METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2004 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 12:30 P.M., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita Kansas. The following members were present: Ronald Marnell, Chair; Morris K. Dunlap, Vice-Chair; James Barfield; Bud Hentzen; John W. McKay Jr.; Bill Johnson; Elizabeth Bishop; M.S. Mitchell; Ed Sunquist; David Wells; Frank Garofalo and Bob Hernandez. Staff members present were: John Schlegel, Director of Planning; Dale Miller, Current Plans Supervisor; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Supervisor; and Valerie Robinson, Recording Secretary. -------------------------------------------------- ? TRANSPORTATION ITEMS Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 1. Wichita-Sedgwick County MPO - Triennial Certification Review of the Planning Process. JAMSHEED MEHTA planning staff with MAPD. Item number 1 has to do with the Transportation Planning Process and Certification Review. The Certification Review is done by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway and Federal Transit combined. They do this for every MPO organization once every 3 years, the last time it was done in the year 2000. They revisited us in 2003 in September for three days in-fact they also made a presentation to this board. They meet with staff for about two and a half to three days. They had a public input meeting on one of the evenings when they were here in September and today's agenda item has to do with there presentation or their summary of there findings from the three day long, three year certification. I would like to introduce to you the folks who are here from both USDOT and from KDOT. Some of them will be speaking before you. Byron Low from Federal Highway, Joan Roeseler, from FTA, that is Federal Transit, Bob Bowden from Federal Highway, Jim Tobaben from KDOT, Thomas Dow from KDOT and Margie Norton from KDOT. At the end of the presentation by both the Federal Highway and Federal Transit I would like to come back, because they have identified various subjects, various projects that are in the works, and some are not quite completed. I would then like to give you a quick status report on each of these so that you leave with an understanding of where we are on some of the projects that they have identified in the report. BYRON LOW Federal Highway. As he mentioned the last time I was here back in September and we did a quick summary over I think one of the MPO meeting of what we had found and this presentation is to give you an update and actually give you an indication of the formal findings that we have from this review and quickly summery. I believe there was a package of information that was sent to you, one was a four page executive summary and then the full report. What I want to do is kind of highlight some of the issues and findings we had from the summary report and if you have other questions you can ask me or when Jamsheed comes back up, because he does have some additional information that will clarify some of the findings or the status of those. As Jamsheed mentioned Federal Highway and FTA must jointly certify at least every three years that the Wichita Metropolitan Area Planning process complies with federal laws. We did our review back in September 17th through the 19th of 2003 and our certification action from that review is that we certify the transportation planning process in the Wichita Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning area for the period of October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006 subject to corrective actions and recommendations in this review report. What I want to do is quickly go over those corrective actions and five recommendations and one commendation. The first one that we really want to talk about is the one of the more serious ones, what we consider the most serious consequence and that is the corrective action, we talked about the timely completion of work product and staffing. Some of you may be aware of some of the staffing situation that the city has had with their staff. It has been difficult for them to get some of the work products done. I gave you a list of just some of the planning tasks that need to be initiated or accomplished in the near term. A couple of the critical ones of course is the long-range plan update. The completion finalization of the MPO board representation and the MAPD boundary revisions, documentation of the Congestion Management System and update and documentation of public involvement plans and several other things. I guess what I want to stress is that if you read some of the background information the staff has been short for a number of years and I think it has affected the timely completion of a lot of work products. What we are encouraging is to take a look at the staffing or look at other ways the tasks can be accomplished to get some of these products done in a timely manner. We had asked that this be addressed by the end of this year, with a satisfactory progress. Like I said, Jamsheed will give us an update on where he's at. There have been some activities taken since this review, which was six months ago. There have been some things going on. Another recommendation we had was the number of TAC meetings we feel there have not been sufficient TAC meetings that a lot of these critical tasks should be being addressed through the TAC committee. Another recommendation we had mentioned was the MPO board representation and boundary designation. Again, there has been a lot of work done and I think we are close but there are still some thing that need to be finished up before March of 2005. Another recommendation is the TIP project selection process and it is recommended that the project ranking selection processes for projects be developed prior to the next TIP update. Recently Jamsheed they did do a TIP update in February, or November or December, we are asking that this be revisited so that you have more of a regional approach to project selection, procedures and processes rather than maybe just a city wide or a county area selection process. Another recommendation is on the TIP project, one of the things we noticed is that some of the TIP updates was there was a number of projects, and this is more applicable to the Wichita area are not getting done in a timely matter. Some are scheduled, then they fall back as a result there is beginning to be a significant amount of un-obligated federal funds, a lot of carry over. That can be a concern in future. If the money is not used, it may disappear or it may, may be reallocated somewhere else that is another concern that we have. The other main recommendation is two certifications in 2000, one is the update and documentation of the public involvement procedures and the other is documentation of the public input, into the congestion management systems. I am sorry, documentation and public input into the congestion management system. Both of those have, the MPO staff has been working but because of like I mentioned, staffing situations so forth they have not been able to complete. A lot of these recommendations that we have are tied to the staffing issue and timely completion of work product. So there is a tie between what we have with corrective action and some of the other recommendations. Finally we did have commendation, some of the air quality effort that the city and the MPO staff have been doing are to be commended. I know that the latest information that I have received is that I don't believe that there is going to be an issue with the Wichita area going in the non attainment. Some of their numbers have or some of the worst numbers have dropped out, there are better numbers that are now coming along. Even though there has not been any threat of air quality non-attainment here it is something that needs to continue to be monitored and the efforts of clean air actions to address those problems. Lets make sure we keep on top of those so we don't get into a non attainment problems, like the Kansas City area, which was in attainment and now it will be going into non attainment. There is a lot more issues to resolve, or that have come up that need to be resolved. That was just a quick summary and what I would like to do is have Joannie from FTA just add a few comments and any closing remarks. JOANNIE thank you Byron, good afternoon everybody, it is great to be here in Wichita. I am Joannie Roeseler, with the FTA regional office in Kansas City. I think everybody is familiar with the Federal Highways but Federal Transit is a grant making agency, nationally we have a budget about 7 billion dollars annually where we provide funding for public transit, planning, capital assistance for maintenance for facility and new equipments including those in Wichita Kansas. We wanted to thank you very much both Federal Highway and FTA for the opportunity to present the findings this afternoon and also for the cooperation that the staff showed us during our review process last September. Also in working with the results on the review. One of the things I wanted to emphasize that Byron mentioned was the whole issue of the whole of the review process. We are required by law to conduct the periodic reviews to make sure you are in compliance with the MPAP planning requirements the US DOT Metropolitan Area Planning requirements and as a result of the review there are findings. Findings that fall into the category of corrective actions are very critical because failure to correct the actions with in the time frame could result in holding up DOT funding for Federal Transit and Federal Highways and neither Federal Transit or Federal Highways want to get into that situation but we just want you to know that corrective action are very important and that we look forward to working very closely with the MPO staff to resolve the corrective actions prior to the deadline of the March 2005. Many may be aware that the basis for funding both the Federal Highway and Federal Transit is an authorization from congress. Those authorizations have had different names, ISTEA, Inter Model Transportation Act, Tea 21 the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century and right now we don't have an actual 6 year Act it is a little continuation act and congress is in the process of going though reauthorization. The status of that reauthorization for our programs is that both the house and senate have passed bills and they are now on Easter recess so when they come back a conference committee will meet to try to work out the details on the differences between the bills and there are huge differences. As far a dollar amount for funding and for program provisions so that will be a really big job and I will be anxious to see how it all gets resolved. At the same time the administration has set specific standards that it would like to see as far as over all funding amounts for the bill. So those authorizations give us a framework within how our programs are operated. One of the I guess hall marks of some previous authorizations were the whole concept of inclusiveness and representation in the planning process that all the jurisdictions are represented at as decisions are made for various projects and programs. The one corrective action the corrective action, the whole issue of expansion of the MPO board is to include the new geographic areas that resulted from the Census that is very consistent as whole underling theme of the various DOT authorizations. We feel that it is very important to work through that issue. Like Byron I wanted to congratulate you, the Wichita area on the excellent work that you are doing with air quality planning. I have had the opportunity to sit in on some of the conference calls where Wichita has very actively involved in discussion some of the volunteer measures that were taken in this area to keep air quality from getting worse. Hopefully they will approve it. So thank you very much for this opportunity. MEHTA If you like I can continue with this and you may have questions of Federal Highway and Federal Transit or if you have a burning questions right now that could be done whatever is your pleasure. Can I proceed? I am going to identify those projects that have been mentioned or cited in the narrative that you have got. The executive summary and then the entire document itself, what I don't want do right now is touch on things that we have done, because this is not the place to necessarily to talk about all that we have done, and put it behind us. Instead, lets focus on those issues that the USDOT wants us to act on. On the first item which has to do with corrective actions, that is filling of staff vacancies, so that you have a feel for where we have been and how much staffing we have. At this moment we are at 50 % filled at this time. We have had some staff turnover and the greatest impact occurs in the period where we had a hiring freeze in the City of Wichita in the periods of 2002 and part of or most of 2003. This has altered both internal in that period and external hiring which does make a difference on where staff will eventually end up after the hiring freeze is unfrozen. In terms of our work program, we have done a lot, but I mentioned I'm not bringing that up unless it is specifically identified in this particular report right now. I will focus on those where you have corrective actions and then recommendations identified in the Federal Report. If you recall the exercise that you went though a year ago on identifying what the boundaries would be, the expanded boundary because our urbanized area went into two adjacent counties. We went through an ad hock committee; we brought a project report back to the board. The City of Wichita voted on it, the preferences of how it wanted to deal with the issue of representation and the structure of the MPO board. This group then gave us the staff direction to work with the adjacent counties and the cities and we have done that. We have drafted the boundary; it is a working boundary right now. You have not taken an official formal action to call that your planning boundary but it is pretty close. Things that are left to be done in this one topic is having an MPO-KDOT agreement once that is drafted, presented back to you. You can hold a public hearing on it and then finally you have the MPO boundary revision and representation issues addressed. At the same time what we will also plan on doing is addressing the Technical Advisory Committee and the coordinating committee bylaws; these are those bodies that advise you on the technical level and on the policy level as well and this would be an opportunity time to make revisions to there bylaws just to make sure that there is representation covered in your advisory committees as well. The South Area Transportation Study was first identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan that you approved about four years ago, we held stakeholders meetings which included various cities of Derby, Haysville, Mulvane, City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas Turnpike and KDOT, based on decisions and meeting that we held at that point and time it was decided or expanded from what was at that time called the South East Area, into the South West Area as well so we now call it the South Area Transportation Study. We have secured funding which we didn't have a few years ago. At that time we were only considering one quadrant now we have about a million dollars of federal years marks identified and pending a draft agreement between KDOT and the MPO we will then launch what's called a request of proposal and have a consultant on board to go ahead with this study. The magnitude of this study I can tell you is going to be much more larger than what your experience has been, for example with the northwest bypass, it is twice the area. It is at least twice the number of entities or municipalities that are involved and a whole lot of other subdivisions and residential activity in the general area. It is going to be quite a challenge. It is important for us to make sure that we have staff on board when these studies are in full swing. They also mentioned Long Range Transportation Plan, just to keep in perspective, we have a dead line of five years for the existing plans to run out in March 15, 2005. This is also the topic of the next agenda item where I am going to share with you the schedule or approximate schedule of how we will be doing various activities leading to the 15th of March deadline for the transportation plan update. The TIP projects selections and criteria, the process and criteria. The transportation division staff maintains the funds, balances and accounts, several federal funded programs. We put that before you in the form of a Transportation Improvement Program. We also use a technical formula, which we have used before and revised over the years and we share with other communities as well to help prioritize street and highway projects as they are submitted. To give you an an example, the City of Wichita's entire CIP is also reviewed. We only identified those projects, which would be eligible for federal funding. Then also identify those projects which we do not think are needed now and do not score a high enough point to be considered, there are better projects and there is a lot of work that goes on, I want to say behind the scenes. So ultimately the product you do get is a fiscally constrained document and you don't have to deal with the issue like for example the one you did about three or four years ago where Wichita and Bel Aire were polarized on which project to do. With the exception of that kind of a case we do a lot of this work in the background and work with staff from the various Cities and Counties. This last TIP in fact included for the first time, we did additional meetings and workshops. We invited small cities and other jurisdictions. We did that because it was within a month after the Certification Review in September and from lessons learned we went all the way out, inviting them, working with them, having special one on one meetings with some of the smaller city staffs, as a result the final TIP that you adopted in I believe in December includes for the first time 11 projects from small cities; from 7 or 9 of those jurisdictions, I am not sure how many there were at this point, so what's needed to be done and what is being emphasized by Federal Highway and Federal Transit is have a formal process and a more formal selection criteria, and yes we can do that, a lot of work went into preparing the formula. We were just hesitant in presenting it to you and getting it more formalized because for about two years this body and staff were engaged in identifying what could be the possible new structure of the MPO. If it became a council of governments, if its elected officials, the public involvement process changes and therefore the selection criteria or the process that we are involved in would also change. Since we are getting direction from you that the MPO structure stays pretty much as is with the exception of the additional membership coming on board which is your direction to us, we will bring back that formal process to you for your final consideration. Congestion Management System, now this is one of the many products of a MPO that is required by law. Congestion Management System was adopted in the 1990 and updated a little bit in 1998. It identifies the data and the entities who will gather this information and analyze it. Our plan was to use more state of the art methods like using satellite GPS, Geographic Positioning Systems so that we can compute and identify where are the latest occurrences of congestion in the field and what kind of rank to assign to certain street sections and highways if in fact it has those kinds of delays, so that you can identify them in the short range planning process. In addition to that technical part, Federal Highway wants us to update the management system before the end of the year which includes what the process would be. That is something that we have not formalized with you as the board and that is the reason why its identified in the Certification Review. The public involvement policy and plan: every MPO is required to have one. We have one prepared and adopted in conjunction with ISTEA from over ten years ago, but it has never been reviewed again or changed and what is required out of the certification review is that there be an opportunity for the public to also review that. This give us an opportunity to streamline it, lets make it more efficient, there are various new issues, environmental justice kinds of issues that need to be inserted in this particular plan. When we present that to you, run it through various reviews, your public hearing on it and that has to be adopted also by the end of this year. On ITS, not all these projects listed are necessarily falling behind put there are particular mandates on it in terms of time, but never the less is an important product or work element of the staff work program. To date, here is what has happened, staff has the role of managing and coordinating, both Wichita and Sedgwick County and KDOT joint efforts to get several studies and various implementations projects going. It took us two years to get a memorandum of understanding between these three bodies and I would say for no fault of staff but this is a rather endearing task. It takes quite a lot of work behind the scenes to get things done that way. We secured six million dollars in the first memorandum of understanding. We secured four million dollars from Federal earmark in the year 2003. It is our understanding there is approximately seven million dollars of additional funds, waiting to be secured as soon as the new appropriation bill is signed. So there will be additional funding to go towards implementing of ITS projects. The planning staff and the planning department does not have any implementation projects; those are done by public works emergency management or KDOT, but our role, specifically your role, as the MPO will be to develop the regional architecture. Within a month we will be launching a request proposal for the ITS regional architecture before we do that we would like to bring back as a workshop item just to refresh your memories on what ITS is all about and how does regional architecture and the various projects fit into it so we will be bringing that to you in less than a month then at the same time launch a request for proposals to hire a consultant, in the course of about 6 months we should be able to get ITS architecture in place. Recommendations from 2003 review include everything that had been identified under the caption of projects that may be affected due to the staffing situation, well in addition to that and I have covered the first two over here, the next two the Advancement of TIP Projects and holding regular technical advisory meeting; on the first one on the Advancement of Federal Projects, I want to say this has little to do with MPO or staff but often times the City in this case the City of Wichita because they have 90% of the projects, there projects would slide from one year to the next and don't get let in the year for which it was supposed to. For various reasons sometimes for design changes, because after a public input opportunity maybe there would be significant changes from a four lane to five lane or remove the median or whatever and that causes delays. So what is happening is the projects are going to the next year. The project is not lost it just has to be funded out of another year's project funds. Which is the reason why you see me two or three time in a year coming in with amendments to the transportation improvement program. All we are trying to do is make sure that we do not loose the obligation authority for that particular year with federal funds, we quickly reshuffle the deck and give you projects that may be ready to proceed, so that the funds for projects continue to come for Wichita Sedgwick County. On the issue of regular TAC meetings, yes we have engaged the technical group so far when we have got certain documents for there reviews or certain projects for their review, when we have a Unified Work Program, a Transportation Improvement Program, and when we do not have these to be presented, there is no action. What is required of us is to hold more of these technical advisory meetings and definitely for this year we will for sure be having quite a few because this is the year in which most of the transportation plan dates occur. Not only for that reason but various other projects, TAC meetings will be held more regularly. On my last slide, just to tell you the two projects to be identified from the 2000 review has to do with the documentation of the congestion management system and the update to the public involvement polity. I have already talked about that, this is what we will be working on for completion before the end of this year. With that I think Federal highway or myself can take any questions that you might have. MARNELL It seems to me like I remember the same discussion back in September, when we were talking about how far behind we are and what is the risks not coming into compliance and I believe it was stated that the contract, which would be acceptable under this program could be funded to help bring things up to speed. How come no contractors have been hired? If we had a problem with hiring people through directly through city hall and personnel how come we haven't hired contractors just to bring out request for proposals and hiring contractors from one of the engineering companies or multiple engineering companies. MEHTA we have had a consultant on board for the largest one which was the 21st street revitalization corridor. That study is already underway. And for some of the others it is in the work program to do those. It's difficult in September when you are setting your unified work program to say that in January you will be able to do it when the year is authorized for that particular project because as we speak right now, we are still the same three staff member that we had in October and there is some progress going on is that we have made offers, but when it comes to identifying which projects should have been let, yes they will be let, we just are tied with so many other things to do that it has perhaps slowed us down in even handling those particular projects. MARNELL maybe I didn't make myself clear or stated that quite right, why don't we contract for those positions temporary, which would be staff positions which could be assigned to work on multiple projects as opposed to letting a specific engineering project. SCHLEGEL can I take a stab at that. True to be told hiring someone like a contract employee is just as under the cities processes is just as cumbersome as the process for hiring permanent employees. So we would not gain any time by doing that. The management contract employee over a permit employee, when the work runs out the money runs out then it is easier to let that person go than a permanent employee. What we need, we need additional permanent staff positions. We are going through that process of getting those positions filled; it is very frustrating and a very cumbersome process to do that. There are so many hoops and hurdles and forms, memo and in the bureaucracy moves slowly, but whether we had tried to do that through contract employees or the way we are doing it is trying to hire permanent employees, it would have been the same slow molasses pace and there is not much we can do about that. It is not something we have a lot of control over. BISHOP to follow up on that, John has the city ever considered working out an agreement with a contracting company, I am just going by the model that is used at Boeing where they have agreements with some companies that provide for instance contract engineers so that the agreement is between the company and the provider of certain kinds of contract engineers and that would, or then you could go through all that process work out all that bureaucrat detail but they would just be provided. SCHLEGEL then you are leaving it up to that firm to supply the employees. For some of this work that might be a good alternatives, but we also just need people on board here in our office to help get this work moved along. MARNELL my question was right along what Elizabeth was trying to say. In the past I have been involved with civil engineering companies, when we need a civil engineer, you could go to a Company and hire three civil engineers, you would have a contract with that Company, you would not know who was going to come but you knew that they were going to be qualified civil engineers. They would show up, and work there and there was a certain rate to pay them while they were there. They didn't go through the bureaucratic internal hiring process because they belonged to the contractor. They were contracted for a specific duty and in this case they could run parallel courses. What is going to happen as I understood from the last meeting, we have access to funds, because it is backing up and we are not getting the work done and you can have both of them working so you don't have to worry about overlapping. It seems to me that we would want to move forward on it. SCHLEGEL like I said for some of this work that is a good idea and we will explore that further, but for other things we just need staff people, we need in house, helping to moving things along, so for some of the work that would not be a good arrangement. We will explore that further. It is a good idea. GAROFALO Is there a freeze on hiring right now, this year? SCHLEGEL yes, it still requires that in order to fill a vacant position you have to go through a position review committee and because of the tight budgets, they are pretty stingy in letting positions be filled. GAROFALO how does the Federal money fit into the positions, if the federal money is paying for this positions? SCHLEGEL City put the freeze on the hiring of all positions despite the fact that these positions were funded from federal funds. I know even before I got here Dale was the acting director was trying to get those positions unfrozen based on the logic that this is federal money but for whatever reason the excuse was that we need to wait for the new director to show up and when I showed up and took over it was, we will consider it, and it took me about four or five months before I was able to get them to unfreeze those positions. GAROFALO was there some concerns that these positions, if the federal money had dried up, that the city would have to pay for those positions? SCHLEGEL that was certainly a concern that we have had all along and we have made that pitch, but it was falling on deaf ears inside city hall. It took me literally till about October to November to get those positions unfrozen and to even start the process. GAROFALO so now we are in the process of trying to get people, to fill those positions? SCHLEGEL we are pretty far along now in the process, of the three positions that we were authorized to fill, we are in the position of having made offers on two of those positions and the third we are still doing interviews on. GAROFALO so it is a good chance that these positions may be filled in the near feature? SCHLEGEL we expect them to be filled fairly quickly, we are pretty far into the process right now. MITCHELL could I have Mr. Low answer a questions for us? Each of you has made considerable comments about the lack of public involvement in the process and I note from your appendix that the evenings meetings that you held on September 18, I believe it was had 12 attendees, two of which are identified as current or past planning commissioners. What I am wondering is how much benefit did you get from people that would be called the public rather than those that are already involved in the process. JOANNIE I am not sure if I understood your questions but any or all comments are beneficial, feedback is helpful. Was there a specific distinction that you were looking for? MITCHELL ten people out of a community of a half a million talking about the Federal funding for highway projects that effect most of the people living at that area, doesn't seem to me like the turnout for that public involvement was enough to be a major issue in whether or not the current impact is enough to show in carrying out the plan. If we don't get anymore input than you have got in that meeting I don't think that is going to be very helpful. BYRON let me add, I am not criticizing for the lack of public involvement, it is the update of the public involvement, the plan to make an effort to try to increase public participation. This is an issue not just here but everywhere and often times it may be the approach that you are taking to get public involvement, so what we are asking is to take a look at the public involvement process and update it. JOANNIE part of it is documentation for clarity purposes, we have noticed at times, I am not saying specifically in Wichita but people who are involved, member of the public who are involved in the processes sometimes there is a variances of expectations, there involvement will yield, so the public involvement policy deals with the issues of how public involvement will be addressed and techniques that will be utilized for community outreach. So it is documentation of the process. Does that answer your question? MITCHELL that helps. BYRON one other thing, we are talking about the planning process and it is good and bad if you don't have anybody, you are going to have to look at the positive too, just because no body shows up does not mean there is a problem, it could mean they may not understand or the may not have an issue with the planning process. I think we want to make it clear it is more than just not really lack of public involvement but the process that you need to revisit and update and take a look at it again. JOANNIE our review or the nature of our recommendation was based on a broad review than just that one meeting. HENTZEN you can answer my question either one, in this state right now the legislature has raided highway funds for their daily operations I'm talking about the states operations, I think they took out a hundred million or something and they were just going to borrow it at first now they are trying to make it permanent; do you see that happening all over the country because it is just so difficult to work out a CIP program, transportation is the thrust of the most of it and then have somebody come along and steal the money. Is it happening elsewhere? Is it happening to the, is the federal program being treated that way? BYRON if you include earmarks, it does take away the way we can set priorities. I would say it is a bigger issue right now in the states; I can use Missouri as an example. They have lost a lot of revenue. I don't think there's is as well protected, there state funds is as well protected as yours are. You are talking about taking away sales tax revenues. I think they have lost revenues that were generated by gas tax. They have gone beyond that. There are a number of states, California is the same way. They have done some bonding, they have been cutting back on the transportation program, other people are looking at that as a revenue cow, so yes it is not just Kansas. It is all over. One thing I have to say is that Kansas has been lucky in, and that hasn't been worse. HENTZEN I just want to make the observation that it is difficult to get the citizens have faith in you if you don't do what you say you are going to do. That has happened and that is why only 12 people showed up at the meeting. JOANNIE as Byron has said it has been a real challenge nationally with the economy that all the states have been hurting a lot for revenue. I think there are a lot of different examples. One of the things happening right now in congress is with the reauthorization process. One of the decisions that congress will have to make is if to include or to continue to what is called firewalls or minimal amounts for highways and transit programs that will be allocated this year, both ISTEA and T21 have firewall provisions and that I think from the Federal prospective has been very helpful in insuring consistent delivery of federal funds. That provisions I think is in the house bill, and may or may not be in the senate bill. But anyways that is something that congress, or conference is going to be making a decision on in the near feature. So the legislative process depending on how things like that are written will make a difference on how much continuity there is in the flow of funds… Do you want to here from KDOT on the Kansas issues, JIM TOBABEN Transportation Planning with KDOT, I will give you just a little bit of background because you are right over the past few years we have lost some money from the transportation program, from the sales tax transfer that was to go from the state general fund to the highway fund. There has been a bill that has passed both the houses both the senate and the house and it pretty well make us hold and protect the Comprehensive Transportation Program. What that does is lessen the amount of sales tax transfer that we will get each year but it will make up that money…through a variety of sources; selling some bonds that are backed by the state general fund. Hopefully some increase in transportation funding in the new federal program. Possible a slight increase in the gas tax, I am not positive on that one but there is a bill that is supposed to make KDOT hold and protect our program through 2009. The thing we like it is that the money definitely is tied to transportation, where as in the past it has been very tempting with the sales tax transfer, money is tight, here is a larger amount of money, it has just been too tempting to take that money now and to try promise to pay KDOT back later on. But right now I think our Secretary and the governor are very pleased with the bill that has passed. (turn tape over) DUNLAP what percentage will be funded will be provided by the bonding? Yours is only one of a bunch of departments that is going to be doing some funding by bonding. At some point we hit the top at which point our bonding ability drops and I would like to know what percentage of the transportation plans are going to be funded by bond money? TOBABEN I wish I had that answer for you but I don't today, we can certainly get that for you if you would like. DUNLAP I was just curious. TOBABEN I just don't know. MARNELL Any further questions? No. Jamsheed update or any further comments on item 1? MEHTA any closing comments? MARNELL before we leave item one, what I would like to do as the Chairman is to appoint the Advanced Plans Committee of the MAPC to be the committee of the MPO to help with these review recommendations, to help us move forward and review those public involvement changes and help move that along. We will add that to the agenda so at the same time we have the Advanced Plans meeting for the … commission we'll have that committee meet, an unnamed committee since it is not obviously Advanced Plans, but just ad hock committee to help with that work so the members will have dual roles. So we will be seeing you at 7:30 in the morning on some of these days. BARFIELD what is the status of the railroad overpass/underpass program? MEHTA the one that was funded and approved for the central railway corridor, if that is the question? BARFIELD I guess my question is has it been funded? Since the last time I had observed it had not been funded, and the question is weather or not funds were available? MEHTA the Central Rail Corridor which is approximately from Downtown Douglas north to nearly 17th that is in the Capital Improvement Program of the City of Wichita, and that is funded. There are some additional 7 million dollars that have yet to be authorized in the new federal bill, which will add to the total rail corridor projects. There was another one for the south near Pawnee, one of the Pawnee projects was on hold for lack of funding but the central rail corridor is a go as far as we can tell this year. BARFIELD that has been totally funded? MEHTA that is our understanding in the Capital Improvement Program. BISHOP when you say there is still 7 million still to be found do you mean the re-authorization within congress in Washington not the state? MEHTA correct it is federal funds. And it is not necessary for this project or if it is for this particular project, then that 7 million dollars saved locally to be put on the other projects, which is un-funded. The highest priority being the central rail corridor is funded, as we know it right now. --------------------------------------------------- 2. Transportation Plan Update Schedule. JAMSHEED MEHTA Planning staff, just to take you to the end first, the end is the 15th of March next year 2005 and it takes quite a few years of projects or modeling and various other things that we do before we get to the point where you as the MPO approve the long range transportation plan. In the years 2002 and 2003 what we have done is expanded our modeling exercises. We have from four hundred-traffic zone models to over 8 hundred-traffic zones in the model, not that we have doubled in size but we have made our modeling sizes more sophisticated, more finer. This is technical detail that you won't concern yourself with as much but this is what we do a lot of times. It required coordination with the small cities, KDOT in developing the new model, we are near that point that we can say we are pretty much done with modeling calibration. Which means that the traffic counts that are actually experienced on these streets, we are very close to that in our simulation on the model. We are within a 3% range, which is considered as acceptable and good. In the periods April, May, what we are doing is identifying the deficiencies in the systems and what has happened in the last plan update was based on the year of 1997 and the new plan update which is based on the 2002 data, we will present to you and the technical advisory committee what our findings are on where are other deficiencies. What projects have we done, and what projects are still needed in the near term. Then we will bring to you in the period May thru June, if you recall in the 2030 plan, you've got goals and objectives and strategies. Pertaining to transportation on it's own there is nearly 40 or 45 strategies. Our intent is to bring to you a report for each of those. Have we addressed these, have we meet the strategies. Have we done something that is worthy of now dropping it, do we need to add more strategies. So that discussion occurs in May or in June, it will be with you, the technical advisory committee and ultimately we take this to an open public meeting or a workshop where we solicit input from small cities, the general public, various stake holders, we have the names and addresses in our data bases. We take the input and in the periods of May through June, do various exercises, some of it is modeling, some of it is policy related and we can come back to you for policy related work but we do our own modeling in house to see if idea is good enough, does it make sense, there might be some wild ideas also that we need to identify for you and rank these so that at a certain point in time, probably in October we will present to you all our findings, tell you which of the projects that will make sense in solving problems for the year 2030. Now bare in mind this is not a major new transportation plan, this is an update to the previous one. The horizon year 2030 stays the same, what we are doing is taking refined information that we got since the most recent census, we have got 5 years worth of additional transportation and travel patterns, data to put in so we want to see what has changed but not necessarily drastically do a whole new transportation plan in that case. So in November when we present to you our findings and we start going through a process called project selections, at the same time we will identify for you what will be the approximate costs associated with these projects. So that you have a wish list of project and then you will have those, which you can actually do, given the flow of funds that we can make reasonable forecast will exist to or up to the year 2030. We will revise those transportation strategies I told you about earlier that we will do in May, we will revise them and that will be most of the work that you will be doing as the MPO board. Identifying what new strategies that need to be identified and included in the update. At that time we have workshops, you identify meetings, public hearings and then in the periods January through March you hold the public hearings, adopt plan. Prior to the final adoption action I would also ask that we do briefing of the governing bodies of Wichita and Sedgwick County. Here is the reason why you need to understand the unique relationship that we have here. You as the MPO board are the ones that finally approve the transportation plan, that is what's required of federal statues. The MPO board prepares the plan. But as an element of the comprehensive plan, well the Comprehensive Plan is approved by the governing body, Wichita and Sedgwick County and you basically provide a recommendation to them. It is a little bit reversed now in transportation, which is why I am suggesting briefings of Wichita and Sedgwick County, get their acknowledgement that we are heading in the right directions for the transportation section and then you hold your final public hearing to adopt the transportation plan. So yes it is an ambitious project but the feds are here on our backs and we will have to do it. BISHOP, in the process especially in the public hearing and the public input part, in addition to the small cities I would like to suggest that you consider something that would include rural residents. I know that in particular those that are involved in agriculture. I know that Sedgwick County is a large metropolitan area and a lot of the issues had to do with growth and the needs of Wichita as a city and the needs of the small cities, but I do believe that there are some particular issues that the farmers might have to bring to there own regarding transportation. We were told recently that there is a major concern about the inability to move their products. While that may be more of a railroad issue than highway, it is still transportation and I think there is input that people in the agricultural areas would like to have MEHTA, we'll get the word out that we are hosting public input opportunities, we will try to cover everybody and make it as diverse as possible so that there will be announcements in the papers, the officials papers and we do have a list of stakeholders and there are organizations on the mailing lists we try to make sure that they are there. Even if there is no project necessarily, you can adopt and included in the transportation plan, and you recognize those needs, that is where you goals objective and therefore strategies could identify the need for additional work to be done in the next 5 years or the next 3 years on select topics. On March 15, 2005 we don't have to have solved all those issues, but you need to recognize and have a work plan to include their concerns in that plan. HENTZEN, could I just say thanks to the federal people and the state for helping us to understand what our obligations and responsibilities are. Thanks a lot. BYRON, I just wanted to add, I appreciate your time for us to come and just talk about some of these issues. We are here to help you, we appreciate Johns, and Jamsheed time, KDOT and so forth, but there are certain requirements that have to be complied with that is one of our jobs, but we do appreciate your level of interest and time. Thank you --------------------------------------------------- ? PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 3. Approval of March 11, 2004 and March 25, 2004 meeting minutes. The March 25 minutes were not included in packets. Revise the item to be the March 11th minutes only. MOTION: That the minutes for March 11, 2004 be approved. MITCHELL moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried (9-0) MITCHELL and MARNELL abstains. -------------------------------------------------- ? SUBDIVISION ITEMS 4. Consideration of Subdivision Committee Recommendations 4-1. SUB2004-31 – One-Step Final Plat – PRAIRIE MEADOW ESTATES ADDITION, located on the south side of 79th Street South and the west side of 135th Street West. NOTE: This is a replat of Lot 1, Block 1 in the North Wood Estates Addition in addition to unplatted property to the west. This site is located in the County in an area designated as "rural" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. It is located in the Clearwater Area of Influence. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Since neither sanitary sewer nor municipal water is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Due to drainage constraints for Lot 22, Block 2, County Code Enforcement should comment on the buildable area. County Code Enforcement has approved a site plan for this lot. B. The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 4. If service is available, feasible and the property is eligible for service, County Code Enforcement recommends connection. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan is needed. The drainage easements currently do not follow the natural drainage pattern. Realignment of easements is recommended or a guarantee for realignment of drainage channels. Additional easements or increase in easement widths may be required. E. Per Sedgwick County Fire Department, access drives to any structures in access of 150 feet from the edge of the roadway will need to be installed prior to final framing inspection, preferably before the start of any above grade construction work. Such drive to be installed according to fire department specifications: (1)Twenty feet of drivable surface is provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather with provisions for turning fire apparatus around. (2) To meet fire department specifications, the surface needs to be an all-weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4 inches in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed.) F. In accordance with Access Management Regulations for County plats, complete access control is required for arterials intersecting with local streets. Complete access control of 75 feet is needed along Prairie Meadow Circle from 135th St. West and from 79th St South. G. Due to drainage constraints, County Engineering has recommended one opening along the south property line of Lot 22, Block 2. H. County Engineering recommends a contingent street dedication between Lots 15 & 16. I. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed streets including a 36-ft rock suburban street standard for the cul- de-sac streets. J. The plattor's text shall correctly reference the utility and drainage easements. K. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. New street names are needed. 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 316-946-4556) 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 note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. 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 compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 4-2. SUB2004-27 – One-Step Final Plat –MONIQUE'S ADDITION, located south of Kellogg, west of 143rd Street East. NOTE: This is a replat of Lot 1, Block 8 in the Springdale Lakes Addition in addition to unplatted property to the south. The south portion of the property is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the south portion of the property will need to be completed. Upon annexation, the entire property will be zoned SF-5, Single-Family Residential. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A petition is needed to participate in the paving of Clear Creek. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. Since this is a replat of a previous Addition involved with the ownership and maintenance of reserves which are not being replatted by this Addition, a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which provides for this Addition to continue to share in the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of any such previously platted reserves. F. The Applicant has platted a 15-ft building setback along Gilbert which represents an adjustment of the Zoning Code standard of a 25 feet front setback for the SF-5, Single-Family District. The Subdivision Regulations permit the setback provisions to be modified by the plat upon the approval of the Planning Commission. G. Clear Creek Drive needs to be relabeled as Clear Creek as platted in the Clear Creek Addition. H. According to Debt Management, 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 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. J. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). -------------------------------------------------- 4-3. SUB2004-32 – One-Step Final Plat – BANUELOS ADDITION, located north of 29th Street North, west of Broadway. NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. STAFF COMMENTS: A. City water is available to serve the site. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. City Engineering has requested petitions for the paving of Fairview and a No Protest Agreement for the future paving of 30th St. North. E. The plattor's text shall include reference to "lots and a block" in the owner's certificate. F. 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. G. The building setback platted along Fairview needs to be denoted as 25 feet. H. Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width. I. The Subdivision Committee has approved a contingent dedication of street right-of-way for Waco which shall be denoted on the face of the plat and referenced in the plattor's text. The plattor's text shall also note the dedication of the streets to and for the use of the public. J. The applicant is advised that in regard to the portion of the building within the building setback; that while such areas of the existing structure may be maintained, no enlargement of the building in such area will be allowed and if removed, all subsequent rebuilding shall observe building setbacks. 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 316-946-4556) 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 note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. 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 compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 4-4. SUB2004-34 – One-Step Final Plat – THE WATERFRONT THIRD ADDITION, located north of 13th Street, east side of Webb Road. NOTE: This is a replat of a portion of the Waterfront Addition. The lot boundaries have been revised. Access controls correspond to the previous plat. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Petitions have been provided with the Waterfront Addition for sewer, water, paving and drainage improvements. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for new guarantees. No new guarantees are needed. B. The applicant shall contact Debt Management regarding the submission of a respread agreement for special assessments due to the lot reconfiguration. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. F. Since this is a replat of a previous Addition involved with the ownership and maintenance of reserves for that Addition, but not being replatted by this Addition, covenants and/or other legal documents shall be provided which provides for this Addition to continue to share in the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of any such previously platted reserves. G. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. H. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. I. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) J. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. K. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. L. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. M. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Q. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 4-5. SUB2004-35 – One-Step Final Plat – SHADY RIDGE ADDITION, located south of Central, east of Ridge Road. NOTE: This is a replat of a portion of the Woodland Heights 2nd Addition and is subject to the Farmington Square Community Unit Plan (DP-59). The applicant is proposing duplexes. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. Revisions are needed. Minimum pads need to be platted on lots adjacent to the drainage dedication. D. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. E. A CUP adjustment is needed so that the perimeter of the proposed residential block matches the perimeters of the CUP parcel boundaries. F. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent "15-foot street drainage and utility easements", a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot-owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. G. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 32-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. H. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. I. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names shall all be denoted as "Shade Ct". J. The drainage dedication along the northwesterly line of the subdivision needs to be labeled. K. The plattor's text shall include that the "subdivision is in the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 27 South, Range 1 West". L. In the plattor's text "Film 23232" needs to be corrected. M. In the legal description the word "Block 1" needs to be removed (Woodland Heights 2nd Addition was only platted into Lots). N. 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. O. 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. P. 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.) Q. 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. R. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. S. 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. T. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. U. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. V. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. W. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Westar Energy has requested additional easements. X. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 4-6. SUB2004-36 – One-Step Final Plat – FONTANA ADDITION, located on the north side of 29th Street North and the east side of 119th Street West. NOTE: This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. The site is currently zoned SF-20, Single-Family residential and will be converted to SF-5, Single-Family Residential upon annexation. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-5, Single-Family Residential and allow for the lot sizes being platted. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. County Engineering requests a drainage plan. E. This site is located over the Equus Beds aquifer. The Equus Beds Management District has advised that the construction of ponds within the Reserves needs to be approved by the Division of Water Resources. F. The street right-of-way on 119th St. West needs to be 65 feet. G. County Engineering has requested a guarantee for paving of right and left turn lanes on 119th St. at Fontana. Traffic Engineering has requested petitions for left and right turn lanes along 29th North and 6% of the cost of a traffic signal. The Subdivision Committee approved this plat without the traffic signal. It needs to be determined if 119th Street is annexed into Maize. H. A 58-ft right-of-way width is permitted for Fontana subject to "No Parking" on both sides of the street. The face of the plat shall be referenced accordingly. I. Traffic Engineering has requested contingent traffic improvements to Fontana (e.g. traffic calming devices). The Subdivision Committee approved this plat without this condition. J. Traffic Engineering has requested a street stub to the east for in order to provide for connection with potential subdivision of the adjacent property. The Subdivision Committee approved this plat without this condition. K. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. The guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on at least one side of all through, non cul-de-sac streets and sidewalks along both sides of Fontana which functions as a collector. The Subdivision Committee approved this plat with sidewalks only on one side of Fontana. L. The plattor's text shall include reference to "lots, blocks, streets and reserves" in the owner's certificate. M. The parking areas adjoining Reserves K and L need be included as "parking easements" within the Reserves. The easements need to be at least 20-feet deep and no wider than 50 feet. The parking easements shall be referenced in the plattor's text specifying that the easements are granted for residential parking only and that no obstructions shall be constructed or placed within the easements. N. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. O. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. P. If any of the intended recreational uses for the reserves includes a swimming pool, a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, for review and approval by the Planning Director. The site plan shall include the information indicated in the Subdivision Regulations. Otherwise a conditional use and public hearing will be needed in the future. Q. City Fire Department needs to comment on the street length of Fontana Ct serving Lots 19 to 40, Block 1. The Subdivision Regulations limit urban cul-de-sacs to 800 feet in length unless an emergency access easement is proposed. The street length is approved. A modification on street length has been approved by the Subdivision Committee. R. In accordance with the City Fire Department access standards, a 20-ft roadway for ingress and 24-ft roadway for egress is needed at the Sonoma entrance. S. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent "15-foot street drainage and utility easements", a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot-owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. T. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 32-foot or 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. U. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. New street names are needed as denoted on the Engineer's copy of the plat. V. 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. W. 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.) X. 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. Y. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. Z. 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. AA. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. BB. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. CC. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. DD. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Westar Energy, Aquila and SBC have requested additional easements. Sedgwick County Rural Electric Cooperative will be requesting additional easements which will be determined prior to the MAPC meeting. EE. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff. Presented the staff report. DUNLAP Is that plat recommended for approval without the traffic signal? STRAHL That is correct. DUNLAP I don't mean for this to be funny, but which city is going to annex this? STRAHL Wichita. DUNLAP Not Maize? STRAHL There has been a question as to the ownership of the right-of-way for 119th St. West. We had heard that Maize owned the street, but that has to be resolved prior to proceeding with the plat. MITCHELL It should probably fall to the Subdivision Committee to discuss the issue of item G, but that is the reason I asked that this item be pulled. JOHNSON The 6% of the traffic signal was a last minute issue. If this is a new policy, then it should be addressed before it is a plat requirement of this magnitude. Also, we still do not know who owns the street. At Subdivision, there was also discussion about requiring a turn lane if the County does not own the road. STRAHL I have just been informed that the City of Maize has just taken over the road. JOHNSON So do you strike all of G? STRAHL We need to retain the 29th St. North improvements, as requested by City Engineering. DUNLAP I am generally in favor of this kind of development, but I really feel put in a bad position because we have not been presented a package that shows us who is going to own what. I am very uncomfortable with voting to approve this subdivision until I know if Maize owns the street or if Wichita is going to annex the property. Who is going to provide the services? What are we going to do about the traffic light? I do not feel comfortable with this at all, and I am wondering if there is another method that we can use to prevent this kind of confusion from getting to us. STRAHL The traffic signal issue has been resolved as Traffic Engineering has decided not to pursue a petition for that signal. DUNLAP After the 267 homes are built and people keep coming out on the street, then we are going to keep going through that again. That is almost predetermined. I do not feel like we have a good solid package here. Maybe it is the developer's problem; maybe it is a problem between the City of Wichita and the City of Maize. I do not think it is staff's problem, but I am not comfortable. MITCHELL I would like to address Traffic Engineering's recommendation of 6% of the cost of the traffic signal be assessed to a totally residential subdivision without any prior policy, action, or rationalization. I do not think it is the place of the Traffic Engineer to make these policy decisions. If we are going to have a percentage of a cost of public improvements, such as traffic signals assessed to new developments much like an impact fee, then I think we need to take a different route. I would not recommend or want to see this kind of 5%, 18% or some kind of an ad hoc recommendation from the Traffic Engineer each time a subdivision appears. SCHLEGEL Would the board be interested in having a discussion with the City's Traffic Engineer about a policy? I have seen something in writing that the Traffic Engineer has developed. He ran it through the Development Coordinating Committee. Would you be interested in having him come and present that to you as a body? MITCHELL If he is going to make recommendations to the Subdivision Committee and then on to the Planning Commission, the answer is yes. MARNELL I agree completely with Commissioner Mitchell. We had the same issue come up on south Greenwich, and it appeared to be just kind of ad hoc. We got it down to questioning how many acres went into it or what the definition was, and it was pretty vague. I think our recommendation at that time was that they develop a sound policy for doing that. BISHOP I know that there is a proposed policy floating around, and I think we ought to have the opportunity to look at it. It is problematic when we are given what seems to be an ad hoc amount; however, I think it is a no- brainer that adding 270 homes in that particular intersection is going to cause the need to have traffic signalization. I do not think that should be something that all the citizens in Wichita should have as additional tax money. You can call it an excise tax, you can call it an impact fee, call it whatever you want to call it, but I think new development should "pony up" the amount to pay for that. SCHLEGEL Can we go back to Mr. Dunlap's concerns? My understanding was that you were concerned about the status of 119th St., and I thought we had just found out that it had been annexed by the City of Maize. STRAHL Correct. SCHLEGEL The County Engineer's request is no longer relevant for the right and left turn lanes onto 119th Street? STRAHL They would not be able to process that petition. That is correct. SCHLEGEL Who owns 29th St. North? STRAHL That is a City Street. SCHLEGEL The City Traffic Engineer's requested those turn lanes, so that would remain part of the recommendation. MARNELL On item G, only the 119th St. comes out. SCHLEGEL The traffic signal? MARNELL All of G comes out. SCHLEGEL Right and left turn lanes? MARNELL Just strike the six percent. BISHOP Since we seem to have determined that Maize is responsible for 119th St., is the City of Maize wanting some input into this issue? Were they provided notice of the plat? STRAHL I do not believe so. MILLER They have no jurisdiction. The best we would do is provide them a courtesy copy. We did not even know they annexed 119th Street, because they do not provide the information to us that they have annexed in this area. That is why we did not know until today. BISHOP I am just wondering if they might not be afforded the opportunity to say if they want a median, a light, right turn lane or whatever in that area. MCKAY When we were talking about the stop light, are the owners of that corner the same people who own the subdivision or is it different owners? STRAHL Different ownership. MCKAY Is the intention of that to be a commercial corner? MARNELL Any further questions for staff? BARFIELD This idea of assessing a certain portion of these traffic signals is not new. Are we suggesting here that the developer has no responsibility? Is that what I am hearing? MARNELL My understanding is that it has not been assessed to residential developments in the past. So it is not a change in policy. BARFIELD I specifically remember a time when I argued this point. MARNELL Those were commercial applications, I believe. ROB HARTMAN, PEC I am here on behalf of the applicant. The commercial corner is an exception. It is still zoned county residential, but the plan is for a commercial zoning request to come in on that corner. In the past, commercial corners have been assessed for traffic signals. I do not think any neighborhoods, unless they have requested them, have been assessed for traffic signals at major arterial intersections. If you look at the lay of this plat, the majority of the traffic of this plat will come to Wichita. It would probably bypass the corner all together when you get right down to it. MCKAY Do you know what the traffic study determined? HARTMAN I do not; we have talked to Scott Logan. I talked to him about this and wondered where he was coming up with his 6%. It is just something he felt was a good idea, but there was no substantiated number that I know of or any studies that were done. MCKAY Do the right and left turn signals, traffic lanes or traffic timing devices substantiate this request? DUNLAP Are you in agreement with the rest of the staff report? HARTMAN Yes. BISHOP The Traffic Engineer should give us the numbers on why this percent was requested, which was what he did at the Subdivision meeting? PAUL GUNZELMAN, Traffic Engineering. This development has 276 lots. If we applied the trip generation, that is about 2,700 vehicles or trips that this would generate. Based on traffic signal warrants, about 10,000 vehicles per day going through an intersection would warrant a traffic signal. If we applied that rule to this intersection, then this residential development would be a quarter of that. When we have previously asked for a percentage of a signal from a commercial development, I believe it would be 12.5% per corner and the City of Wichita would pick up the other 50%. We thought if we charge the residential property the full 12.5% of this, then that would leave commercial development out. So we just split it in half and that is how we came up with the 6%. BARFIELD Is this a precedent or have you in the past assessed these same fees to other residential developments. GUNZELMAN We have not done that in the past. MCKAY I still have not gotten my answer. You are saying every one of those houses are going to come out to the west, come down to 119th St. to 29th and go out that way. There is definite access to another ¾ of a mile to the east or ½ mile further to the east. I would say to you that the majority of the people coming are going to come from that direction and not go all the way to 119th St. GUNZELMAN That is probably a true statement. They will not all go through that intersection. MCKAY If you cut it in ½ or 1/3 or whatever, it might be it still does not justify the 10,000 you are talking about. GUNZELMAN If we cut it in half, then we would use the volume of 10,000 vehicles per day. This could generate 2,500, so we are only asking for six percent of the cost. 2,500 vehicles is ¼ of the 10,000. MCKAY Under the assumption they are all going that way. GUNZELMAN Under the assumption that they are all going that way which would be 25 percent of the signal cost. However, we have cut that back to 12.5 percent, then 6 percent. MCKAY Do you think City staff will close that entrance coming off of 29th Street.? They all have to go in that direction to approve it. I do not think so. Your calculation presumes that they are all coming in from that intersection, and I bet a 1/3 of them do not come from that intersection. Maybe 1/3 of that might come for convenience, but the rest is going to come the other way. BISHOP But even 1/3 is 6 percent. MARNELL No, you are still way short of 10,000. GAROFALO I only have one question. Do we need to have a meeting with the Traffic Engineer? SCHLEGEL I will invite him to come and present whatever draft policy they have. If he so inclines, then we will put it on a future agenda. We cannot command him to come. GAROFALO We can certainly urge him to come. SCHLEGEL Okay, we will urge him to come. MOTION: To approve subject to the changes made in staff comments. MARNELL moved, MITCHELL seconded the motion, and it carried (10-1). BISHOP opposed. --------------------------------------------------- 4-7. SUB2004-37 – One-Step Final Plat – SAVANNA AT CASTLE ROCK RANCH TENTH ADDITION, located west of 143rd Street East and north of 13th Street North. NOTE: This is a replat of a portion of Savanna at Castle Rock Ranch 6th Addition in addition to unplatted property to the west. This property is located in the County within three miles of the City of Wichita. It is in an area designated as "2010 Urban Service Area" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. An outside-the-city water agreement with the City of Wichita shall be provided. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage concept. A drainage plan is needed. D. If any drainage will be directed onto the adjacent railroad right-of-way, a letter shall be provided from that railroad indicating their agreement to accept such drainage. D. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. E. The plattor's text shall include reference to "lots, blocks, streets and reserves" in the owner's certificate. F. County Engineering recommends the extension of either Castlewood or Summerfield to the west line of plat in order to provide for connection with potential subdivision of the adjacent property. The Subdivision Commission approved a contingent street dedication for this connection. G. Per Sedgwick County Fire Department, access drives to any structures in access of 150 feet from the edge of the roadway will need to be installed prior to final framing inspection, preferably before the start of any above grade construction work. Such drive to be installed according to fire department specifications: (1)Twenty feet of drivable surface is provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather with provisions for turning fire apparatus around. (2) To meet fire department specifications, the surface needs to be an all-weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4 inches in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed.) H. If any of the intended recreational uses for the reserves includes a swimming pool, a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, for review and approval by the Planning Director. The site plan shall include the information indicated in the Subdivision Regulations. Otherwise a conditional use and public hearing will be needed in the future. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. K. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent "15-foot street drainage and utility easements", a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot-owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. L. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 32-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. M. The applicant is reminded that this site is located within three miles of the City Limits of Wichita and will be heard by City Council. Therefore, the City Council signature block needs to be included on the final plat. N. The Applicant is advised that if platted, the building setbacks may be reduced to 20 feet. O. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. GIS has requested "Circle" be denoted as "Cir". In the event either street is extended, "Cir" should be deleted. P. 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. Q. 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.) R. 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. S. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. T. 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. U. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. V. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. W. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. X. 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. Y. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL Planning staff Presented staff report. BARFIELD Is that railroad abandoned? STRAHL I do not know that. SCHLEGEL It is in the process of being abandoned. The railroad has applied, seeking to abandon, and the City now is pursuing a railbanking proposal for that corridor. ROB HARTMAN, with PEC. This is part of the overall Savannah development that included two quarter sections of the east side of 143rd Street, and the remainder of this land is actually the last 16 acres of this entire development that was started back in 1988. In 1994, there was a residential plat that originally had 57 single-family lots, and had a street that was platted from 43rd Street over to the west property line. At that time, the area to the east of this was undeveloped, as well as all of this area west of this line over to 127th Street. This is the Rocky Creek development. It has been platted as a through street that comes out over to 127th St., and it also has a street connection up here on the northwest corner that ties into this 80 acres that abuts our 16 acre development that we are proposing over here. In 1996, the developer prepared a preliminary plat that included this entire area and four patio homes. There were 67 single-family patio homes in here and the east half of this, or 20 lots, were developed. Since that time, only about half of those lots have been sold, 9 out of the 20. Two years ago the developer ended up selling this to a builder just to kind of get out from under it. He now has his remaining 16 acres, and we have platted it. This is not the plat, but we have 15 lots that are approximately ¾ of an acre in size. These 15 lots are going to go anywhere for $40,000 on up. The developer right now has 13 of these lots reserved based on the plan that had two cul-de-sacs. Our point of contention is with the contingent street dedication as a safety issue. The Fire Department did not have a problem with the two cul-de-sacs coming into here. We feel that the only issue is that we had this street dedicated over to the west property line and now we do not want it. When this was first dedicated, this was all undeveloped; no one knew what was going to go on here. Now there is an 80-acre horse ranch here with house. This is probably a $500,000 house, and this 80 acres has two points of access on 13th Street. There are two driveways, and there is some drainage coming through the street right-of-way on the west property line. There is also some drainage that comes across the railroad tracks in this area, cuts across this corner and come down to here. This is a pond here that goes with this house. It is our contention that this is not a safety issue or a land locked issue for this property. This property has the points of access, and we feel this is going to be detrimental to the sale of these lots. We have people signed up to buy these lots, and they are thinking they are getting ¾-acre lots with trees and ponds, and it is going to be a quiet neighborhood without any through traffic. Our point is that it is not necessary for the fire vehicles or the safety vehicles. If they are asking for contingent street right-of-way, then maybe we need it or maybe we will not. Our feeling is that it is going to be detrimental to the sale of these lots. BOB KAPLAN When there is a rational reason for it, we do contingent dedications. In this case, Mr. Stevenson marketed these lots. I brought my aerial which maybe gives a little better view of it. He marketed these lots on the fact that they do have large lots. They do have a large degree of privacy, and there are large lots. This is not to be a gateway to a potential 80-acre subdivision. It is his home, and his point of operation. We do not know if it will develop or not. If it does develop, he has access off of 13th St. This access is already in place and it was never intended to be a gateway to a development. It is just not necessary to require a contingent dedication in these circumstances. It destroys the marketability, and we tried this as a conventional subdivision and it did not work. So we went to this 15-lot concept, and it has worked. I do not know how adamant Mr. Weber is about this because this is not a necessary contingency. There is not good reason to impair Mr. Stevenson's ability to develop for something that may never happen. The second thing about that contingent dedication is I do not know if this is developed, will anybody attempt to cross that walkway. It is going to take a bridge. There is a waterway; I do not know if it is a drainage way or floodway. I do not know the extent or breadth of it, but you are going to have to bridge it. It is not going to be a practical access for whomever this developer may be when he has got a point here and he has two points on 13th Street. What is the point? What is the necessity for it? If it never happens, then why impair Mr. Stevenson's development just on the idea that maybe, someday somebody might want to use it. Under these circumstances, it is a total inappropriate request. BARFIELD I would like to hear from the County Engineer. JIM WEBER, Sedgwick County Public Works. Do you have a specific question? BARFIELD Mr. Kaplan is saying that there is no good reason for this request. I am sure you will disagree with him, but would you state your reasons for making this request? WEBER I will reiterate the reasons that Neil has already given, and try to clarify a couple of things. First, it was platted in 1994 as an outright street dedication. I do not know why they are marketing as if there is not one, but it already exists. Secondly, there is a little drainage through there. This box is about a 4 x 4 culvert, not too big of a deal. This is significant drainage coming down through here, and one of the things we are interested in is to eliminate as many bridge crossings as possible because of the expense of doing them and maintaining them over time. This railroad right-of-way is under abandonment proceedings, and there is a group that is trying to keep it alive between here and El Dorado. If that does not happen, then we anticipate the rails-to-trails process will kick in. If it is a railroad or a trail, we seriously doubt anybody wants to create any new crossing in that railroad right-of- way to connect to the north. There is access here, but again you have to cross this drainage system. It is like two different parcels. We recommended an outright dedication of a street off of either one of the cul-de-sacs. It was the Subdivision Committee that proposed taking a contingent dedication. We have agreed that this would be an acceptable way to handle this because it does address some of the concerns. What if Mr. McCoy never splits this up? The contingent dedication is a pretty benign deal. It only kicks in if something really happens in here. We think it is a pretty good compromise. I have not come here to admittedly press for one or the other; we are going to go with whatever you decide. I guess my last comment is this 80-acre parcel in 1988, just like this 80-acre parcel was one home. A large and expensive home with large expensive horse barns, and in 2004 it is now almost fully developed. I point that out because we always hear how this guy is not going to do anything, nobody is going to do anything. Mr. Stevenson's father did do something and now we have 160 acres over here that is almost fully developed, and this one is just about done. I will stand for any questions you might have. KAPLAN With the connection that was platted, an entirely different concept and entirely different conventional subdivision, it did not market, and it was not platted as it was platted today. That is why we do not want that connection. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments. BARFIELD moved, BISHOP seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 4-8. SUB2004-28 – One-Step Final Plat – VOEGELI ADDITION, located south of Central, on the west side of Maize Road. NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. Lot 1, Block A has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2003-65) from SF-5, Single-Family Residential to GC, General Commercial subject to platting. The site is located within the 100-year floodplain. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The final plat tracing shall be submitted with a revised name as an Addition located within Wichita exists with the name "Voegeli Addition". B. Municipal services are available to serve the site. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. The plat proposes one access opening along Maize Road. The final plat tracing shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. A restrictive covenant shall be submitted that permits future cross-lot access with the abutting property owners to the north and south along Maize Road if and when the subject lot or the adjoining lots are redeveloped. F. "A lot and a block" shall be referenced in the plattor's text. G. The plattor's text indicates that reserves contain utilities as confined to easements. These easements shall be shown within the Reserve. H. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities. I. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. J. The Applicant is advised that if platted, the building setback may be reduced to 20 feet. 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 vicinity map needs corrected to replace Kellogg with Maple. M. 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. N. 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.) O. 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. P. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. Q. 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. R. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. S. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. T. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. U. 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. SBC has requested additional easements. V. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL Planning staff Presented staff report. TERRY SMYTHE, Baughman Co. I will be really brief about this one. I presented a zoning request about a month ago. At that meeting, I did not want the cross lot access agreement required during the zoning process because we had not had the proper information to determine how far their building was for future setback and the street right-of-way. I have always been opposed in trying to determine street project requirements during the zoning process because it should be an instrument of platting. When we have surveyors out there, we know where building locations, drives and everything else is. So I opposed it back then for that simple reason. The cross lot easement was removed as a requirement for the zoning case that was passed by the Planning Commission. I indicated during the zoning case that we could discuss the plat at the proper time, now is the proper time. I wanted to clarify to make sure everybody understands your original motion was not to have that in there. MARNELL As a condition of zoning? SMYTHE Correct. It should be or if it is, it could be a condition of platting not zoning. MARNELL Which is where we are. SMYTHE It is very difficult to predict where to agree or disagree on all the requirements, if I do not have all the details in place that we get during the platting process. MARNELL I guess you have left me confused. Are you apposing it now or have you changed your mind? SMYTHE After looking at where the location is, the owner of this property would be okay with the cross lot agreement. MCKAY I thought it belonged to the City of Wichita. SMITH Not according to the deed that we pulled. That was the legal description that was given to us when we zoned the property, provided through Security Abstract. MITCHELL I asked that this be pulled. It was my feeling that at the time of zoning, with the structures that are on this site, it is almost impossible to see how people could drive from one of those properties to the other without major changes in grade or removal of barriers. I am going to move again that the cross lot easement not be required and that item G be deleted, rather item E be deleted from the staff comments. BISHOP I would like an explanation from staff as to why it is being requested? GUNZELMAN City Traffic Engineering. I believe the request is if one of lots to the north or south does redevelop in the future, then we can review the access points again at that time. We may be able to reduce the number of access points on Maize Road. MARNELL Mitch, you said it is not practical at this property. Are you generally opposed to cross lot circulations? Is this a specific parcel? MITCHELL Cross lot circulation is a great idea, but not at this particular location. MCKAY Between that lake and that building is the Cowskin Creek. So you can see how much buildable area that lot has if you take the lake out, the Cowskin out and what a cross lot easement would do to the piece of ground. That is the only thing I am trying to point out. MARNELL A lot of time a cross lot circulation on parking lots does not actually remove parking lot spaces because it connects to driveways or maybe a very small number of spaces, but it sounds like a reasonable change. Any further discussion. It has been moved and seconded. MOTION: To move that the cross lot easement not be required and that item E be deleted from the staff comments. MITCHELL moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion, and it carried (10-1), BISHOP opposed. --------------------------------------------------- 4-9. SUB2004-29 – One-Step Final Plat – AUBURN HILLS COMMERCIAL THIRD ADDITION, located east of 135th Street West, on the south side of Maple Street. NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2003-59) from SF-5, Single-Family Residential to NR, Neighborhood Retail. A Protective Overlay (P-O #130) was also approved for this site addressing setbacks, signage, sidewalks, access, lighting, screening, landscaping, permitted uses and architectural design. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The plat proposes one access opening along the west property line. The access controls are approved. A joint access agreement with the property to the west is needed. An off-site dedication of complete access control is needed from the property to the west. E, Traffic Engineering has requested a petition for traffic improvements to Maple including a modification to the central medial and accel/decel lanes. F. The joint access opening shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. G. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities. H. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. I. The building setback line should be deleted from the Reserve. J. The dimension along the front property line should be verified as it does not correspond with City of Wichita information. K. A Protective Overlay Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved Protective Overlay and its special conditions for development on this property. L. Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all non-residential lots shall not exceed three times the width. M. 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. 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 316-946-4556) 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 note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. 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 compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MARNELL moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (10-0-1) MCKAY abstain. --------------------------------------------------- 4-10. SUB2004-30 – One-Step Final Plat – SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH SIXTH ADDITION, located east of Hillside, on the south side of Lincoln (extended). NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. The applicant has proposed a zone change (ZON 2004-08) from TF-3, Two-Family Residential to GO, General Office. STAFF COMMENTS: A. This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change and any related conditions of such a change. Prior to