METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 7, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, December 7, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Chris Carraher, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Ron Marnell; Jerry Michaelis; Osborne-Howes (late arrival); George Platt; Harold Warner; Ray Warren. John W. McKay, Jr., and Richard Lopez were not present. Staff members present were Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Associate Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations CARRAHER "There are two items that we need to pull for consideration. Those items are 1/1 and 1/3. Is there anyone here to speak on any of those issues?" Man in the audience "Yes. Item 1/8." CARRAHER "All right. We will pull that item and enjoin it with issues 1/1 and 1/3. Are there any other items that anyone else wants to speak to? With that in mind, I would open the floor for a motion to approve items 1/2 and 1/4 through 1/7 as distributed." Subdivision Committee items 1/2, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MARNELL moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). 1/4. SUB2000-14 - One step final plat of WILBUR ADDITION, generally located south of 37th Street North, on the west side of Hillside. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A restrictive covenant is required that prohibits non-domestic uses on the site until public sewer is available. B. A petition is required for future extension of sanitary sewer. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. An off-site drainage agreement and a drainage reserve is required. E. 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. F. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. G. The plat proposes two access openings along Hillside. The Subdivision regulations encourage shared access for commercial/industrial lots along arterials. Traffic Engineering has approved the access controls with one opening to be located along the south line of the property. H. If platted, the building setback may be a minimum of 20 feet to conform with the LI District zoning standards. I. The signature line for the County Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Don Brace". J. The signature line for the MAPC Chairman needs to be revised to reference "Christopher S. Carraher". K. 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. L. 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.) M. 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. N. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. O. 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. P. 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. Q. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. R. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. S. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. T. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1/5. SUB2000-102 - One Step Final Plat of MESSIAH LUTHERAN SECOND ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 12th Street North and Ridge Road. A.. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. No additional easements or guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. No guarantees are required. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening along Ridge. The access controls are approved. E. The signature line for the County Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Don Brace". F. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. G. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) H. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. K. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. O. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ----------------------------------------------------------- 1/6. SUB2000-103 - One Step Final Plat of MYSTIC LAKES ADDITION, generally located north of 53rd Street North, on the east side of Tyler Road. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. The size of the platted lots necessitates the use of septic systems. Health Department has required a four corner lot grading plan. B. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes one access opening along Tyler in addition to an emergency access opening. County Engineering has required access control except for one opening and an emergency access opening. D. County Fire Department needs to comment on the plat's street names. The streets names are approved. E. County Fire Department should comment on the need for any required gating, fencing or special signing necessitated by the platting of the emergency access easement. The emergency access easement shall be established by separate instrument and depicted on the final plat. A guarantee shall be submitted assuring the construction of an all-weather roadway surface. The text of the instrument shall indicate the type of driving surface to be installed and address installation and maintenance. The emergency access shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide, and be signed and gated. F. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. G. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. H. A covenant shall be submitted regarding the reserve platted for private street purposes, which sets forth ownership and maintenance of the private street, and future reversionary rights of the reserve to the lots benefiting from the reserve. The plattor's text shall reference the platting of the reserve for private street purposes along with ownership and maintenance responsibilities, in addition for the purpose of an emergency access. I. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed street. In the event the Subdivision Committee approves a private street, the Applicant shall guarantee the installation of the private street to a public street standard. As private improvements, such guarantee cannot be provided through the use of petitions. J. The signature line for the County Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Don Brace". K. 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. L. 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.) M. 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. N. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. O. 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. P. 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. Q. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. R. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. S. 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. T. 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. ---------------------------------------------------- 1/7. SUB2000-108 - One-Step Final Plat of WHISPERING BROOK COMMERCIAL SECOND ADDITION, generally located on the southwest corner of 37th street North and Woodlawn. A. Municipal water services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. A guarantee for the extension of sanitary sewer is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. Off-site drainage improvements are required as part of site development. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. In accordance with the C.U.P. Amendment approval, the plat proposes two access openings along 37th St. North and two access openings along Woodlawn. The final plat tracing shall revise the plattor's text to reflect these platted access openings. The access controls are approved. E. The joint access openings 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. In order to assure internal access among the lots, a cross-lot circulation agreement should be provided. G. In accordance with the C.U.P. Amendment approval, the following traffic improvements were required: extension of the center left-turn storage lane on Woodlawn to Brookview, extension of the center left-turn storage lane on 37th St. to the west property line, and provision of continuous accel/decel lanes with appropriate engineering standards to serve openings to all lots. H. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP Amendment (referenced as CUP 2000-30, DP-203 Amendment #1) and its special conditions for development on this property. I. On the final plat tracing, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat indicating that this Addition is subject to the conditions of CUP 2000-30, DP-203 Amendment #1. J. The signature line for the County Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Don Brace". K. 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. L. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. M. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) N. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. O. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. P. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. Q. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. R. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. S. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. T. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. U. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------- Osborne-Howes arrived at 1:20 p.m. 1/1. SUB2000-00063 - Revised One-Step Final Plat of HIDDEN CREEK ADDITION, generally located west of Meridian, north of 55th Street South. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for turn lane improvements at Meridian. A decel lane is required along Meridian. E. Since this is a City plat, County Engineering requires that the Applicant file a vacation case regarding the existing drainage easement condemned by the County that has been relocated as Reserve A. F. Reserve B is indicated as providing for "blanket" utility uses. These utilities should be restricted to easements within this reserve to avoid conflict with the possible locations of structures indicated therein (recreational facilities and storm shelter). G. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. H. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. I. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the private street connecting to Meridian in addition to the internal streets. As private improvements, such guarantees cannot be provided through the use of petitions. Standard pavement, curb and gutter are required. J. The MAPC Chairman shall be revised to reference Christopher S. Carraher. K. The signature line for the County Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Don Brace". L. The street connection to the Stonebriar Addition to the North should be revised to an emergency access easement. The emergency access easement shall be established by separate instrument and depicted on the final plat tracing. A guarantee shall be submitted assuring the construction of an all-weather roadway surface. The text of the instrument shall indicate the type of driving surface to be installed and address installation and maintenance. M. 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. N. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. O. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) P. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. Q. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. R. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. S. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. V. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. W. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning Staff "This is the revised One-Step Final Plat of the Hidden Creek Addition. This was reviewed last week by the Subdivision Committee and was approved. There was a zone change to 'MH' Manufactured Housing on the site that was approved by the City Council in March of this year, subject to platting. As you can see on the site plan, primary access to the site is through an existing 30 foot private road to the east, along the south here. This site may be served by both city and county fire departments and both departments had required a second point of access to the property. An emergency access easement will be platted to connect with the Stonebriar Addition to the north and that emergency access would be located right here (indicating). We had notified the residents of the Stonebriar Addition, as the plat presented to the Subdivision Committee last week had indicated a full-street right-of-way at this point, connecting Stonebriar. However, the Subdivision Committee last week approved only an emergency access easement, not a full street right-of-way. There were residents last week speaking in opposition to the street right-of-way. There were also residents from Stonebriar speaking against any connection whatsoever to their development whether it be a street right-of-way or an emergency access easement. Both fire departments felt that emergency access would be sufficient for their purposes and as I said before, an emergency access easement was approved by the Subdivision Committee. Are there any questions of staff?" CARRAHER "Are there any questions of staff by the Commission? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Strahl. Is the applicant in attendance today? Would you care to speak?" BOB KAPLAN "I did represent Hidden Creek in regard to the zoning matters, and not regarding platting issues. I am actually up here because I have a couple of other matters on your agenda. It is my understanding, from talking with Kenneth Hill with Poe and Associates that the applicant is in concurrence with all of staff's conditions. As to the access to the addition to the north, I am obviously not wearing my engineering hat, but they are comfortable either with the emergency access or the full street access at the pleasure of this Commission. Beyond that, I don't believe that there are any issues. I will stick around and if I can address any, I will. If there are engineering issues that you need addressed then I will have to go to the phone and find out where Mr. Kenny Hill is because I do not know." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you, sir. Now we will open it up to the gallery. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak in favor of the plat request? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition?" BOB SMITHWICK "I live at 4922 South Mt. Carmel. I am not opposing an emergency exit for the fire department or the police department. That is fine. But the thing of it is, I have lived in other places here in the City of Wichita that had the same thing--an emergency exit, a gate and a lock. A year and a half or two years later, that gate and lock were completely removed by the city because the school board couldn't get their school buses through. Also, I have called the State Attorney General's office and asked about the rezoning of this land. What the State Attorney General's office stated to me was that any time land has been rezoned that will affect people's property, may lower the value of our property, they have to be notified by letter, which we were not ever notified by the city or by Poe and Associates. Also, I would like to ask Poe and Associates if they have all of the proper permits from the state to build a street and a bridge across this creek. The reason why I am wanting to note this is that I don't want another west Wichita in the housing complex I live in. The creek is wide and a little deep, but yet the street is lower. I have also seen this Stonebriar Addition flooded three times altogether since I have lived there--for 2-1/2 years. I have seen all of the houses in the south end under water. The basements were full, water was within a foot or two of each house. So I would like to know if they are going to make sure that our housing complex is not going to flood again and have another west Wichita that the city is trying to take care of now. I talked to Chris Carrier. He is the one who told me to ask these questions about the proper permits. Chris has also come out to take a look at the creek since. I would like to know if this creek is going to be maintained. Right now it is full of groundwater and trees. I have seen water come up over the top of this creek, I have seen the land to the south of the creek under water in the 2-1/2 years I have lived there. My main concern is not having a west Wichita in south Wichita. I am not opposed to the gate as long as the gate stays there and it is only maintained by the City of Wichita Fire Department or emergency people. Thank you." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the gallery who wishes to speak in opposition to this item? Seeing none, Mr. Kaplan, if you wish, we will give you the standard time for rebuttal." KAPLAN "Let me address, very quickly, the zoning case, I am categorically confident, was appropriately handled and notices were appropriately given. I have no reservations about the validity of that proceeding, despite the gentleman's concerns that he wasn't notified. It got the certified abstractor's list, as all cases do. As to the platting issues, I am sure that there was a drainage plan. It has obviously been approved. The only concerns seem to be regarding the access and my client is totally flexible on that. You choose an emergency gate, a crash gate, whatever you like. Mr. Lang says that he will meet those desires. It sounds to me that the issue the gentleman has is more with the city's maintenance of the creek than it is with my applicant's property." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you. Moving it back to the Commission, what is the pleasure of the Commission?" GAROFALO I would be kind of interested in knowing what some of the Subdivision Committee people--if they dealt with this drainage problem he is talking about. The water problem. Was any of that discussed at the Subdivision meeting?" WARREN "This case was discussed at length. As a matter of fact, the Subdivision met last week until 6:30, I think. This case took up a considerable amount of that time. Yes, drainage was discussed. We had Vicky Huang here from the city and she told us that the drainage was worked out and that what they were going to do here wouldn't contribute any further to any drainage problems that they had. Other than that, the big item that we had to consider for a long time was this opening going north. We had a little mixed feelings about that, but it was concurred, finally, that it would be an emergency opening." CARRAHER "Are there any other questions or commentary in regards to this item?" KROUT "Regarding the drainage issues, Dale has asked Vicky to come up in case you have any specific questions about the drainage plan. I think that as Commissioner Warren stated, there are really two issues here. One is, is the impact of this development going to be negative on any surrounding property and that is what you looked at at subdivision level. Chris Carrier does have the responsibility for the overall maintenance of the total stormwater system, so those issues really are properly addressed to him and probably if there are problems existing out there now, they are existing whether or not this subdivision was to be approved. I do want to point out, on the question about notification that maybe the Attorney General was confusing the zoning and the subdivision process. We did send out written notices as required by state law and your local policy on the zoning case that was heard and approved earlier this year. There is no requirement for notification on subdivision cases in the state law or by local ordinance. We have talked about that issue and in fact, we are surveying some other communities to see what they all do. We talked about the possibility of maybe posting signs in the future, but we don't have notification generally. We did, in this case, notify the homeowners' to the north because the original site plan that you had showed emergency access and it was being changed as part of the plat. We felt like we needed, as a courtesy, to let them know about that. But there isn't an obligation to notify, normally, for subdivision items." CARRAHER "Mr. Krout, were you wanting to yield the floor to Vicky?" KROUT "She is just here if you have any questions on the drainage plan." Garofalo left the meeting at 1:27 p.m. CARRAHER "Are there any questions or commentary regarding the item?" MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARREN moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARRAHER "Since Item 1/3 is closely related to Agenda Item No. 14, and I believe it is contingent on Agenda Item No. 14, we need to move this item, 1/3, to be considered at the same time as Agenda Item No. 14. Is there any objection to that being moved? We just need a consensus. Seeing no objections, this item will be dealt with after Item No. 14." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/8. DR 00-15 - Request for a street name change from Ridge drive to Garnett, generally located west of 127th Street East and south of 21st Street North. CARRAHER "Mr. Krout, do we have a member of the staff to address this item?" KROUT "I think we have a member of the Fire Department here. Do we have a map that shows the street name change?" MARK JENKINS "I am here for the applicant, the Metropolitan Area Address Committee. We went over this last Thursday at Subdivision. We are changing the name of Ridge Drive to Garnett. The reason we are doing so is two reasons. In the Subdivision regulations of the Metropolitan Area Address Committee, the drive is the suffix of the name of the street. 'A drive is a street naming type designated a marginal access street of frontage road running parallel to a major roadway', which would be, as an example, Kellogg and Kellogg Drive. Drive has access to Kellogg, it is right next to Kellogg and you can access it. That is why they call it Kellogg Drive. Ridge Drive does not meet those requirements, and in fact, Ridge Drive is about 20 miles away from the original Ridge. The other reason we are doing it is because, and I had a letter for the Subdivision meeting, and should have brought some more letters for this one. We had a letter from the EMS Director, Dianne Gage, who has stated that they have had trouble in the past with this street because on the CAD system, if they put in 21st and Ridge, if someone calls from a cell phone or an alarm company or something like that, they put in 21st and Ridge or 1916 Ridge or whatever. When they put it in, it draws up Ridge Drive, because Dr. comes before Rd., and if the dispatcher is real busy or if they have a thunderstorm and they are having a call every 15 seconds, if she just presses that in, the assignment company that it would send is all east side fire trucks. If the problem is on the west side, that is a delay of response time, which could be a delay in life, safety and property. Therefore that is the reason we are asking for the change. We don't have anything against these people who live out there or anything like that. What we are trying to do is to make a bad situation better. I understand that these are all over the City, and that we are going to get to them as we can. This is not the first and it won't be the last one you will see. Thank you." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Now we will move to the gallery. Is there anyone in the gallery who is wishing to speak in favor of this item?" LT. WALTER ROONEY "I am with the Sedgwick County Fire Department. Both Fire Departments are in favor of this name change, mainly because the existing Ridge Drive does line up with Garnett. Some of the problems why this is occurring, and why I keep bringing street names up to the Committee is because years ago, when this was still out in the County, it wasn't too much difficulty, but the City of Wichita has since annexed this land and as we come up to Ridge Street in the City. Mark spoke about the cell phone issue, which quite commonly can occur. In another case, we have spoken with Jim Weber, who is with the Sedgwick County Public Works, and he indicated to me the other day that one of these computerized digital things that we see, these map finders that we see in cars, that somebody was on their way to the 4-H building at 21st and Ridge and the indicator had brought them to 21st and Ridge at 143rd and 21st Street. Why we picked Garnett was so that this would line up with the Garnett elsewhere within the City. So if they get an address of 1900 North Garnett, all of the fire crews know that this street is just west of 127th Street in the appropriate hundred block and we would ask the Commission to go ahead and approve the street name, mainly to avoid emergency confusion, since the fire department is primarily responsible for the protection of life and property and if we are given wrong addresses by computer glitches or by unforeseen circumstances or by nobody's fault. In that protection of life we lose precious moments, which we don't like to lose." CARRAHER "Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else in the gallery who wishes to speak in favor of the item? Is there anyone in the gallery who wishes to speak in opposition to the item?" BENJAMIN LEADER "I live at 1968 Ridge Drive. I faxed in some information for you folks a couple of days ago. I hope you got it. It was relating to a couple of points I wanted to raise. Since the hearing last week, and we had had some discussions in the neighborhood prior to last week about this, I took the time to visit with all of my neighbors that I could get in touch with. One person is out of town. I basically wanted to relate to you that, and most of us have been there a long time--I have lived there for 32 years--many of them have been there longer than I have. To our knowledge of all of the persons there, we have never had any problem with law enforcement, fire units, ambulances and we have personally had some experiences with calling both law enforcement and ambulances. They didn't have any trouble finding where we were. I would point out, in the similarity of names that was brought up, I was just looking on the Wichita map I happen to have; in addition to Ridge Road and Ridge Drive, there is Ridge Club, Ridge Club Court, Ridgecrest, and etc. There are quite a number of them. If you look down that map, there are cities all over Wichita with similar designations of names. I understand the problem they might have with the computer not understanding the difference, but it would seem to me that any computer system would also have to take into consideration these other Ridge street names around Wichita. I would suggest that it might be a better approach to this whole procedure of changing street names to look at the City-at- large rather than kind of do it 'piecemeal' as this is. If you took the approach of all of the streets in Wichita named Ridge and deal with all of those at one time, it would seem to be a lot more efficient than taking them one at a time. I get around quite a bit and I am familiar with a lot of other cities. Maybe we need to go to something like a northwest/southwest/northeast designation with the street names to help people know where they are. Naturally, the telephone prefix on Ridge Drive than it is on Ridge Road, and of course, our zip code is different. Again, we have no trouble getting mail properly--UPS and Fed Ex delivers out there a lot. Just as kind of a closing remark, this particular little area out where Ridge Drive is was platted a long, long time ago. I am not too sure that we didn't have Ridge Drive before there was a Ridge Road. Thank you." CARRAHER "Are there any question of the speaker? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the gallery who wishes to speak in opposition?" MAX BRUBAKER "I live at 1916 Ridge Drive. I want to say good afternoon to you all today; it is a lot earlier than it was last week when we were here, I will tell you. Nothing else has changed as far as we are concerned. We haven't had any problems with the things that the Fire Department seems to bring up. Why that is happening with those folks, I don't really know. The EMS people have gotten there without any particular problem. I can tell you that an emotional grandmother called in about 25 years ago about her grandson falling into a swimming pool and they made it in about 5 to 6 minutes, which is pretty good coming down 4 miles of the old county roads that were there at the time. Part of which were sand and gravel then. If they could find it that quickly 25 years ago, I am a little bit appalled at our computer system not being able to distinguish between Ridge Drive and Ridge Road. I would think if anything could, that machine ought to be able to do it because it does a lot of things for you, as you well know, from your paychecks to your pension and that sort of thing. I would like to state that when this thing is all said and done and it is real easy for you to say 'we will just change that street name', but then the work is just beginning--not only for us, but for you people as well. You will have to see that all of the maps that are distributed properly say 'Garnett Street'. And while we are talking about Garnett, it is not a major thoroughfare of any magnitude, as I said last week, it is only half a mile long. It runs from Central down to Douglas. One of the things that you might want to ponder about that is, and whether it makes any difference or not I don't know, but right across the street from the north terminus of Garnett, the Catholic Church was going to put in the Church of the Magdalene. As you well, know, that didn't happen, because of something called polluted groundwater. I sort of feel that maybe your Garnett that is currently in existence might fade into oblivion because no one, at this point in time, is very interested in buying ground with polluted groundwater under it. It is just not very smart--not a good thing to do. The other thing that is going to be a real super inconvenience to us is addressing the change of address cards. I assure you that there is going to be a considerable amount of man hours expended in doing that. If anyone wants to come out and help us, feel obliged to do so. Of course, the other thing is that people always worry about their pocketbook. I kind of have a feeling that something is going to happen to my pocketbook because of any kind of change that is going to take place. I can't tell you what it is right now, but this sort of thing always transmits into some sort of financial obligation one way or the other. I am not talking about the 5,000 return address stickers I have in my desk, but I am talking about other things. What they are and what they will be, I don't have an idea in the world, but I am sure they will arise. Are there any questions?" CARRAHER "Thank you. Is there anyone in the gallery who wishes to speak in opposition to the item? Seeing none, if the applicant would like, they can have their standard time for rebuttal." JENKINS "Just real quick. Like I said, this Metropolitan Address Committee was formed as a joint effort between the Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita to deal with existing problems and to stop things that would be a problem in the future. That is all we are trying to do. We are not trying to cause problems for these gentlemen or anyone else in that neighborhood. What we are trying to do is that this has been identified as being a problem, and I can see in the future with future developments and more Ridge Drives that it would be a problem, and also it doesn't match the street naming type, which the suffix does not match. This is how we are going to fix them and this is how we have to do it. It is going to inconvenience people, but that is just the way it is. We would appreciate it if you would change it. Thank you." CARRAHER "Are there any questions of the applicant?" MICHAELIS "I have a question. I didn't think of this last Thursday, but would it be possible to change the suffix and accomplish the same thing? Is that an option at all?" JENKINS "If it met any of the guidelines for the way a suffix is decided, then that would be a possibility, but it doesn't. Like if you went to Ridge Circle, Ridge Circle is at the end of Ridge Road. Ridge Court runs at approximately a right angle to Ridge Road. Those are really the only two suffixes that we use. We use either Circle or Court. This doesn't meet either of those requirements." MICHAELIS "Okay. Thank you." MARNELL "Have you had any discussion with the group that lives in the area? Have you read Mr. Leader's letter?" JENKINS "I have. What we did, since you weren't here last Thursday, just to give you a quick rundown, how this process works is when this was brought up to our attention to EMS and by GIS, the Geographical Information System that it was flagged as a problem, what we did was to write a letter to all property owners on that street and adjoining that street and indicated that there had been a problem that had been brought up to us. What we did was to go down with Mike Kollmeyer, who is in GIS, and we lined up Ridge, as we were saying there are really not any streets to the north, but there are streets to the south. Mike Kollmeyer said that there could be two possible streets that would really work out well. One of them would be Davin Lane and one would be Garnett. So we put together a letter and it went before the address committee and said 'this is what we are going to send out. It is a letter saying that we need to change your street name to either Garnett or Davin Lane'. We allowed them to pick one or the other and I will agree there was, and I knew there would be opposition from everyone out there, but of those two choices, what they would say was 'although I am in opposition to this name change, if I had to pick one or the other, I would pick Garnett'. It was 5-4 or 6-3 of the letters that we got back, picking Garnett. If they would have picked Davin Lane, we would have gone with that, but we picked Garnett." CARRAHER "Are there any other questions of the speaker? Thank you. We will move it back to the Commission. Are there any questions or commentary regarding the item? What is the pleasure of the Commission?" MOTION: I move that we recommend to the governing body that the name change from Ridge Drive to Garnett be approved. MARNELL moved WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------- CARRAHER "Now we will move on to the vacation items. I was addressed by Mr. Carroll before the meeting that he wants to discuss some issues concerning Items 2/3 and 2/6. Those will be pulled for discussion. I have also been notified by Mr. Johnson that he will be stepping down on item 2/9. Is there anyone in the gallery wanting to speak to any of these vacation items? That would be 2/1 through 2/8. Seeing none, I would open the floor for a motion to approve items 2/1, 2/2, 2/4, 2/5, 2/7, 2/8 and 2/10 as distributed. MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the requests be approved. OSBORNE-HOWES moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). 2/1. VAC2000-44 - Request to vacate alley right-of-way, located in the alley between 9th & 10 Streets, west side of Mosley, east side of Mead (1055 N. Mosley), described as: The alley as dedicated in the Parmenter's 3rd Addition and the Stovers Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The applicant is requesting to vacate alley right-of-way that is interior to property. The applicant wishes to construct a new warehouse. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time June 20, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described alley right- of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of alley right-of-way described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley return. 2. The applicant shall dedicate another five feet of easement for a continuous 20-foot easement. 3. The vacated alley right-of-way shall be retained as a utility easement. 4. The applicant shall provide a survey of the sewer and manhole locations. 5. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley return. 2. The applicant shall dedicate another five feet of easement for a continuous 20-foot easement. 3. The vacated alley right-of-way shall be retained as a utility easement. 4. The applicant shall provide a survey of the sewer and manhole locations. 5. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant -------------------------------------------- 2/4. VAC2000-51 - Request to vacate utility easement, described as: Five (5) feet south, from existing man hole between Lot 7 and Lot 26, continuing South to includes Lots 7 through 13 and Lots 20 through 26, in Block 7, all in Franklin Yikes Addition, to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, located north of Harry, east side of Seneca (1015 Stillwell) The applicant is requesting to vacate a utility easement that is interior to property own by the applicant. The applicant wishes to construct a new building. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of the utility described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A guarantee shall be submitted for the abandonment of the sanitary sewer line. The applicant shall grant a temporary easement by separate instrument until abandonment of utility lines is complete; or 2. The applicant shall certify abandonment of the sanitary sewer line to Public Works and Water and Sewer Systems staffs before approval by the Wichita City Council. 3. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A guarantee shall be submitted for the abandonment of the sanitary sewer line. The applicant shall grant a temporary easement by separate instrument until abandonment of utility lines is complete; or 2. The applicant shall certify abandonment of the sanitary sewer line to Public Works and Water and Sewer Systems staffs before approval by the Wichita City Council. 3. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. --------------------------------------- 2/5. VAC2000-53 - Request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement, described as: A 20 foot utility easement centered on the south and west lot line of Lot 2 adjoining Lot 1 of Auburn Hills Commercial 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the southwest corner of 135th Street West and Maple. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 20-foot utility easement that is interior to property. The applicant wishes to construct a retail building in this area. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of the utility easements described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall retain the east 10-foot of the east/west utility easement. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall retain the east 10-foot of the east/west utility easement. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/7. VAC2000-55 - Request to vacate utility easement, described as: The 20' utility easement retained in vacated alley right-of-way adjacent to the west line of odd lots 145 through 189 on Smithson (now St. Paul Street) inclusive, Richmond's 3rd Addition to Wichita, Kansas, except the south 20 feet thereof. Generally located on the northwest corner of Harry and St. Paul (1539 S. St. Paul). The applicant is requesting to vacate a utility easement that is interior to property that she owns. She wishes to allow for the expansion of facilities. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of the utility easements described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall assume the ownership, maintenance and responsibility of the sanitary sewer line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall assume the ownership, maintenance and responsibility of the sanitary sewer line. ---------------------------------------------------------- 2/8. VAC2000-56 - Request to vacate utility easements, described as: The 10 foot utility easement common to Lots 32 and 33, Block 4, Forest Lakes, EXCEPT the west 25 feet thereof; and The 10 foot utility easement common to Lots 14 and 15, Block 5, Forest Lakes, EXCEPT the east 10 feet thereof. Generally located north of 29th Street North, west of Ridge. The applicant is requesting to vacate utility easements that are interior to property. The applicant wishes to create larger lots. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of the utility described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall grant a 10-foot easement within or near Lot 35, Block 4, Forest Lakes Addition. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall grant a 10-foot easement within or near Lot 35, Block 4, Forest Lakes Addition. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. ------------------------------------------------------ 2/10. VAC2000-58 - Request to vacate access control, described as: The east 53 feet of Lot 10, Zoo Business Park Addition, Lot 10 Zoo Business Park Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Located on the Northeast corner of West 21st Street North and Hoover. The applicant is requesting to vacate access control at the northeast corner of West 21st Street North. The applicant wants a second approach to his business. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described access control, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of access control as described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The vacation order shall retain access control except for two openings along the south line of Lot 10. 2. The applicant will agree, by covenant, to provide cross-lot access to the lot immediately to the east. 3. The applicant will agree to abandon the eastern most drive, if a shared drive to the east, on an adjacent lot, is constructed in the future. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The vacation order shall retain access control except for two openings along the south line of Lot 10. 2. The applicant will agree, by covenant, to provide cross-lot access to the lot immediately to the east. 3. The applicant will agree to abandon this eastern most drive, if a shared drive to the east, on an adjacent lot, is constructed in the future. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. ----------------------------------------------- 2/3. VAC2000-45 - Request to vacate an alley and street right-of-way, described as: Kansas Avenue as dedicated in the Rosenthall's 2nd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas lying south of the south right-of-way line of 12th Street; Kansas Avenue as dedicated in the Matlock Manor Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas lying north of the north right-of-way line of Rumsey Avenue; and the alley as dedicated in the Rosenthall's 2nd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas lying south of the south right-of-way line of 12th Street. Generally located south of 12th Street, east of Hydraulic (1270 N. Kansas). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley and street returns. 2. The applicant will shorten the water line in Kansas Street to the south property line of 12th Street with the costs to be paid by the applicant. 3. The applicant shall grant an easement for the alley east of Kansas Street in order to retain access to the existing manhole. 4. The applicant will supply, by separate instrument, adequate easement to cover the existing utilities. 5. The applicant shall guarantee extension of sewer and/or water for future development. 6. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicants are requesting to vacate an alley and street right-of-way that is interior to property that they own. The applicants wish to develop the site for a church building project. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time October 20, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described alley right-of- way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of alley right-of-way described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the alley and street returns. 2. The applicant will shorten the water line in Kansas Street to the south property line of 12th Street with the costs to be paid by the applicant. 3. The applicant shall grant an easement for the alley east of Kansas Street in order to retain access to the existing manhole. 4. The applicant will supply, by separate instrument, adequate easement to cover the existing utilities. 5. The applicant shall guarantee extension of sewer and/or water for future development. 6. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. BARRY CARROLL, Planning Staff "This is just mostly for information. Back on the recommendations, after meeting with the Public Works staff, Item Nos. 1 and 2, I will read to you. I have spoken with the agent and he is okay with this. 1. A guarantee shall be submitted for the abandonment of the sewer line. 2. The applicant shall grant a temporary easement by separate instrument until abandonment of utility lines is complete, or the applicant shall simply certify abandonment of the sanitary sewer line to Public Works and Water and Sewer System staff before approval by the Wichita City Council. I simply wanted you to know that reordering." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for Mr. Carroll? Since there was no interest in discussion by the public, I am just going to move it to the Commission. What is the pleasure of the Commission regarding this item?" MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. JOHNSON moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ----------------------------------------------------- 2/6. VAC2000-54 - Request to vacate a portion of the drainage easement, described as: Part of Lot 16, Block 1, Horseshoe Bay, an Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: Commencing at the front common corner of Lots 15 and 16; thence S44 (degrees) 09'E along the northeasterly line of said Lot 16, 6.5 feet for a point of beginning; thence continuing S44 (degrees) 09'E, 3.5 feet; thence S45 (degrees) 51'W, parallel to the northwesterly line of said Lot 16, 53 feet; thence N44 (degrees) 09'W, 3.5 feet; thence N45 (degrees) 51"E, 53 feet to the point of beginning. Located on Hazelwood, north of Clear Meadow Circle (2429 Hazelwood). It is requesting to vacate a portion of the drainage easement that is interior to property that he owns. The applicant wishes to reduce the width of the drainage easement. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the drainage easement described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. BARRY CARROLL, Planning staff "This is a request to vacate a utility easement. On Page 2 under our recommendations, I am asking that Item No. 2 simply be deleted. It is not needed. The only item that is needed is 'the applicant shall assume the ownership, maintenance and responsibility of the sanitary sewer line." WARREN "You are deleting Item No. 2?" CARROLL "Yes." CARRAHER "Are there any questions for staff? Okay. What is the pleasure of the Commission?" MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved with the deletion of Item No. 2. WARREN moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2/9. VAC2000-57 - Vacation of a 10-foot Utility Easement 10-foot utility easements, described as: A 10' utility easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 5 and 6 Pawnee Industrial park second addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas from the south right-of-way line of west street court to a point 10 feet north of the south lot lines of said Lots 5 and 6. A 10' utility easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 6 and 7 Pawnee and west Industrial Park second addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, from the south right-of-way line of west street court to a point 10 feet north of the south lot lines of said Lots 6 and 7. A 10' utility easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 9 and 10 Pawnee and west Industrial Park second addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas from the north right-of-way line of Pawnee Avenue to a point 10 feet south of the north lot lines of said Lots 9 and 10. A 10' utility easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 10 and 11 Pawnee and west Industrial Park second addition to Wichita Sedgwick County, Kansas from the north right-of-way line of Pawnee Avenue to a point 10 feet south of the north property lines of said Lots 10 and 11. Located at Pawnee and West Streets. The applicant is requesting to vacate 10-foot utility easements that are interior to property that he owns. The applicant wishes to construct buildings across lot lines. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 17, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easements, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the utility easements described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. JOHNSON "I am going to step down on this item." CARRAHER "Is there anyone from staff who would like to address this item? WARNER "The only reason we pulled this is because he was going to abstain." CARRAHER "Okay. What is the pleasure of the Commission." MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body the request be approved. WARNER moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). Johnson abstained. --------------------------------------- CHRIS CARRAHER, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning and vacation items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Garofalo returned to the meeting at 1:43 p.m. ZONING: 3a. Case No. ZON2000-00060 - KCBB Inc., c/o Mike Boyd (owner); Austin Miller, P.A. c/o Kim Edgington (agent) request a zone change from "MF-29" Multi-Family to "LC" Limited Commercial, "GC" General Commercial and "LI" Limited Industrial; and 3b. Case No. CUP2000-00050 - KCBB Inc., c/o Mike Boyd (owner); Austin Miller, P.A. c/o Kim Edgington (agent) request to amend DP-93 Spencer Gardens Residential C.U.P. to allow mixed use development on property described as: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PARCELS 4, 5, 6 Beginning at the Northwest corner of Spencer Gardens 2nd Addition, to Wichita, Kansas; Thence S0?16'20"W, on the West line of said Spencer Gardens 2nd, a distance of 445 feet; Thence N89?44'23"W, a distance of 49.62 feet; Thence N89?46'26"W, a distance of 548.34 feet; Thence N0?16'20"E, a distance of 438.90 feet, to the South right-of-way line of Pawnee; Thence N89?38'37"E, a distance of 598 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said parcels contain 264,265 square feet, more or less. LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PARCELS 1, 2, 3, 7 Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Pawnee, said point being 598 feet West of the Northwest corner of Spencer Gardens 2nd Addition, to Wichita, Kansas; Thence S0?16'20"W, a distance of 438.90 feet; Thence N89?46'26"W, a distance of 128.58 feet; Thence N85?37'52"W, a distance of 633.53 feet, to the East right-of-way line of George Washington Boulevard; Thence N45?34'00"W, a distance of 316.34 feet; Thence N31?31?50"W, a distance of 103.08 feet; Thence N45?34'00"W, a distance of 70 feet; Thence N89?38'37"E, a distance of 70 feet; Thence N75?36'27"E, a distance of 103.08 feet; Thence N89?38'37"E, a distance of 922.32 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said parcels contain 384,481 square feet, more or less. LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT PARCEL 8 Beginning at the Southwest corner of Spencer Gardens 2nd Addition, to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence N69?17'40"W, a distance of 730.51 feet; thence on a chord bearing of N84?47'43"W, a distance of 375.74 feet, to the West end of a curve to the left, with a radius of 702.96 feet and a delta of 31?00'05"; thence S79?42'15"W, a distance of 163 feet, to the East right-of-way line of George Washington Boulevard; thence N45?34'00"W, a distance of 343.38 feet; thence S85?37'52"E, a distance of 633.53 feet; thence S89?46'26"E, a distance of 676.92 feet; thence S89?44'23"E, a distance of 49.62 feet, to the West line of Spencer Gardens 2nd Addition; thence S0?16'20"W, a distance of 84.99 feet; thence N89?38'37"E, a distance of 107 feet; thence S0?16'20"W, a distance of 368.15 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 335,294 square feet, more or less. Generally located on the southeast corner of Pawnee and George Washington Boulevard. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to amend DP-93 Spencer Gardens Residential Community Unit Plan. This amendment would change the C.U.P. from a residential C.U.P. to a predominantly commercial development. The total size of the Spencer Gardens would remain at 22.58 acres, and be divided into nine, or possibly eight, parcels. Parcel sizes shown on the C.U.P. drawing submitted for approval were follows: Parcel 1 - 2.04 acres; zoned "LC"; Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 – 0.44 acre, zoned "LC"; Parcel 4 – 2.58 acres, zoned "LC"; Parcel 5 and Parcel 6 – 0.92 acre, zoned "GC"; Parcel 7 - 4.23 acres, zoned "GC"; Parcel 8 – 3.32 acres, zoned "LC"; and Parcel 9 – 7.68 acres, zoned "LI". The applicant is evaluating parcel boundaries and proposed openings to coordinate entrances onto Pawnee better with the local streets to the north (Broadview, Belmont, Crestway, Terrace, and Pershing). The applicant may be providing a revised C.U.P. drawing that keeps the same orientation of users but shifts some of the parcel boundaries and sizes. Also, Parcels 2 and 3, which are very small, would be combined in this revision. Potential users for the parcels vary significantly. The southernmost parcel abutting Gypsum Creek would be zoned "LI" and is designed to accommodate a bus storage facility or perhaps a "clean" manufacturing user. The eastern parcels located on the south side of Pawnee and east of the main entrance to the C.U.P. (between Crestway and Terrace) would be zoned "GC" and allow a broader range of commercial users. This might include mini-storage warehouses. The western parcels between the main entrance on Pawnee and George Washington Boulevard would be zoned "LC". Some of the potential users for these sites include a day care and typical fast-food types of restaurants. The remaining parcel, approximately 3 acres in size, is located on the interior of the site but has access to both Pawnee and George Washington. It would be zoned "LC" but potentially developed with multi-family use. The parcels will all exclude pawnshops; secondhand stores; taverns; night clubs; drinking establishments; and adult entertainment. This will encourage a break from the "pawnshop" appearance of nearby Oliver. Parcel 1, the corner parcel, excludes public uses except churches, community assemblies, libraries, parks and recreation, government services and daycare. The other parcels west of the main entrance abutting Pawnee further exclude all residential uses and all public uses except daycare. In contrast, the interior parcel has the same exclusions as these parcels except that residential uses would be allowed. The parcels east of the main entrance would allow "GC" uses, but would have the same exclusions of public uses except daycare and residential. The applicant is willing to further restrict some of the uses. This will be discussed in the Recommendations section. The C.U.P. proposes a maximum building coverage of 30 percent. Maximum building height is 35 feet except for Parcel 9, which is 80 feet. Building setbacks are shown at 20 and 25 feet, below the minimum requirement for a C.U.P. Four access openings were shown on Pawnee and one on George Washington Boulevard on the plan submitted. The revised plan may show a fifth entrance on Pawnee, but situated at the extreme eastern edge of the C.U.P. The applicant proposes to prepare a plan for vehicular circulation and a pedestrian walk system to be reviewed prior to the issuing of building permits. There is no requirement for uniform architectural control and uniform lighting. The applicant has agreed to provide additional landscaping along Pawnee to soften the commercial uses from residences across the street, and to screen any outdoor work or storage areas from view along Pawnee and George Washington Boulevard. The type of development in the vicinity of Spencer Gardens varies. The area north of Pawnee is a well-maintained, predominately single-family residential neighborhood, Meadowlark. The area to the west, Plainview, is a predominately multi-family area. Most of the residences in Plainview near the application are in good condition. A third residential area is located to the northwest of the Pawnee/George Washington Boulevard intersection. This is the Schweiter area. Gypsum Creek borders the property on the south. The property immediately to the east is vacant except for a KGE substation. It was originally part of DP-93 (this C.U.P), but was separated into DP-169 Spencer Gardens Commercial C.U.P. in 1990. The property along Oliver, which is located a block farther to the east of the site, is a heavier commercial area and is occupied by several pawnshops, a furniture outlet and a Boeing office facility. CASE HISTORY: The property is platted as Spencer Gardens Addition, recorded July 2, 1979. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "SF-6"; "TF-3" Single-family residences and duplexes EAST: "LC" KGE substation, vacant, pawnshops, furniture store SOUTH: "LC" Boeing office facility WEST: "MF-29" Medium density residential (mixed housing types of single-family, duplexes, four-plexes, small garden apartments PUBLIC SERVICES: Transportation access is via Pawnee, a four-lane arterial street, and George Washington Boulevard, also a four-lane arterial street. Average daily trips on George Washington were 8,065 in 1997 and projected to increase to 11,674 in 2030. Daily traffic on Pawnee in 1997 was 14,769. It is projected to increase to 21,787 in 2030, without accounting for the commercial development of this tract. The intersection of Pawnee and George Washington Boulevard is signalized, but lacks left turn lanes. During peak times, particularly shift change at Boeing and Cessna facilities nearby, the intersection suffers from lack of left turn lanes. The intersection of Pawnee and Oliver is currently being improved to five-lane status. A medial extends from Oliver east on Pawnee as far west as Pershing, with a break for an opening into a commercial lot near the southwest corner of Pawnee and Oliver. A bike path is being developed on the western side of George Washington Boulevard along Gypsum Creek. Other municipal services are available. Inadequate water pressure is apparently a problem for residents. While it is beyond the scope of this report to analyze this issue, it should be noted that the development will increase water supply needs, and if there is an existing water supply problem it should be addressed during the platting process. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide in the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan shows the area for "high density residential" use, in conformance with its existing "MF-29" zoning. The area to the east (DP-169) is shown for "commercial" use, the property across Pawnee for "low density residential", the property across George Washington Boulevard for "medium density residential", and the property along Gypsum Creek for "parkland/open space". The area is designated as a "conservation" area on the Wichita Residential Area Enhancement Strategy Map of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Although DP-93 was approved as a residential C.U.P. and "MF-29" zoning has been in place since 1979, the property has remained undeveloped. The surrounding development is commercial in one direction, low density residential in another, and medium density in another, mirrored by the same variations in land uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The area could be considered a converging point of different types of use. Also, since the property has been bypassed for high-density residential development for 20 years and surrounding development is even older, dating from the 1940s through 1960s, this project is considered "infill". The proposed amendment would alter the C.U.P. from residential to predominately commercial uses. In most circumstances, the approval of higher intensity "GC" zoning on the eastern portion of the site would not be recommended. Some of this conflict is reduced because the applicant is willing to exclude many of the "GC" uses typically objectionable to nearby residences and provide additional landscaping. One potential user is for a mini-storage warehouse. While it would not be subject to the "Conditional Use" requirements of the Unified Zoning Code, it is recommended that some of these "CU" provisions be incorporated within the C.U.P. to ensure compatibility with the residential neighborhood directly across Pawnee. These would include architectural design, landscape screening, and no visible outside storage. Another potential use is a car wash, which would not be allowed as a use of right since it is within 200 feet of residential zoning. The applicant would need to process a "Conditional Use" request as an amendment to the C.U.P. in order to locate a car wash on the property since it would be within 200 feet of residential zoning. Other types of "GC" uses that are generally not encouraged within such close proximity to neighborhoods are car lots, outdoor recreation and entertainment, recreational vehicle campgrounds, manufacturing, vehicle storage yard, warehousing, welding and machine shops, and wholesale or business services, and construction sales and services. It is recommended that these uses be eliminated from the permitted uses on the "GC" parcels. Of these uses, the applicant has agreed eliminate microbrewery, recreational vehicle campgrounds, manufacturing, and vehicle storage yard. They wish to keep construction sales and services and wholesale or business services, but would require that all activities and materials are located inside buildings. The proposed "LI" parcel is designed to accommodate a potential user that will be storing buses and providing ancillary services, including fuel storage and maintenance. Another potential use would be manufacturing. The applicant is willing to exclude the following "LI" uses: correctional facilities, correctional placement residences, microbrewery, asphalt plant, landfill, mining or quarrying, oil or gas drilling, rock crushing, solid waste incinerator, transfer station, and wrecking/salvage yard. It should be noted that most of these uses would require a Conditional Use anyway. The parcels proposed for "LC" zoning are situated near residential uses and would generally be viewed as more suitable for "NR" zoning. However, George Washington Boulevard provides some buffering from the neighborhoods to the west, and the applicant has agreed to additional landscaping to further soften the impact. Potential uses include convenience stores, restaurants including fast-food restaurants The Meadowlark Neighborhood Association has meet with the agent and has requested several restrictions, most of which have been agreed to by the applicant except for the request to exclude auto sales, dealers, or used auto dealers, and visual screening between the "LI" parcel and the parcels to the north. Regarding screening, both parties agree that the parcel should be screened so that it is not visible from Pawnee, however, the applicant feels screening of the Pawnee parcels should accomplish this purpose. Staff recognizes that the issue is two-fold. If the parcels closer to Pawnee provide screening that blocks the view, it is unnecessary to duplicate it. However, in similar situations when the screening was the responsibility of the property nearer the residences and this property remained undeveloped long after the more intense use was established, the effect was to have no screening. A recommendation is included to avoid this circumstance. Another request by Meadowlark is to limit sign heights to 20 feet, in addition to the proposed restrictions. Staff feels that perhaps the sign requirements should be designed to reflect the nearness of the residences across Pawnee and George Washington Boulevard and should be limited in size to 100 square feet per business. Based on these factors and information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. Drive openings on Pawnee shall be located directly across Pawnee from street entrances or located at the mid-point between the streets, and with a minimum separation of 320 feet from the opposing streets. Parcels shall share openings and cross-lot connections shall be provided. 2. The entrance onto George Washington Boulevard shall be right-in/right-out only. 3. The following transportation improvements shall be provided: A. Guarantee one-half the cost of adding a continuous center left-turn lane on Pawnee from George Washington Boulevard to the existing five-lane section near Oliver. B. Provide a continuous accel/decel lane along the south side of Pawnee. 4. The following uses shall be excluded in the "LI" district: asphalt plant, freight terminal, landfill, mining or quarrying, oil or gas drilling, rock crushing, solid waste incinerator, transfer station, wrecking/salvage yard, correctional placement residences, correctional placement facilities, and microbrewery. Any fuel storage shall be located in the northeast corner of the parcel and be screened from view of residential properties. 5. The following uses shall be excluded in the "GC" district: microbrewery, recreation and entertainment, outdoor; recreational vehicle campgrounds; manufacturing; vehicle and equipment sales, vehicle storage yard. Construction sales and services, warehousing, welding and machine shops; and wholesale or business services shall be permitted but all activities, equipment and materials shall be stored within a building. 6. Warehouse, self-service storage, use (mini-warehouses) on property zoned "GC" shall be subject to requirements as per the UZC Section III-D.6.y.3-16, 17, 18. 7. Building materials shall be predominately earth tones, with vivid colors limited to accents. No metal facades facing or visible from Pawnee or George Washington Boulevard shall be permitted. 8. Landscaping: A. Landscaping along Pawnee and George Washington shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 times the area and tree requirements of the Landscape Ordinance. B. The applicant shall be encouraged to maintain the grove of existing trees when possible, however, these trees shall not satisfy more than 50% of the tree requirement for the sites upon which they are located. C. A buffer along the southern property line shall be provided at a rate of one tree every 40 feet. D. A Landscape Plan, prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect in the State of Kansas, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. Freestanding signs shall be of the monument type only and be limited to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet per business. 10. Use of backlit canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings is prohibited. 11. Screening shall be provided to screen any vehicle storage or outdoor storage from Pawnee, George Washington Boulevard, and nearby non-residential properties. In the event that the use to be screened is separated by an intervening commercial parcel but that the use would remain visible due to no development or lack of required screening on the intervening parcel, screening shall be provided by the parcel upon which the use is located. 12. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the Plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 13. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 14. The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit Plan does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended. 15. All property included within this C.U.P. and shall be replatted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. by the Governing Body, or the case shall be considered denied and closed. 16. Prior to issuing a building permit on any portion of the expanded C.U.P., the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-93) includes special conditions for development on this property. 17. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning, uses and character of the area varies in each direction from the application area. With predominantly single-family use to the north and northwest, a range of housing types developed at medium residential densities to the west (Plainview), parkland/open space along Gypsum Creek to the south, and commercial to the east along Oliver. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property could be developed as zoned, "MF-29", although it has been by-passed for development for this purpose for 20 years. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The greatest potential impact is to the properties along Pawnee in Meadowlark Neighborhood. The second impact is on the residences along George Washington Boulevard. In terms of existing zoning, only one tract on Oliver is currently zoned "GC", the remaining tracts are zoned "LC". This suggests that limitations on permitted uses, signage, landscaping and screening are needed to ensure that any potential "GC" uses along Pawnee and "LI" use along George Washington Boulevard be developed in a manner to reduce impacts on surrounding districts with less intense zoning. 4. Length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned: The property has been zoned for multi-family use since 1979, but remained vacant. Additionally, it was zoned for lower density use prior to 1979, and was not developed even though the properties to the north and northwest were developed in predominately single- family, with scattered duplexes during the 1940s through 1960s. The property to the west, Plainview, has been developed as a medium-density residential use since the 1940s. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The Comprehensive Plan shows the property for high-density residential use, which has not been realized. The proposed "commercial" and "industrial" use would extend the "commercial" area westward from its current location along Oliver. Quality development, if realized, supports the Comprehensive Plan's conservation guidelines of encouraging new investment within the conservation area. It also supports policies of encouraging infill. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will have an impact on traffic beyond that assumed by high-density residential use. This would be mitigated by the proposed transportation improvements. GOLTRY "This is a request to revise Spencer Gardens, which is DP-93 from being a strictly residential to being a combination residential, but predominately commercial Community Unit Plan (CUP). The location of this proposed amendment to the CUP is at the corner of George Washington Boulevard and Pawnee. It travels eastward along Pawnee almost to Oliver. This is a little area that used to be part of the Spencer Gardens CUP, but now it is a commercial CUP. Then the remaining part of the tract travels southeasterly along George Washington Boulevard and follows the northern boundary of Gypsum Creek. The total parcel size is 22-1/2 acres. The requested CUP amendment would go from having two parcels that are zoned 'MF-29' for multi-family use to having, as you saw in your packet, a parcel arrangement of nine lots. The applicant's agent has a revised CUP to hand out. Now is a good time for you to distribute that. It shows, instead of having nine lots, it has eight lots. Because we didn't receive this until Tuesday, I haven't had a chance to make an overhead of this drawing, so I will be working from the one with nine lots. We have a group of lots that are concentrated in the northwest portion of the CUP that would be zoned 'LC' Limited Commercial. Of those tracts, Tracts 2 and 3 on the one you had were very, very small parcels and the proposed revision that is being passed around collapses 2 and 3 into one parcel that is slightly larger and it helps repositioning on some of the access openings. I will talk a little later about the reason for repositioning access openings. This larger parcel is requested for 'LC' zoning as well. And then this is at the middle of the tract. It is located at the crest of the hill between Crestway and Terrace Drives to the north. From this point over, that would be lots 5, 6 and 7 on the revision you are looking at the tracts, are proposed for 'GC' General Commercial zoning. Finally, we have a third area with a slightly different kind of zoning request. It is proposed for zoning for 'LI' Limited Industrial. The proposed user for that is possibly a bus facility, possibly a light manufacturing type facility. Barfield arrived at 1:45 p.m. This has been a difficult situation because what we have is some property that has been available for a residential development for over 20 years, but has set vacant. It is at the juxtapose position of several different types of land uses in the vicinity. (Pointing to the north and northwest) We can see that we have a solidly single-family with a few duplexes scattered in. There area couple of places where duplex zoning is scattered along Pawnee, but pretty much a solidly single-family neighborhood developed in the 50s and 60s. There is the Meadowlark area and we have Schweiter area. These are both low density types of residential areas. That is what they are shown as on the Comprehensive Plan, low density, but across George Washington Boulevard and we have Plainview. Actually, most of the dwelling units along George Washington Boulevard are fairly low density, too, but over all the density in Plainview might be seen as medium density. To the south, we have this one big black blob that is showing up on the aerial. It is a Boeing office drafting facility. Kind of a semi-industrial type use. To the east of our parcel, the Spencer Gardens Commercial CUP that is in existence. It has a pawn shop, a furniture outlet, another pawn shop. This pawn shop is pretty unsightly. (Pointing to the southernmost parcel north of Gypsum Creek). That is an easy way to put it. It has a lot of outdoor storage of vehicles. So what you have is an area shown here both zoned commercially and shown on the Comprehensive Plan commercially. So we go from low density, medium density to Commercial. The actual designation on the Comprehensive Plan on this tract was high density, but we felt, because of the fact that it is in between, that it is legitimate to look at expanding some of the other types of designations on the Comprehensive Plan into the tract. It is our understanding that there is one residual tract, the interior parcel you show as Parcel No. 7, which is perhaps going to be developed in the final analysis by residential use; otherwise this will probably be all commercial businesses. Some of the issues we have faced is the fact that there are very many streets opening on the north. You go from Broadview to Belmont to Terrace to Crestway, to Pershing to Dellrose and over to Oliver. They are spaced 330 feet apart. That makes it very difficult to try to come up with the spacing for the drive openings on the south side of the tract that doesn't cause a lot of access management issues. That has been one of the things that has both driven staff's comments back to the applicant for trying to redesign the parcels as well as is imbedded in our recommendation No. 1 where we are trying to make sure we have a minimum separation inbetween the various drive openings to the north and to the south of Pawnee. The applicant has made a number of recommended concessions, such as that they won't have secondhand stores and pawn shops and adult entertainment and night clubs and drinking establishments on the tract to begin with. Our recommendations, which are fairly lengthy, and included in the staff report include more restrictions--restrictions designed to ensure that because we do have low density residential immediately to the north that we have signage restriction and sufficient landscaping to buffer the effects between the commercial development, Pawnee, and the residential neighborhood. We have also requested exclusion of a large number of additional uses. I think, with a few exceptions, the agent is in conformance with those requests. They are also willing to exclude most of those uses. I will let the agent speak directly to that during their time period. I won't go through all of the recommendations one by one because as I said, there are quite a few of them--eleven of them. The Meadowlark Neighborhood Association has met and the representatives from that Association are here with us today and I presume they will be making a presentation. They have requested seven items. I think most of the items that they have requested are also items we requested as part of the staff report, but they may see some things slightly differently than that. There are some differences and they will highlight that as they speak. The DAB No. 3 met on this case on Tuesday night. They had a lot of extensive discussion. There were a lot of the neighbors present at the meeting. The ultimate DAB recommendation was to approve subject to staff comments plus subject to the recommendations of the Meadowlark Neighborhood Association, plus to exclude car washes and vehicle sales from all parcels. Unfortunately, we have a new person who is staff to DAB No. 3, and she did not get me any minutes to present to you today. So you will just have to accept my verbal recommendation. If you would like for me to restate it, I will. Fortunately we do have a large number of folks here who were there the other night. I think they will correct me if I misstated the recommendation from the DAB. There is a quite a bit of visibility for that "LI" tract as you travel up George Washington Boulevard because it is a pretty open expanse with the Gypsum Creek in the area. In terms of recommendations, I do want to highlight the fact that we have asked for the drive openings to be repositioned. Ms. Edgington has passed out a CUP that does do some repositioning. From our standpoint, the first and second drives are still probably closer than we would like to see them, and Parcels No. 1 and No. 2 already each have access from drive opening No. 1. We had considered the possibility that the second driveway, the one that is across from Belmont, could be switched to a mid-block location between Belmont and Crestway and still provide two points of access to Parcel 3. They had requested two points of access in Parcel 3, primarily because of it being a daycare-type site wanting to have some sort of cross circulation within the parcel. The last two driveways over on Parcel 5 and 6 are closer than we would like to see. They are only 160 feet apart. I know that the applicant would like to have the one in Parcel 6 in the mid-block location on Pershing because if it is moved any further to the east, say for instance to the edge of the tract, they get into the raised median part, so you couldn't do left turns out of that parcel. I know that they have requested a single-drive access on Parcel 5 because Parcel 5 is most likely to be a mini-warehouse site. They were requesting that opening primarily to have some separate entrance into that mini-warehouse type site. One of the issues here is, perhaps, that the mini-warehouse will generate a fairly small volume of traffic and so in that particular case, where we do have a shorter than what we would normally see necessary spacing between the driveways, that might be a situation where it might work. We have asked for the following transportation improvements that they would be guaranteeing one half of the costs of adding a continuous center left-turn lane on Pawnee from George Washington Boulevard to the existing five lane section near Oliver that is already under construction by the City. This is not shown on the 10-year CIP; it is shown on the long-range Transportation Plan as being a project that would be just outside the CIP. The second recommendation is that, you will notice that there is a number of drive openings--five--so we are asking for a continuous accel/decel lane along the south side of Pawnee so that the entrances and exits onto this drive would not be impeding the flow of traffic on Pawnee. If you will look back at the public facilities section of the staff report, you can see that Pawnee already carries a very high volume of traffic and it is projected to increase. It is especially high during certain times of the day with shift change. I will stand for questions." WARREN "I would like to go through, just go through 1 through 8 and give me again the zoning designation." GOLTRY "Okay. On your copy, 1,2,3 and 7 would be 'LC'; 4,5 and 6 would be 'GC', and 8 would be 'LI'." WARREN "Okay. So 1,2 and 3 were 'LC'." GOLTRY "Yes, and 7. The interior parcel that might be more likely to be used for residential purposes." GAROFALO "Among my concerns here are the 5 accesses, if I am reading this correctly, on Pawnee. Is the staff not concerned about that? That seems like an awful lot of accesses." GOLTRY "It does and the original one had only four accesses. That is better, it is one less. Unfortunately, the original one missed every single drive or mid-block location across the street, except for in the position in between. (Pointing to bwetween Crestway and Terrace. The main Parcels 3 and 4 was in the same position as the first one. There are only two drives that are in the same place as they were before--it and the very first opening. The rest of them switched to try to make their positioning better with the streets across the street. But your point is very well taken. There are still a lot of openings. There are a lot of openings to the north and alot to the south. I am sure you could look at the idea of some cross-lot circulation along the fronts of some of them. Jamsheed Mehta is here to help with any transportation questions." GAROFALO "And the Traffic Engineer has not been involved with this?" GOLTRY "He has been involved. He has been to look at the site. I didn't highlight the fact, I did show you that there is a crest between Crestway and Terrace. It is difficult to have good site clearances from Crestway looking to the east, and it is also difficult to have good site distances from Terrace looking to the west. We did talk with the Traffic Engineer. I won't say that we are all satisfied with this; I will say we are working in an infill situation where it is difficult to come up with solutions. Perhaps Marvin or Jamsheed would be better to elaborate on that point." KROUT "Given that this is a site that has set here for 20 years and it is going to be difficult to develop and given all of the openings on the other side of the street, and we are talking about over 1,700 feet of frontage, almost a third of a mile. We are satisfied that this is reasonable in this location." BARFIELD "On one of slides, you showed construction that was taking place on Pawnee. You said that was for a fifth lane, I believe. How far back does that go to the west?" GOLTRY "It finishes its taper at Pershing. That would be in the mid-point of Parcel No. 6." BARFIELD "Okay. Now, one other question. In No. 5, under 'recreation and entertainment'. What does that include? Are you speaking specifically of a nightclub?" GOLTRY "Outdoor? No, recreation and entertainment outdoor is more like your All-Star Sports, or batting cages, or miniature golf." BARFIELD "I don't see a comma after entertainment. Is that all one?" GOLTRY "Yes, that is all one. 'Recreation entertainment outdoor' is separated by a semi-colon. What is throwing you off is that I missed my semi-colon after micro-brewery. There should have been a semi-colon after micro-brewery to show you that that is all one category. I'm sorry about that." JOHNSON "The property due east of this application area. What was the zoning on it?" GOLTRY "It is zoned 'LC' except for one small area that is zoned 'GC'." JOHNSON "Now, is there any limitations of access control on those three lots that are east of this?" GOLTRY "Yes, there are, but of the lots that are east, (indicating) this parcel is under development right now." JOHNSON "How many drives can they have into that?" GOLTRY "They have one drive. It doesn't tie in with Dellrose. It is slightly offset from Dellrose. It will have a cut on the raised median. It appeared to me when I was out there looking at it on the site that there will be a cut there for the one drive into this corner parcel. It is kind of a fast-food. I guess it is common knowledge that it is Braum's. At least Braum's has already had approved plans through the Office of Central Inspection up to a certain level." CARRAHER "Are there any further questions of staff?" GAROFALO "I want to go back to these openings for a second. It would appear to me, and I don't know, but couldn't one opening service these three lots here on the east side? Lots 4,5, and 6….someway." JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff "Suddenly, if you were to apply standards like we would on green fields, newly improving areas, we would have a different set of standards, this being already a situation created by local streets on the north side of Pawnee. That is one constraint. Then you have the situation of having that Parcel No. 5, which they have identified as a mini-warehouse and storage, and if one would want to identify a separate entrance for that, because they generally do have security gates and it is kind of hard to do all of that when you are sharing that same driveway with some adjacent parcel, be it a fast-food or a bank, or whatever it might be on those smaller parcels on either side. That is why we are thinking that we could live with the situation of having a driveway between Parcel 4 and 6 and have an exclusive one at Parcel 5, in this configuration." GOLTRY "I might add one item to Mr. Mehta's comments. When the neighborhood met with the applicant and with ourselves, did express concerns also with this whole issue that you have raised about multiple openings and about the safety of them are. That is the last item on your sheet of paper. Perhaps they would want to speak to that issue also." GAROFALO "I did have one other question also. How does the conditions that are listed in the staff report jibe up with what the Neighborhood Association is seeking?" GOLTRY "They include most of them. Item No. 1 about the landscape architect, the applicant has already agreed to and included on the revised CUP drawing that you have in front of you. They did not revise the landscaping to make it more extensive than city minimum, but the neighborhood association brought up the idea that there is this extensive clump of trees and they don't want that clump of trees to be the whole landscape requirements that are met on site. I know that the applicant is sensitive to that issue. We had just called out for a blanket 1-1/2 times the landscape code requirements. So we had approached it from somewhat of a different angle. We also included language that the trees not satisfy more than 50% of the tree requirement on the sites for which they were located. In terms of the visual screening separating Parcels 7 and 8 from Parcel 9, we have visual screening required, but it is in a slightly different format. I will let the neighbors talk to that if they want to elaborate on that. In terms of limiting the sign heights to less than 20 feet, we called out for a 20 feet height maximum. Outdoor storage be on the south side behind the building or screened from view from Pawnee. We did not call out for it to be behind the south side, but we did call out for it to be screened from view. Then they requested no auto sales dealers or used car dealers, and then the last issue, No. 7 on the safety, we have already talked about. I will refresh your memory, they did recommend at the DAB to incorporate these recommendations from the Meadowlark Neighborhood Association, plus the additional requirement of no vehicle and equipment sales and no car washes on the entire parcel. There were neighbors who expressed opposition to the car wash as well." MICHAELIS "Ms. Goltry. I have a question and a comment I guess I would like to get on the record. It has to do with the Landscaping Ordinance. We have continually, since I have been here, recommended 1-1/2 or 2 times what the ordinance is. I think we ought to either follow the ordinance or I think we ought to look at changing the ordinance. If we are going to have an ordinance, then that should be acceptable because somebody put a lot of work and time into developing that. If it is not, then I think we probably need to look at redoing that. I guess the question part of that is why are we asking for more than the minimum?" GOLTRY "Because in this position, the minimum required landscaping, if you have a fairly short parcel, which some of these are, translates to a pretty small amount of, for instance the ones that are 175 in depth, they only have a requirement of an average of 10 square feet along the front and an average of one tree every 50 feet. When you consider the fact that they are located immediately south of a very residential character neighborhood, this is an arterial that in the past has had the character of a residential area. It was an effort to recognize that this is a situation where we need good buffer between the residences and the commercial activities if we are to see it transitioned effectively to commercial use on the south without impacting the neighborhood to the north negatively." MICHAELIS "I guess my point is that our ordinance ought to state that it be totally arbitrary instead of requiring anything." GOLTRY "Or perhaps a statement to the fact that in those situations where we have this juxta position, maybe we need to look at the amount of landscaping required when you are across the street from residential. Maybe it does merit a higher level than when you are across the street from other commercial activities. That might be another approach to look at it." CARRAHER "Are there any further questions of staff? Thank you, Ms. Goltry. Now we will hear from the applicant." KIM EDGINGTON "I am with Austin Miller. I represent the applicant on this case. We have worked with a lot of neighbors, the Traffic Engineers, and we have been through a lot of meetings on this case. I apologize on the length of it, but I hope at the end of this we can get everything hammered out. For the most part, we are in agreement with staff's recommendations, and in particular their recommendation to approve this particular case. We have met with the Meadowlark Neighborhood Association last week. Apparently, Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning were not able to review this particular request until late last week. That is why the changes were not made before than that you see before you, and I apologize. We have been able to come to somewhat of a consensus with the exception of two or three relatively minor issues. I am just going to address the staff comments in the order in which they were presented in the staff report. I think that will keep it the simplest. Of course, the drive openings along Pawnee were one of the most difficult issues we addressed due to the spacing of those six streets north of this development. I did meet with Paul Gunzelman again this past Tuesday and he reviewed the revised CUP drawing with the five accesses shown that you have before you. His opinion is that given the situation with these 330 foot centered streets that this is an acceptable layout. In particular, he feels that the location of the drive that is between Crestway and Terrace is the best possible way to address the issue of the rise along Pawnee, that by straddling these two streets, we maintain the best line of site that is possible in that location. That would be my comments regarding the driveway issues. The entrances to George Washington Boulevard, I think when we first started looking at this CUP, both we and staff were under the impression that there was a raised median the entire length of George Washington Boulevard; however that raised median only extends about 350 south of the center line of Pawnee. That does not interfere with either of the openings that we have proposed along George Washington Boulevard, so we would like to revisit that requirement that those drives be right in/right out only. We would be happy to agree to traffic improvements along Pawnee, but currently there are no plans in the City CIP to make any of these improvements. We propose that if and when the City determines, through a traffic study, based on the land uses that are proposed here, that if improvements are needed and that project is included in the City CIP, then we will guarantee to participate in those improvements. But at this point, without there being a feasibility study and with that not being included in the City CIP, we would view that as a development cost that is going to be rather costly up front. And as is standard throughout many parts of the city, we will guarantee decel lanes at all major entrances, but would like to revisit the issue of having a continuous decel lane. We fail to see a major benefit in that. These two traffic improvements that staff has requested are estimated to add approximately $350,000 to the total development costs for this property. Those being the continuous left turn center lane, guaranteeing half of that and also the continuous decel lane. Based on pending sales that we have for this project and projected sales, we estimate that this land is likely to sell for $1.50 a square foot, so this additional $350,000 adds 30¢ per foot to ground that is only estimated to sell at $1.50 a foot, which is a significant development cost, upwards of 20%. We agree with all of the exclusions in the Limited Industrial district with the exception of freight terminals. We would like to have that remain as an allowed use in the Limited Industrial tract, based on many of the surrounding manufacturing areas, but the nature of this region is such that this would be a viable and appropriate use on this site. We do agree with all of the exclusions in the General Commercial district, with the exception of vehicle and equipment sales. In keeping with the location guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, this is an area that is established with similar development and traffic patterns and utilities are sufficient to support this type of use. The surrounding commercial uses are such that vehicle and equipment sales are in keeping with the area. Again, we do have a contract on Parcel 5 for self- storage mini-warehousing. I know that staff included, as a requirement, that they meet all of the locational guidelines of self-storage in an 'LC' district; however this is on General Commercial zoning. We do agree to meet those requirements in the 'LC' district, with the exception of Provision No. 5, which requires architectural review and approval. One of staff's subsequent recommendations states that metal facades be eliminated, so I think this adequately addresses any architectural issues that would come up on that self-storage parcel. I appreciate Mr. Michaelis' comments. Our opinion is that the Landscape Ordinance does provide sufficient requirements for this development. Of course there are instances which that may differ throughout the City, which might justify additional required screening or landscaping; however, the Landscape Ordinance in this case, since the fact that those residences to the north of this development are not facing directly onto Pawnee. I don't know if you could tell very well from the slides, but there are approximately only 5 units that face onto Pawnee. For the most part, those are duplex units and the rest of those units face one of those interior streets. Also, for the most part, are screened currently with wood fences along Pawnee. So we feel that increasing this Landscape Ordinance places an undue burden on the developer of this property. We do agree with staff's recommendations that the existing grove of trees that we attempt to maintain that if possible and that we cannot use that grove of trees to satisfy any more than 50% of the tree requirements for the parcels upon which they are located. Regarding the buffer that staff has recommended along the southern property line, the slides that were shown were facing the east. However, if you will look at this aerial, as you are travelling up George Washington Boulevard, you are travelling in a northwest direction, which is directing your vision away from this property, so I don't know that we have quite the same opinion on how much visibility there is for that parcel. The residents in Plainview that are near to this are all orientated towards the interior of Plainview and not to George Washington Boulevard. We would agree to limit sign heights to 20 feet, but that they be allowed to be either pole or monument type. On the 'LC' parcels, we agree with staff's recommendations to limit to 100 square feet per business, but would request that the signs on the 'GC' parcels would be required signage requirements for the 'LC' zoning district. Again, we would agree to limit the heights to 20 feet. The use of back lit canopies, I think we see these done in a very tasteful manner throughout the city and would not be a negative lighting choice for this development. Several of the users that are interested in locating at this site have standardized signage designs that would require the use of back lit canopies and fluorescent or neon tube lighting, so we would ask that we revisit this. Providing screening along Parcel 8, the north boundary of Parcel 8, in the event that the parcels north of it do not develop first is, I think,