that they could get the agreement to the west. I don't know. Obviously we don't deal with the whole family thing. I didn't know that these guys were brothers, and it doesn't matter to me. But we are looking at a pocket of water that could develop right in here, and continue naturally up here, and cut off in this direction (showing area on screen). It is not what I call a major amount of water, but if the owner to the west, and that is apparently not this Seiler, does go in there and dike it up, then we will have a problem between the two properties. GAROFALO If the property owner to the left does not agree to this condition, then what happens? Can they do the plat or not? WEBER It is a requirement of the subdivision approval at this moment. GAROFALO So we need to find out if the property owner to the west is opposed, or in agreement. WEBER I believe Neil holds on to the plat until all the requirements get met, or if that can't be done, it will come back for review by the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission. Our feeling last week was it is a drainage issue that will take a little time to resolve, and based on their comments, we did not think it would be a problem to get this resolved. GAROFALO What if we defer this? It is currently going to be deferred anyway it sounds like. What if we defer it? Would that be all right? WEBER It does not cause me any problem. You may want to hear from the applicant. GAROFALO That is fine. I will ask the applicant. HENTZEN Let me ask Ray if he has any questions? WARREN I was in that meeting last week, and the question was asked: is there any way legally the man on the west can go out and plug off a drainage site? I think what we are talking about is, what he might do in the future. Would it cause a stoppage? Isn't that right? What we are talking about is runoff maintenance as a result of this development. WEBER What we are talking about is having the two property owners clarifying their relationship before this plat goes through. I believe you are right. You can't block off the drainage, but it happens all the time, and it is very messy to clean it up. We are trying to have them be proactive, and take care of it up front. WARREN This is great, and I would hate to hold this plat up if it can be resolved. I suppose another thing would be to create a detention pond that would take care of the excess runoff. To assure that there was no more runoff than there is today. WEBER The plan already includes three ponds on the property, but along the west side, maybe not all the way to the cul-de- sac, but there is a strip of ground along the west side that would not make it to one of those ponds. That would be like your backyard draining off to the west. WARREN It is a pretty insignificant thing, if we are going to have a retention pond that is going to take care of the excess runoff. So all we are going to have is what we have now? WEBER Right. WARREN I guess I hate to see it held up, waiting for someone to agree to that when there is nothing to agree to. MCKAY Can we hear from the applicant? HENTZEN We will go back to that in just a moment. BISHOP I have a question to ask. Item D says the drainage plan has not been approved, and that no agreement has been reached. Is it typical to approve a plat when a drainage plan has not been approved? STRAHL Yes. It is not that unusual. Again, we would just hold on to the plat, and not release it for recording until we have approval of the drainage plan. BISHOP So, we do have something to insure that something gets worked out? STRAHL Right. GAROFALO Mr. Chair, is the applicant here? HENTZEN Would you step up to the podium? I will ask you the question. MCKAY Lets let him make the presentation, and then we can ask him questions. HENTZEN That's fine. CHUCK ROACH I am here on behalf of Bently Farm, the applicant in this case. I live at 1217 N. Coach House Court. I would like to respond to the issue of the runoff to the west, onto that particular piece of land. We are on good terms with the owner of that land, and we don't see any problem in getting the cross-lot drainage easement. The only reason that we don't have it now is because he is in harvest, and he just can't take time away, at this point. I agree that it is a significant item, and I would request that you just approve the plat subject to the drainage plan being approved. HENTZEN Any other questions of the applicant? Is there anybody else other than the two gentlemen that have spoken on the item, to talk about it one-way or the other? Very good, the rest of the discussion will be by the Board. What do you think? BLAKE I am going to vote no on the drainage plan. BISHOP I think it is premature. MOTION: Approve, subject to comments from staff, and the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved and COULTER seconded the motion. GAROFALO I want to make it clear in my mind that this won't go through if it is not in agreement. Is that what you are telling us? COULTER That is why in Subdivision Committee we put in the item D. So we don't have to keep bringing things back to this Board when we approve it with a clause like that. It won't be approved unless the drainage plan is approved, and unless they get the disagreement settled. WARREN It will be approved, but it won't be recorded. MCKAY It won't pass this place right here until all the stuff has been presented. BISHOP Does the motion indicate that this is contingent? Because right now, what that item says is that it is needed. COULTER What more do you want? BISHOP I am just asking if that is the way the motion went? MCKAY The motion was this: that we approve it subject to the staff comments, and Subdivision Committee changes. One of them was that you have to have the cross drainage agreement approved. So, the drainage plan has to be approved. The cross drainage agreement has to be approved before it goes any further past this group right here. If that doesn't get done, then they have to bring it back to us because it would be different. HENTZEN Are you ready for a vote on the motion? VOTE ON THE MOTION carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-2. SUB2002-00040 – Final Plat – ERIN SPRINGS ADDITION, located east of West Street and north of MacArthur Road. A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A restrictive covenant is required that prohibits non-domestic uses on the site until public sewer is available. B. City Water and Sewer Department requests a petition for future extension of sanitary sewer services. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan has been submitted. E. The access easement extending to West Street shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. F. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". G. Sedgwick County Fire Department requests 20 feet of drivable surface be provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather. - The surface will need to be an all weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4 inches in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed). - An approved turnaround is provided that allows the turning of apparatus in no more than two maneuvers. - 13' 6" vertical clearance is maintained the entire length of the access drive. H. 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. 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 316-946-4556) 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. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-3. SUB2002-00090 – One-Step Final Plat – LEGACY PARK WILSON ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 21st Street North and Webb Road. A. Sanitary sewer services are available to serve the site. A guarantee for the extension of City water is needed. B. City Engineering has requested a respread agreement for special assessments due to the lot reconfiguration. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. Access controls have been platted in accordance with the approval of the Legacy Park Wilson Estates Addition. The plat proposes complete access control along the plat's frontage to both arterials, except for one opening along Webb. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. F. The access easement across Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. G. A covenant shall be submitted regarding Reserve A, platted for private drive purposes, which sets forth ownership and maintenance of the private drive, and future reversionary rights of the reserve to the lots benefiting from the reserve. The plattor's text shall be revised to reference the platting of the reserve for "private drive" purposes and shall state which specific lots are to accessed by the reserve. H. The heading "Preliminary Plat" shall be deleted from the final plat tracing. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the 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. K. A note shall be placed on the final plat, indicating that this Addition is subject to the conditions of Wilson Properties N.E. Commercial Community Unit Plan (DP-200). L. The perimeters of the proposed lots shall match the perimeters of the CUP parcel boundaries. A CUP adjustment has been approved. M. 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. N. A Community Unit Plan Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP and its special conditions for development on this property. O. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". P. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. Any relocation, lowering or encasement of the pipeline, required by this development, will not be at the expense of the City. Q. The applicant's agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. R. 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. S. 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. T. 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.) U. 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. V. 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 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. W. 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. X. 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. Y. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Z. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. AA. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell has requested additional easements. BB. 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. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-4. SUB2002-00085 – One-Step Final Plat –OLD TOWN SQUARE ADDITION, located on the west side of Rock Island, between Second and Third Streets. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Complete access control should be platted along 2nd Street for Blocks 2 and 3. The final plat tracing shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. E. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". F. Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and for Lot 1, Block 2. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all non-residential lots shall not exceed three times the width. G. The City Fire Department/GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names are acceptable. H. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) 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 evelopment 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. HENTZEN: All we have to do is have Mr. Wells back; I have to step down on (3-7). Dr. Coulter would you take over for me? MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and findings of the Subdivision Committee. COULTER moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0-1) WELLS abstained. ------------------------------------------------------ 3-5. SUB2002-00087 – One-Step Final Plat – POWER C.D.C. SECOND ADDITION, located on the north side of 25th Street North and west of Grove Street. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. An easement is needed to cover the existing sewer line along the west portion of the plat. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. The platting of minimum building elevations should be noted on the face of the plat and referenced in the plattor's text. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. The dedication of access controls referenced in the plattor's text may be deleted as the plat does not abut arterial streets. F. Traffic Engineering has requested additional right-of-way along 26th St. North and Madison Ave to conform with the typical 60-ft streets in this area. G. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets. This guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks along at least one side of all through, non cul-de-sac streets. H. The paving guarantee shall include the installation of a temporary turnaround at the terminus of Madison at the plat's north line. The plattor's text should indicate that the vacation of the temporary turnaround area will be effective upon the extension of the street northward. I. The plattor's text should be revised to reference the ownership of Reserve A by the "City of Wichita". J. The use of Reserve B for utilities located within platted easements should be referenced in the plattor's text. K. 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. L. 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. M. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. N. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". O. The use of Reserve A needs to be addressed in the plattor's text. P. The building setback in Reserve A needs to deleted unless structures are proposed for this Reserve. Q. Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations for Lots 29 and 30, Block 1. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width. R. The City Fire Department/GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. Minnesota Ct needs to be revised to Minnesota Cir. S. 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. T. 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. U. 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.) V. 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. W. 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 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. X. 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. Y. 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. Z. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. AA. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. BB. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell has requested additional easements. CC. 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. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-6. SUB2002-00088 – One-Step Final Plat – RED BARN ESTATES ADDITION, located north of 55th Street South, on the west side of Meridian Avenue. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A guarantee is required for drainage improvements. D. The plattor's text shall include the standard floodway language. E. The plat proposes two access openings along both arterials. The openings along 37th St. North are approved. In accordance with the Access Management Policy, the openings along 37th St. North and Hillside closest to the intersection need to be rights-in/out and denoted on the face of the plat. A guarantee is required for construction of a channelized rights-in/out opening. The opening along Hillside located along the south line of the plat is approved as a joint opening with the property to the south, contingent upon closure of the existing opening for the property to the south. In the event, the existing opening for the property to the south is not closed, then this opening should be relocated to be in alignment with the northernmost opening for the property across Hillside. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. F. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the driveway opening located on the abutting property to the south. G. A petition is requested for accel and decel lanes, and modification of the traffic signal. A petition is requested for future left turn lanes along both arterials for the openings with full turning movements; which shall not be activated until determination of a need by the Traffic Engineer. H. The cross-lot access easement with the property to the south and internal access easements shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. I. Traffic Engineering has requested additional right-of-way along both arterials. The Access Management Policy requires a 60-ft half-street right-of-way width along urban arterials. The Policy also requires an additional 25-ft x 25-ft corner clip at the intersection. The Subdivision Committee approved a 50-ft half-street right-of-way. J. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities. K. 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. L. 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. M. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". N. On the final plat, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "J.D. Michaelis, Chair". O. A signature line needs to be added for the owners. P. 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. Q. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. R. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) S. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. T. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. U. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. V. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Z. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-7. SUB2002-00089 – One-Step Final Plat – HENTZEN ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of Hillside and 37th Street North. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A guarantee is required for drainage improvements. D. The plattor's text shall include the standard floodway language. E. The plat proposes two access openings along both arterials. The openings along 37th St. North are approved. In accordance with the Access Management Policy, the openings along 37th St. North and Hillside closest to the intersection need to be rights-in/out and denoted on the face of the plat. A guarantee is required for construction of a channelized rights-in/out opening. The opening along Hillside located along the south line of the plat is approved as a joint opening with the property to the south, contingent upon closure of the existing opening for the property to the south. In the event, the existing opening for the property to the south is not closed, then this opening should be relocated to be in alignment with the northernmost opening for the property across Hillside. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. F. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the driveway opening located on the abutting property to the south. G. A petition is requested for future accel and decel lanes, future modification of the traffic signal, and future left turn lanes along both arterials for the openings with full turning movements; which shall not be activated until determination of a need by the Traffic Engineer. H. The cross-lot access easement with the property to the south and internal access easements shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. I. Traffic Engineering has requested additional right-of-way along both arterials. The Access Management Policy requires a 60-ft half-street right-of-way width along urban arterials. The Policy also requires an additional 25-ft x 25-ft corner clip at the intersection. The Subdivision Committee approved a 50-ft half-street right-of-way. J. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities. K. 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. L. 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. M. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "Michael E. Lindebak, Secretary". N. On the final plat, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "J.D. Michaelis, Chair". O. A signature line needs to be added for the owners. P. 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. Q. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. R. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) S. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. T. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. U. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. V. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Z. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. COULTER We will hear from the planning staff once Mr. Wells gets back. NEIL STRAHL Planning staff, presented staff recommendations. WARREN The document you are talking about that created this new policy, what is that document again? STRAHL That is the "Access Management Policy." WARREN When did we approve that? STRAHL It will be incorporated in our Subdivision Regulations with the next subdivision amendments, which will be reviewed in November. WARREN But it is now not a policy that is approved by this board or council? STRAHL It is an approved policy, by the City County and the County Commissioners. WARREN It is approved by them. STRAHL Yes. WARREN Have we approved it here? STRAHL I know that you have reviewed it. WARREN Why would they approve it, and then it come back to us? DALE MILLER Planning staff, it is out of sequence because of the Subdivision Regulations. The overall package of amendments that we have been discussing is out of sequence with the governing bodies review of the "Access Management Policy." They have already taken that up, and approved that last week, as I understand it. BARFIELD So there is no reason for it to come back here then, is it? SCOTT LOGAN, Traffic Engineer for the City of Wichita, noted the "Access Management Policy" has been approved by the City Council on August 20, and he then presented a brief overview of the policy provisions that affect this site. COULTER Any questions of staff? WARREN It is highly unusual that this policy, as it would affect development through the county and the city, would not have come here before it went to the governing bodies, and that our input wouldn't have gone on to City Council and the County Commission. I just can't believe that we have no input on this at all when it so drastically effects all developments. The second thing that concerns me is just the question, and I don't think you can answer, and I'm not going to ask you to. Why are we using our police powers to go in and take land without just compensation? What is the limit, 70, 80-foot on either side, 200-foot right-of-ways? Certainly there is a limit somewhere. When is it that we look at those streets necessary for the movement of traffic from miles and miles around for the good public, yet we have to owner to give it? When do we take a look at that, and who should pay for it? The public at large, or should we ask this owner for it? We have a lot of precedents in this area, such as sewer. For years and years, we have said that they get sewer, but we will service this lot, but we are going to put in 12-inches because it is for the good of the public down the line. You permit the applicant to pay the first eight inches while the city pays to get it up to twelve inches. We have a lot of precedents. Water lines have been treated the same way. We run a water line to a property. Normally this is what a property owner pays, and nothing says that this water line is going to continue on then we ask for more. So, these are the things I am concerned with. Sure, we have some police powers on this Board to take land without just compensation, but there has got to be a limit to it. We are talking about 120-foot streets, 60-feet on either side on every commercial property. I have great concerns. BISHOP I think it has only been about 15-years that property owners were not charged for arterials. So that has been a major change in the last several years. I think that once we do have a policy that is established, we need to follow it. What we frequently do is establish a policy, and deviate day by day. COULTER Are these questions directed towards staff? If not, we probably need to listen to the applicant first. BISHOP Right. WARREN Lets hear the presentation first, and then discuss this. COULTER Applicant, please. KURT MILLER Agent for the applicant. A couple of issues, I don't believe this board has adopted into the Subdivision Regulations this Access Policy. Is that correct? So what we have conforms to the Subdivision Regulations right now, the 50-foot and the turn lanes. We also submitted a plat before your new policy had been approved by City Council. And as far as the traffic counts, we looked at the traffic counts of the year 2000 that the City took. You have on 37th Street about 46 hundred vehicles per day, on Hillside, 48 hundred, which is a pretty low count for an arterial road. If you look at some arterial roads in the area, down at Hillside at 13th and 21st, you have a four-lane road. You have about 13,000 vehicles per day. If you go over to Rock Road, like 21st to 29th streets, you have 29,000 vehicles per day, and these are also four lane roads. We are looking at an increase of at least four or five times to reach those traffic counts of those arterials streets. If you start comparing to Rock, it is even more. If you look at the nature of the area, it is zoned "industrial" all around it. You have Koch Industries on three of the four quadrants, so they are not going to have high traffic. The Hillside, a mile and a half from Hillside to 254, so that is pretty much a lot of the traffic running up and down Hillside. On 37th Street, about a mile and a half or so from 135, so again your east-west traffic would be on 254 and 96. It is hard to project large traffic counts in even the distant future on these roads because of the nature of the area and the current counts. If you look at an increase of 1% a year in traffic, it takes 70 years to double the volume of traffic. We are talking about needing to quadruple the volume of traffic on this road. Those are the arguments that we have, plus we are looking at a 300-foot length, 10-foot wide, so basically 6,000 square feet of land that we are asked to dedicate for the purpose of right-of-way, which is hard for us to ever see it being needed with the current situation. Six thousand square feet, if you put four or five dollars square foot on there, you are talking about $25, or 30,000 dollars worth of land that is being dedicated at this point. Any questions? COULTER Any questions for the applicant? GAROFALO You don't know of any projections, actual projections on traffic there? KIRK MILLER I just know the current counts, which are the year 2002 counts. GAROFALO Are you saying that the 50-foot street right-of-way satisfies the current Subdivision Regulations? KIRK MILLER Yes, it does. The 50-foot right-of-way would give…right now there are areas that have five to six lanes in a 50-foot right-of-way. WARNER Does the existing plat have the 25-foot corner clip on it or not? KIRK MILLER No, it does not. WARNER I was under the impression that it did. GAROFALO You don't object to that? I don't think you do. KIRK MILLER We are following the Subdivision Regulations that don't require it. We just as soon not give the corner clip. COULTER Any further questions? KIRK MILLER At that point, with the corner clip, he is giving a 75-foot right-of-way. That is what we would be giving. It would be a total. LINDEBAK I believe this access policy was presented to the Planning Commission, I think it was in July. I don't recall the exact date. There was a task force that was made up of representatives of several of the local industries, as well as the neighborhood groups, that came up and supported the recommendation that have gone to both the City and the County. It was my understanding, at the time, that the reason the Subdivision Regulations were not being amended with the adoption or the acceptance of the Access Management recommendation of the task force is that the staff was in the process of amending the Subdivision Regulations. And yes, these recommendations would be recommended to be a part of the amendments, to the Subdivision Regulations. I do believe it is definitely the City Council's intention that upon the adoption of the policy that they believed the requirements would be coming forth with any of the new Subdivision Plats after that date. BLAKE I have a question. This was brought up last week at that meeting. I didn't know that the City Council had already approved, and the County? I don't think any of us knew, did we? LINDEBAK It went to the City Council about three weeks ago, August the 20th. BLAKE So my question is, they have already decided what they are going to do, correct? LINDEBAK These are the standards that the City Council approved. It would have gone to the County Commission also when these were first reviewed in a workshop fashion, and formally approved. Again, the thought was these standards would then be incorporated into the Subdivision Regulations. BLAKE So where does that leave us? LINDEBAK I believe, as I said earlier, the City Council is of the mind that when those, or when they took action on the Access Management policies, that those policies would be the policies that would be follow from this point, or that point on. BISHOP I believe there were members of the Planning Commission that served on that task force. Am I wrong on that? LINDEBAK I am not sure if the Planning Commission did, but I know the realtor, homebuilders, local engineers and representative of each of the DAB's were on the task force. It was a large group. BISHOP I was thinking perhaps that Mr. Michaelis was on that. It took eighteen months, almost two years, and I think this Board reviewed it at least twice. Certainly the Advance Plans Committee did. WARREN I have never seen it or anything that indicated this new 60-foot requirement. COULTER Mr. Anderson. ANDERSON I think what we have got here is a situation where you have an application made by, or for, this Hentzen Addition prior to the policy being adopted by the City Council. There are ways that you can make a finding that would allow us to go ahead and approve of what the Subdivision Committee has recommended. Even though you do have a policy that has been adopted, there are provisions within that policy for making an exception. Because of the clear cut situation here, the application was made prior to that policy being adopted, I think there is an opportunity here for us to make a finding that we create an exception in this situation. COULTER Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak in opposition or in favor of this item. Seeing none, now would you like to make a motion? MOTION: Approve the plat, subject to the Subdivision Committees recommendations and findings. ANDERSON moved and WARREN seconded the motion. WARREN Now, the motion is that we approve it subject to Subdivision recommendations, and wave what is considered to be a policy. COULTER That is correct. BISHOP Just to clarify, that means the 50-foot right-of-way and no 25 x 25 foot corner clip at the intersection; right? I am not going to support the motion. MARNELL I am a member of the Advanced Plans Committee, and this did not come to the Advanced Plans Committee. BISHOP I attended a meeting here, and it must have been during the task force. MARNELL It must be some other session. It did not come to Advanced Plans. I have a question for the Director. If we approve this contrary to now current City Policy, I assume since the political body makes those policies wither we recommend it or not, that is the policy and would have the force and the fact of regulation. Does this go any further; does this go back to the City Council? MCKAY It goes to the City Council for acceptance of the Subdivision plat. MARNELL Assuming if they want to make it conform to policy, they have the power to do that at that meeting. MCKAY They could ask you to reconsider. MARNELL Or they could simply change it. MCKAY Or they could turn the plat down. MARNELL I will support the motion under those circumstances, but I don't see into the deviation that anything less applies to policy. It would kind of hard to be caught in an odd situation. BARFIELD He asked the same questions I was going to ask. MCKAY On Item N, due to the fact that we do have a new Chairman that should be changed to the new Chairman's name. COULTER Let the record reflect that. Any other comments or concerns? Seeing none, lets bring this to a vote. All in favor say aye, all opposed same sign. VOTE ON THE MOTION (9-2-1), BARFIELD, BISHOP opposed, HENTZEN abstained. HENTZEN I would like to make a comment that I have my doubts that the County Commission was aware that this item had not been before this vote prior to their taking action. I just don't think they would have done that. I can't believe they would not have assumed that we looked at this when they were asked to approve it. ANDERSON I also want to make a comment relevant to this. In the progress actions of the Planning Department, the items that are in the pipeline, the City Council makes a decision or somebody makes a decision. If there is something in the pipeline, those things should be grandfathered under the old policies, as far as I am concerned. I think the staff should look at it that way too. If you have an item that is in the pipeline, it should be grandfathered at the time the City Council makes a decision on it. ------------------------------------------------------ 3-8. SUB2002-00057 – Final Plat – REED'S COVE ADDITION, located on the southeast corner of 21st Street North and 127th Street East. A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-5, Single-Family Residential and allow for the lot sizes being platted. B. This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change and any related conditions of such a change. C. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. Limitations on sewer capacity have been imposed. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. E. County Engineering needs to see applicant's drainage plan for any effects on 21st St. County Engineering has noted drainage structures along the south property line. A drainage easement is needed. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. A guarantee is needed. F. Complete access control has been platted along the site's frontage to perimeter streets. Traffic Engineering has approved an additional opening along 127th St. East for Lot 40, Block 1. This shall be labeled as "Access control except one opening". G. Traffic Engineering has approved all street widths. The 58-ft wide segment of Reed's Cove shall be limited to parking along one side of the street. H. Traffic Engineering has requested the deletion of Reserve H located at the entrance to the Addition along 127th St. East. The applicant has reduced the size of Reserve H which is acceptable to Traffic Engineering. I. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. J. The paving guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on both sides of Reed's Landing/Reeds Cove which is functioning as a collector, and along one side of the loop street. The Applicant intends to submit an alternate sidewalk plan. K. MAPD recommends that the railroad right-of-way be connected to the cul-de-sacs by access easements contingent upon its conversion to a public trail use. The Subdivision Committee did not approve this condition. L. The use of Reserves A and G for utilities located within platted easements should be referenced in the plattor's text. M. As Reserve A includes a swimming pool, a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, for review and approval by the Planning Director. The site plan shall include the information indicated in the Subdivision Regulations. Otherwise a conditional use and public hearing will be needed in the future. 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. This covenant shall also provide for the Homeowners' Association to maintain the "parking strip" located between this site's north property line and driving surface for 21st St. North and 127th St. East. 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 needs to comment on the street length of Woodbridge Ct at the southwestern corner of the site (650 feet). The Subdivision Regulations limit urban cul-de-sacs to 600 feet in length. The street length is approved. Q. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. R. The applicant and GIS need to reach an agreement on the naming of Reeds Cove and Reeds Landing. S. "13th St. North" shall be revised to "21st St. North". T. 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. U. 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. V. 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.) W. 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. X. 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 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. Y. 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. Z. 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. AA. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. BB. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. CC. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell has requested additional easements. DD. 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 presented staff recommendations. JENNIFER CHAMBERS, County GIS, Street Address Coordinator, and Chairperson to Address Committee. Our concerns are that there already exists a street named Reed. It is, or would be, a duplication of street names to allow the names of Reed's Cove and Reed's Landing. Both Cove and Landing are considered to be street types, not part of the name. Therefore, the root of the street is just Reed. We oppose it for that because it is a duplication of street names. That is in the Subdivision Regulations 7-201, Streets and Layout Designs, item (S), states street names shall not be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets. They should be used where they are or with logical extensions of existing streets even though separated by undeveloped land. Street names, except for existing streets, shall be limited to a maximum of 12 characters, exclusive of the prefixes and suffixes, and are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. HENTZEN Any questions of the speaker? Yes sir, Frank. GAROFALO You are asking, suggesting a completely different name? CHAMBERS Yes, we are. GAROFALO Do you have any in mind? CHAMBERS Well, those two streets line up with two existing streets. The street that runs east and west, lines up with 19th Street. The street that runs north and south lines up with newly platted additions to the north, which I believe is Williamsgate. I don't think we would be opposed to names other than those. Although having a street name continue as the same name is the ideal thing. HENTZEN Any other questions? John. MCKAY Why are we bringing this to us? I thought it was taken care of under the Subdivision Regulations. Should it be a requirement that comes from the Subdivision Committee? Isn't this an issue for Subdivision? WARNER I don't remember that the Subdivision heard this presentation as far… MILLER Yes, she was here. You all approved it over their objections, and now they are back to reinforce the issue. CHAMBER I would like to say at that Subdivision Committee meeting where I spoke, I was misinformed. I was not prepared to speak on this since it will be City property. HENTZEN How along ago was that approximately? CHAMBERS August First. At that time, the recommendations from the Wichita GIS were to make Reeds Cove one word. Which if you write it as one word, it looks strange. HENTZEN I do remember that. CHAMBERS It looks strange, and no one else was speaking on it, not realizing at the time that Cove is a street type. Although it not used very often in Sedgwick County, I think there are only five other instances. Cove is a type such as Street, Road, Avenue, Lane or Trail. Cove and Landing are types. MARNELL I don't think Subdivision would have been opposed to this recommendation. It makes sense. GAROFALO So should we defer it? HENTZEN Let me ask, are there any other questions of the staff? BARFIELD Yes. HENTZEN Frank has a question, and then we will get you. GAROFALO If we defer this, would your committee take it up, and come up with a name. What do you do? CHAMBERS The people planning it could come up with a name. We would just want to approve the name so that it is not a duplicate, and not a strange sounding name that it is spelled easily for people to read and recognize. HENTZEN Mr. Barfield, do you have a question? BARFIELD Yes, I do. Since these streets line up with the existing streets, and since this is within the City, why would it not be a recommendation that this be a continuation of those existing streets? CHAMBERS It is my personal recommendation that they are. This has been discussed with the developer many times, and it was discussed that we would be willing to accept different street names if they were not Reeds Cove or Reeds Landing. My personal opinion is they should be the same name as the street names they are continuations of. HENTZEN Lets ask the applicant. Is there is anybody here to speak for the applicant? GREG ALLISON, Mid Kansas Engineering, representing the applicant. I do apologize for discussing street names at this level. We felt; actually just moments before the meeting we found out the agreements we made were not going to work for everybody on the GIS street naming. As of yesterday, we felt this was going to be approved with some revisions that we had compromised on, and felt the street naming group had compromised on. The agreement that I was walking in today with, we were going to call this street Glenwood, and then this east-west street, Reeds Cove. The reason we switched that was, through countless meetings we have had with the Street Name Committee, that if we made Reeds Cove an east-west street, the numbers were far enough apart that the other Reeds Street, and the name was different enough, that we felt there shouldn't be any confusion as far a emergency access people. Having that approved yesterday, we just though we would be part of consent today, but that is not the case. As Jennifer said at the Subdivision meeting, they didn't oppose Reeds Cove, and I understand that she didn't realize that Cove was a type, but she preferred the two words verses the one word, and we worked that issue out already. We had originally wanted the Reeds Cover off of 21st Street, and we have moved it to 127th, in a since of compromising, as well. We do understand that there are Drives, Avenues and Coves, and those are street name types. We do feel or I don't personally don't where a Cove is in town, but it sounds that there are five. I feel like it is not a prevalent type in Sedgwick County area, I think that is tied to a national naming type from what I understand from the street naming people. It is important to our developer that we keep the Reeds Cove. Like we said, we wanted it to be on 21st Street because that is where our phasing begins, but we want a street name that ties into our development name, and kind of keep that going. We do have annexation underway, and I am not sure if that is an issue for the street naming verses it being City or County. I know, and I don't understand completely how they operate, the City is not here in opposition, unless she represents that group too. We are planning on being in the City of Wichita and felt like we had reached an agreement yesterday actually that Reeds Cove would work with the GIS people. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. HENTZEN Any questions? Gregg just a minute, I want to ask you, you said you thought we had an agreement yesterday? ALLISON Before this meeting, Neil had said it had not been agreed to. That was the first time I had heard that it had not been agreed too. HENTZEN How did you get the idea that it was, or that you had an agreement? ALLISON They told me, via phone. HENTZEN They being? ALLISON They being Mike, in the City GIS department. He called and agreed to the Reeds Cove as an east-west street would be approved, and Glenwood as a north-south street would be approved as well. Based on that, we felt that this wouldn't be discussed right now. HENTZEN Thank you. Ray did you have a question? WARNER Could we make this plat approval subject to you and the necessary administrative people getting together, and work out that street name. Is it something we are going to resolve here and now? ALLISON I don't know if we can get it resolved. We have compromised, and they have compromised. We thought we had an agreement, and I am not sure that our developer has much more for him to compromise. So I hate to bring it to you guys like this. WARNER I hate to sit here and have us try to name streets. If he thinks they have an agreement, I don't know why we don't go ahead and accept that agreement. MCKAY Because staff doesn't agree to it. What agreement do they have? WARREN It sounds like staff agreed to it, but GIS doesn't. ALLISON We had an agreement with the City GIS Department. I had a call, and they confirmed it would work. Based on that, I came in fully expecting this to be a consent item. WARNER Now who is holding the ball? ALLISON The County GIS. I don't know how they inter-relate to one another. We are going to be in the City, and the City is not here in opposition. HENTZEN Harold Warner wants to ask a question. WARNER It looks to me like your developer or owner would have some leeway. If he does not want to compromise, you are liable to leave here with whatever they line up with. In my opinion, I think we ought to approve the thing on the condition that they come to terms on street names, and if not, lets line them up and name them. WARREN It is going to be the City. Apparently you are going through the same process with the County, but obviously you are going to be annexed, and the City has approved the things he is requesting, I'm kind of in favor of going along with that. BISHOP I think possibly that part of the difference is that the County GIS system may be more tied in with the 911 system, and the emergency response. ALLISON I am not sure about that. HENTZEN Are you finished? ALLISON I don't want it to be decided, if it is not what we want. So if you put a caveat of getting it worked out, that is fine. I would prefer getting it agreed to what was agreed to yesterday. MCKAY Do you want a deferral, is that what you want? You can have a deferral or we are going to approve it subject to some changes being made. We are putting the ball in your court. Or we can name them here today. ALLISON I don't want you to name them here today, unless it is what we agreed upon yesterday. Other than that, we are ready to defer. MCKAY I am ready to make a motion to defer. I am tired of sitting here trying to work out the streets for the last 30 minutes. HENTZEN Since Barfield had his arm up, let me ask him? BARFIELD If I hear him correctly, he is stating that his client has no room for any more compromise. So it is our way or the highway. That is what I hear him saying? He is speaking for his client. HENTZEN Lets see if there is anybody else in the audience. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience wanting to speak on this subject for or against? Yes sir. ROB RAMSEYER, Ritchie Associates, applicant. I am going to lay my cards on the table. I do not want to defer this plat. Greg has worked long and hard to come to an agreement on street names, and it changed at about 1:28 p.m. so you can appreciate that he is frustrated. We would like Reeds Cove on the plat because we are real conscious about creating a neighborhood. We worked real hard at that. We think that is important. If we can't have the main entry, we would like it to stay at the secondary entrance off of 127th Street. That is what we want. If we can't have that, rather than defer, I would have you approve it subject to the plat not being recorded until the street names have been agreed upon with GIS. We have worked long and hard at this to not come to the podium. I want to assure you guys of that. We try to work these things out ahead of time. We would like our street names. We do not want to defer. If you need to approve, subject to the agreement, please do that. HENTZEN Any questions of the applicant? If not, is there anybody else wishing to speak on it? Back to the Commission. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, with the exceptions that the applicant needs to get together with whoever to get the streets names worked out, and the plat will not go forward until that is done. MCKAY moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). HENTZEN Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on 4-1, 4-2 or 4-3? We have a conflict on 4-1. Seeing that there are no others to speak on the 4-1, 4-2, 4-3. We will now play the Opening for the Public Hearing. We need a motion to approve 4-1 by itself, and take items, 4-2 and 4-3 in one motion. ------------------------------------------------------ 3-9. DED2002-00023 – Dedication of a Utility Easement, from Brian J. and Deanne R. Joplin for property located north of Central, west of West Street. OWNER/APPLICANT: Brian J. and Deanne R. Joplin, 1212 N. Main, Garden Plain, KS 67050 AGENT/ENGINEER: Air Capitol Land Surveyors, C/O Bob Previtera, 2160 W. 21st Street, Wichita, KS 67203 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 10 feet of Lot 5, except the east 157 feet thereof, Replat of part of Lot 3, Dougherty Place, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2002-80 and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-10. DED2002-00024 – Dedication of a Utility Easement, from Leo Rasmussen, north of Harry and west of West Street. OWNER/APPLICANT: Leo Rasmuessen, 1927 Garland, Wichita, KS 67203 AGENT/ENGINEER: N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north two feet of the south ten feet and the west two feet of the east ten feet, Lot 3, Windover Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of ZON 2002-30 and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 3-11. DED2002-00025 – Dedication of Street Right-of-way, from Leo Rasmussen, north of Harry and west of West Street. OWNER/APPLICANT: Leo Rasmuessen, 1927 Garland, Wichita, KS 67203 AGENT/ENGINEER: N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west five feet of Lot 3, Windover Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of ZON 2002-30 and is being dedicated for five feet street right-of-way. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and the findings of the Subdivision Committee. MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------ Item 4-1 through 4-3 may be taken in one motion. 4-1. VAC2002-00030 – Request to Vacate Platted Alleys. OWNER/APPLICANT: USD 259 AGENT: Joe Hoover LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the remaining platted north - south 15-foot wide alley that abuts Lots 1-14, Lawrence's 5th Addition, the platted east - west 15-foot wide alley that abuts Lots 1-5, 10, 11, & 16, Humphrey's Addition and the north 235.10-feet of the platted north – south 15-foot wide alley, Humphrey's Addition. LOCATION: Generally located southwest of the Douglas Avenue – Seneca Street intersection, 221 South Seneca, Allison Middle School. REASON FOR REQUEST: New and existing school buildings will or are encroaching on the alleys. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property and surrounding properties are zoned B Multi-family The applicant is requesting consideration for the vacation of the platted alleys as described in the Legal Description. During the planning for the proposed expansion of Allison Middle School, existing encroachments onto the platted alleys were found as well as new encroachments created by the expansion. There are sewer lines in the north to south alleys. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends approval of this request to vacate the described portions of the platted alleys. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time August 22, 2002, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That private rights will not be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described platted alleys and the public will not suffer loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be approved. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) The sewer lines in the north - south alleys be relocated, abandoned or a guarantee is provide for the relocation or abandoning of the sewer lines. (2) Dedicate a 20-foot easement to cover the sewer line, including that portion of the sewer line that is not in the portions of the proposed vacated alleys. (3) Dedicated 10-foot of ROW along Seneca Street. (4) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (5) All improvements shall be according to City Standards HENTZEN Is there anybody on the Commission ready to make a motion. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings in their report. GAROFALO moved, COULTER seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 4-2. VAC2002-00032 – Request to Vacate a Portion of Reserve F in Broadmoor Addition. OWNER/APPLICANT: USD 259 AGENT: Joe Hoover LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the remaining platted north - south 15-foot wide alley that abuts Lots 1-14, Lawrence's 5th Addition, the platted east - west 15-foot wide alley that abuts Lots 1-5, 10, 11, & 16, Humphrey's Addition and the north 235.10-feet of the platted north – south 15-foot wide alley, Humphrey's Addition. LOCATION: Generally located southwest of the Douglas Avenue – Seneca Street intersection, 221 South Seneca, Allison Middle School. REASON FOR REQUEST: New and existing school buildings will or are encroaching on the alleys. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property and surrounding properties are zoned B Multi-family The applicant is requesting consideration for the vacation of the platted alleys as described in the Legal Description. During the planning for the proposed expansion of Allison Middle School, existing encroachments onto the platted alleys were found as well as new encroachments created by the expansion. There are sewer lines in the north to south alleys. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends approval of this request to vacate the described portions of the platted alleys. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time August 22, 2002, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That private rights will not be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described platted alleys and the public will not suffer loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be approved. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) The sewer lines in the north - south alleys be relocated, abandoned or a guarantee is provide for the relocation or abandoning of the sewer lines. (2) Dedicate a 20-foot easement to cover the sewer line, including that portion of the sewer line that is not in the portions of the proposed vacated alleys. (3) Dedicated 10-foot of ROW along Seneca Street. (4) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (5) All improvements shall be according to City Standards MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings in their report. GAROFALO moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). ------------------------------------------------------ 4-3. VAC2002-00033 – Request to Vacate a Portion of an Easement. OWNER/APPLICANT: Dick's Sporting Goods AGENT: Kaw Valley Engineering LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the platted easement, as described in Exhibit A, located Lot 9, Towne West Square 2nd Addition. LOCATION: Generally located northwest of the Kellogg – West Street intersection, 4600 W Kellogg Drive, Towne West Square. REASON FOR REQUEST: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and to build a new one. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property and property to the north is zoned LC Limited Commercial. Properties to the south and east are zoned LI limited industrial. Property to the south is IH Loop 235. The applicant is requesting consideration for the vacation of a portion of the platted easement as recorded on Lot 9, Towne West 2nd Addition. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and build a Dick's Sporting Goods. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends approval of this request to vacate this portion of the platted easement. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time August 22, 2002, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That private rights will not be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described platted easement and the public will not suffer loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be approved. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant provide a guarantee of the relocation of water and sewer. (2) The applicant provide temporary easements to cover all the existing utilities until they've been relocated. (3) Dedicate replacement easements to cover all the relocated utilities, which must be approved by the Public Works Engineer or the Utility Companies. (4) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (5) All improvements shall be according to City Standards. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff comments, and citing the findings in their report. GAROFALO moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). -------------------------------------------------- HENTZEN We are not ready for item #5. 5. CON2002-00044 Gordon and Beverly Ruble request Conditional Use permit for a kennel (doggie daycare) on property described as: The West Half of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 2 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the North 60 feet thereof for road. Generally located south of 87th Street South, approximately ½ mile east of Rock Road. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use for a dog kennel on a 10-acre un-platted parcel located south of 87th Street South and east of Webb Road. Derby's city limits are approximately 3000 feet west of the application area. The application area and all surrounding properties are zoned "RR" Rural Residential. Much of the area surrounding the application area is in agricultural fields. One neighboring residence lies approximately 600 feet from the proposed use site to the east, another neighboring residence lies approximately 430 feet from the proposed use site to the northwest, and another neighboring residence lies approximately 180 feet southwest of an existing barn for the proposed use. The application area is well screened to the west by existing vegetation. The application area is developed with a primary single-family residence, and a 48x36 foot barn. The applicant intends to build another barn, to a maximum size of 60x36 feet, to house the kennel operation; the applicant also intends to construct a fenced outdoor exercise area between the two barns (see the attached site plan). The applicant indicated to staff a desire to operate a kennel facility for 50 to 60 dogs. CASE HISTORY: None ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "RR" agricultural fields SOUTH: "RR" agricultural fields, flood plain EAST: "RR" large lot residence WEST: "RR" large lot residences PUBLIC SERVICES: The property is located along 87th Street South, an unpaved two-lane section line road with a 50-foot half-width right of way at the application area. No traffic counts or projections are available for this section of 87th. The 2030 Transportation Plan does not designate this road as a future arterial. The application area is served by an on site sewage lagoon and on site well. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The "Sedgwick County Development Guide" of the 1999 Update to the Wichita- Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, amended in January 2002, identifies this area as within the Derby "Small City Growth Area". The Derby Comprehensive Plan identifies the application area (3000 feet due east of Derby) as within the "Ten-year Urbanizing Growth Area", although the Derby planner states that no requests are currently taking place in this area, most development requests are taking place northeast of the city. The Derby Zoning Ordinance lists "animal kennel" as a prohibited use in residential districts, and a prohibited use as a home occupation. The Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code (UZC) lists "Kennel, Boarding/Breeding/Training" as a Conditional Use in the "RR" district. The UZC definition of "Kennel, Boarding/Breeding/Training" is "…premises housing over ten adult dogs." The UZC supplementary conditions for this Conditional Use are attached to this report, they include a required separation of at least 200 feet from any outdoor kennel facilities to any neighboring residences, and required screening of kennel facilities located within 600 feet of any adjoining property line. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that because the requested Conditional Use is within a designated Small City Growth area, caution should be taken to ensure that this potential use does not hamper future anticipated residential development. Therefore staff recommends that a time limit be placed on the Conditional Use, consistent with Derby's designation of this area as the "Ten-year Urbanizing Growth Area." Staff finds that the number of dogs kenneled at this site should be limited, and that conditions should mitigate negative effects of the use on nearby residents, particularly the residence less than 200 feet from the proposed use site. Staff finds that the submitted site plan will require revision to be in compliance with the UZC requirements for screening and a 200 foot separation of outdoor facilities from residential neighbors. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to a revised site plan, approved by the Planning Director, demonstrating required distance separation and screening, and the following conditions. 1. The Conditional Use shall comply with section III.D.6.k. of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code, and applicable federal, state, and local requirements (e.g. Chapters 5 and 14 of the Sedgwick County Code). 2. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits including, but not limited to: building, health and zoning. 3. Development and maintenance of the site shall be in conformance with the approved site plan. 4. Existing tree/hedge rows along the boundaries of the site shall be preserved and trees replaced as required. 5. The Conditional Use shall be valid for a period of 10 years, and may be extended for a period of two years, if approved, by use of an administrative adjustment. 6. The Conditional Use shall be limited to a maximum of 50 kenneled dogs. 7. The kennel shall be for housing and training only, breeding shall not be permitted under this Conditional Use. 8. All kenneling shall take place inside the indicated buildings. Dogs shall be outside for no more than two hours a day, between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm, only in the designated exercise area, and only when supervised. 9. Drop off and pick up of dogs shall not take place between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. 10. The designated exercise area shall be enclosed by a solid screening fence, the fence shall be a minimum of six feet high. 11. The kennel operator shall have on file proof of rabies vaccinations by a licensed veterinarian and proof of identification and ownership for all dogs five months and older. 12. Artificial lighting shall be provided in any indoor run for a minimum of 25 feet of candle illumination. Lighting shall be a minimum of 30 inches above the floor and uniformly distributed. 13. Cleaning of the boarding kennel facility shall be performed as often as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions, and a "suitable method" of eliminating excess water from animal housing facilities shall be provided as determined by the Department of Community Health. Interior surface materials shall be constructed of non-porous materials that are impervious to moisture. The indoor kennel facilities shall have fresh air ventilation providing a complete air change at a minimum of five- to six- minute intervals. Exhaust and vents or air conditioning shall be provided when the ambient temperature is 85 degrees or higher. 14. Sufficient quantities of food and water shall be provided to keep the dogs in good physical condition. The animals shall be fed at least once daily and provided clean water at all times. Food and water containers shall be located to minimize contamination and shall be cleaned as often as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. 15. All waste materials shall be disposed of in such a manner as to minimize odors and disease hazards. The boarding kennel shall be maintained in a sanitary manner as required by applicable codes (e.g. Chapter 14 of the Sedgwick County Code). 16. The animals confined in the boarding kennel shall be maintained in good physical condition, free of infectious diseases and parasites. 17. The boarding facility shall be open to the unannounced inspection by Sedgwick County of Code Enforcement personnel during reasonable daylight hours to insure continued compliance with the above requirements. 18. If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of this Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare the Conditional Use null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the surrounding area: Properties surrounding the application area are all zoned "RR", and are used for agricultural and large lot residential purposes, giving a "rural" character. The UZC lists kennels as a Conditional Use with conditions to protect the character of rural areas. The listed conditions should work to protect the character of this area; the conditions put a time limit on the use, for if and when this use is out of character with anticipated urban-scale residential development. Existing hedgerows and future landscape screening should preserve the character of this area. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential, which primarily permits large lot residential uses. The site could continue to be used as a residence without the Conditional Use. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Potential noise, odors, and traffic generated by the requested Conditional Use could negatively affect nearby residents. The listed conditions should work to minimize negative effects, and allow the use to expire if incompatible with future development. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The requested Conditional Use is in conformance with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, as the property is currently zoned "RR", it is not in conformance with the plan as a rural use in a designated Small City Growth Area. The requested Conditional Use is in conformance with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code, provided that the supplementary conditions of the code are placed on this use. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The requested Conditional Use will result in an increase in traffic on unpaved 87th Street South. Right of way at the application area is sufficient for future widening, should widening be necessary. DALE MILLER Planning Staff, presented staff recommendations. HENTZEN Any questions of staff? WARNER Dale, what you stated here varies from the written recommendation? Are they now the staff recommendations, or are you just informing us? MILLER We did not have any problems, and I don't believe the applicant had any problem with the issue about the sound insulated building on Item 8. I don't believe they had any problem changing on Item 9 the hours of operations from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Down at Derby there was not any discussion about jumping from 50 to 60 dogs. Staff was working with the applicant in terms of the number of dogs, and it is possible what the staff selected from was what they were provided, a range of 50 to 60 dogs, and staff said just 50. Perhaps what they are really after is 60, but that wasn't discussed at Derby. The 15-year period, I think what they are concerned with, should this be approved, and should Derby annex them, then the 15-year period would give them some comfort and security with the non-conforming issue. If it is approved, and then it gets annexed, the Derby zoning code does not permit kennels in residential districts. According to their annexation policy, when property is annexed they go into the lowest category which is single-family residential, as I understand it. If it were annexed, it would immediately become a non-conforming use. And what they are trying to do for the investment anticipated going on there is that they would have some comfort level that they could at least get 15-years out of it. HENTZEN Any other questions? WELLS What was it on # 5 that they said the Derby board wanted put in there? MILLER The Conditional Use would be valid for a period of 10-years, and extended by re-application and public hearing only. HENTZEN That was a (5-4) vote. MILLER Well, that was one of the recommendations that was put forward, but since they recommended denial, it really didn't count. I just wanted to give to you an idea of what they were discussing, and what they tried to get into a motion. BISHOP Mr. Chair, may I ask for clarification? HENTZEN Yes, go right ahead. BISHOP What I wrote down was a compromise on Number 5 earlier, was that the Conditional Use would be valid for a period of 15-years, period. MILLER When the applicant gets up here he is going to ask for that number to be switched from 10 to 15. HENTZEN Mr. Frank. GAROFALO Dale, staff is not recommending these changes. MILLER We are comfortable with Number 9, regarding the hours. We are comfortable with Number 8 on the sound insulation. I think we thought the 10-year period made sense in terms of what Derby's' projected growth is, but as we all know that can vary. Since their adopted plan is that time period that is what we were recommending. To me, if you go from 50 to 60 dogs, it is not going to make any difference. HENTZEN Any further questions of staff? If not, I think we are ready for the applicant. GREG FERRIS I represent the applicant in this case. They are here, and will make a short presentation themselves. I was not involved in this case at the Derby Planning Commission, but I have reviewed the minutes. I believe there are some issues that came up there that really aren't real applicable, and I will discuss those in just a second. We would like Item 5 changed to 15-years which then would require us to re-apply in 15-years. As you are aware, financing for 10-years is not that easy. If you don't have a Conditional-Use for the period of time that your financing will cover, you will have some problems. We do need a 15-year period. If it does get annexed, it will be in 10, 12 or 13-years, and it won't have much of an impact on Derby. The second part of that equation is that we would like this change to allow 60 dogs. When you have American Boarding Kennel Association statistics showing that the average attendance at a kennel is about 63%, but you need to be able to get the maximum numbers during the peak times when you are boarding during Christmas. If you can get those extra 10 dogs, that helps you financially. So the average that this kennel will probably house will be in the 30 to 45 range, but they would like flexibility, and that is why they are asking for 60. I don't believe staff has any problems. The current building is already sound insulated with 8" thick insulation. There will be no noise coming out of this facility. We do project that, if this is a problem, we will have to construct another building. That building will also be constructed in the same manner, so we have no problem with sound insulation. I would like to address a couple of issues on the aerial. Noise was an issue that was raised frequently at the Derby Planning Commission, and we want to make a couple of thing clear. First of all, in the first phase, until the first quarter of next year, until we are able to get our other building constructed, there will be a period of one to two hours a day when the dogs will be outside. They will be housed. They will be behind a fence. The exercise area is inside, and I will pass out some stuff in a minute. The exercise area will be inside. The only time dogs will be out is when we have to clean, and during bad weather. We will not take them out at all. So this is not something that will happen everyday. Once we construct the new building, there will be no activity outside of the buildings. These will be totally enclosed. There is no noise issue. This is an area where there is hunting; there is agriculture. There are existing dogs that make far more noise than we could ever perceive that would come out of this application. So we believe that this is appropriate. Just to point out something; you can see the applicants property here, the area here, to the south of the application area if it did develop into residential in the future, you can see that this is where the activity will take place. This is a natural flood plain, flood way which obviously there can be no development. So the closest that anything that could impact would be down here. You can see this is very distant, and to think that you could have an impact from a kennel indoors from here to down here I don't believe is reasonable. The church property, I don't believe shows up on this aerial. It is up on Rock Road. It is a little further away. Again, I don't believe there will be any negative impact to a church, by an indoor kennel operating in an agricultural environment this far away. The applicant is here to give you a little more detail about the type of operation he will have. We believe this is an appropriate application for this area, and we believe it could coexist in an agricultural environment without any issues. Thank you. HENTZEN Are there any questions? Name and address please. BEVERLY RUBLE 9031 E. 87th St. South I just wanted to give you some overview of how we ended up here today. We have been an active member of our community having served on the volunteer Sheriff Reserves, Police Department; we have spent 7-years supporting those activities as captains and lieutenants of the Mounted Patrol. While we were on the reserves, we pledged our lives and our own personal property and spent countless hours so that our community could be safe and secure. We continue to be involved in our community, the 4-H Project, and the Girl Scouts. Currently we are project leaders in a 4-H Project for dogs, and my daughter is a member of that. I have tried to get her to like horses, but she, or her love was not there. She has become involved with the dogs in the 4-H and the AKC. I might add she is going to the fair this weekend. If you happened to be there on Saturday, come and watch our kids. They are really pretty neat. Anyway, my husband and I, believe our community records speak for themselves. We have a house that is 75-feet from the building that we are going to be housing the dogs in. We enjoy country life, the quietness, sereneness, we are not trying to change that in any way. We still want to continue to enjoy our property. We have lived there 18-years. I would just like to say I don't believe that this is going to be a noise issue because of the way we are handling this. Thank you. HENTZEN Thank you, before you leave, let me ask if there are any questions for this Commission, if not lets go on to your husband. GORDON RUBLE, 9031 E. 87th Street South, applicant. A little bit of the operation of the Doggie Daycare, it is to bring the dog in, drop it off, socialize it, very much the same way you have child care where you drop off your child and let them play all day. It is like Gregg said, it is a totally indoor facility, and as soon as we get the other building built, the dogs will not be out at all. The noise is not an issue. We went again and checked to see if there was any validity to the noise problem with the Mulvane Clinic. I videotaped the Mulvane Clinic on several occasions, and there was zip as far as dog noises concerned. A lot of road noise, but no dog noises. Also I went to Doggie Playground, videotaped it there in their parking lot. There wasn't any dog noise, and just to make sure that there were dogs in there, I walked in and asked them if I could videotape in there, and they said it was not a problem, and there were dogs there. I went back to the compliant area, videotaped again to see if you could hear any dog noise, there was no dog noise, but there was plenty of cattle noise, bugling and caring on. It would have drowned out any dog noise going. I have videotape if you are interested. I was going to show it, but I didn't want to bore you with it. It is seven minutes of rural settings. Any questions? HENTZEN Any questions of this speaker? Okay, Ray. WARREN There has been concern about the doggie waste. How is that taken care of? RUBLE We are setting up a drainage system, and I have already checked at the County and had them come out and look at our waste system. He said that the lagoon itself is adequate to take care of it, and that he would pass that by the supervisor and make sure of that. He didn't have any heartburn with it. He has not gotten back with me, so I take it for granted that the waste would be okay in the lagoon. It is a 50-gallon. GAROFALO My question is on this material that was handed out. It has four or five names here. Can you give me an idea where these people are adjacent to your property? RUBLE (showing up on aerial). The Hines are here, and Marianne Slagle is here. We didn't have time to get any other contacted for signatures. GAROFALO I have another question that doesn't relate, being a dog lover myself. These buildings, are they going to be air- conditioned? RUBLE Yes, they are all climate controlled; they are going to live better than most of us. HENTZEN Any other questions of the speaker? Thank you. FERRIS Mr. Chair, just to summarize. Dog kennels; some dog kennels in the past have received negative notoriety. These folks are family and animal or dog lovers. They are going to operate this near their home. They will be accredited by the American Boarding Kennel Association; with strict rigid rules. They will comply with all of those guidelines, which are not easy to comply with, and this will be an indoor facility. It will be of top nature. There is one that you probably didn't know about down the road here, off of 1st Street, in a residential area that has no complaints; no issues, and no problems in the City of Wichita. I believe that in this rural environment this will fit in an easier way. If there are any questions, we will be happy to answer those at this time. HENTZEN Thank you. I think we will; yes, John go ahead. MCKAY I would like him to review again the changes that they are going to make from the staff recommendations for my benefit. FERRIS We would like Number 5 changed to 15-years, and that is very unusual as you are aware. Most Conditional Uses have no time period, but we are willing to agree to a time commitment. We would like Number 6 changed to 60 dogs. We are not opposing the change from, not accepting or dropping off of dogs from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. MCKAY That number 9. FERRIS That is number 9, and there was another one that staff suggested, and we have no problem with. I don't know where that was, the sound proofing, we have no problem with that either. Item 8. HENTZEN Is there anyone in the audience wanting to speak for or against this proposal? Lets see how many want to speak on this item? Okay lets go. Please give us your name and address for the record, and say if you are in favor or opposed and then tell us why. JAMES A. SUMNER, 201 E. Derby KS, I represent 1st Christian Church in Derby. Many of the issues that we raised in the Derby Planning Commission meeting have been made public here today. We still have a concern about the noise because a promise is one thing and actuality is another. We have testimonies come into us about other kennels; a couple of them in Mulvane, where these people have lived next to them testify that they have heard noise. We are going to build a church down here on the southwest corner of this section. The last thing we want to hear is dog noise during service. If they are going to take these dogs out from 8:00 to 10:00 to clean those kennels, and that is when we have our service. We have service all morning. It wouldn't be a good thing for us to hear any noise on Sunday morning. The other days the preacher would be the one to hear it. And we will have to listen to his complaints. The lagoon was an issue with us. We are not convinced that that lagoon with 50 or 60 dogs dumping waste into there is going to be a good thing. We are worried about it. We are concerned about it. Another issue that came up during our Derby meeting was the reporting of violations. It worries us that there is not going to be an inspection on this facility. When we asked how complaints were going to be handled, we will have to wait until we have complaints, and then we will resolve the issues. That put us to asking questions. If people complain about the facility, they have the privilege of taking this before a Commission, and get a ruling against the property. Now they have a 15-year investment down there that they are sitting on, and these complaints might put an end to that. I think this kennel property is awfully close to a populated area. You have a little map that I handed out to you, it is not as good, but this is sketch of the developed areas. We are going to sell off most of this property, property that we don't put the church on, to a developer and he will develop it. If the City is moving, and I realize moving north and east, but I think as you can see that this section is large, and I think the pressure is going to be on the rest of this land to develop. We are concerned about that, and so we are resistant to this kennel location. We wish it were further out. That is our position. Thank you. HENTZEN Let me ask if there are any questions before you leave. Mr. Barfield. BARFIELD What is the distance between your church and the purposed location for the kennel? SUMNER You know I had that measurement; it was around 700-feet from his closest corner to our closest corner; approximately 700-feet. HENTZEN Any other questions? Thank you sir. CHRISTY RAFFERTY, 712 N. Porter. I am a veterinarian, let me back up and say I am for this proposal. I have been Beverly and Gordon's veterinarian for 7 ½ years. I have been their acquaintance for about 17 years, so far as I can count. I am in favor of this proposal for several reasons. Number 1 being, I think, they are good candidates to be putting this proposal together. I can personally vouch for their integrity, and for their concern for their community, and I don't vouch for that lightly. I have my professional liability also. Having said that, there is an overwhelming demand for this type of facility. If any of you have pets, and you have ever tried to acquire boarding facilities or daycare facilities, holidays or outside that time, you know it is hard to do. We routinely turn a lot of people away at the clinic that I am currently working at. I should mention I was previously an associate at the Mulvane Animal Clinic, which is in the same vicinity. It is just a little ways south of where we are talking about right now, south and slightly south and west, so I do have a lot of experience in that area also. With the demand, if we don't have the kennel here, there is going to be one elsewhere, and I would say it is going to be near a residential area no matter what you do. You have residences, and then you have the businesses that serve those residences close by. Leading to my second point. If it were I representing the County or the City of Derby, I would rather see the money staying in the community, and helping to support the community than going elsewhere. One of the problems I know, in the past, has been the condition of the roads in that area. It has been pretty pathetic, a lot of complaints from residents in that area. Having a kennel facility in this area supporting the area with taxes, and things like that can do nothing