METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 15, 1999 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, July 15, 1999 at 12:00 noon in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present. Bill Johnson, Chair; Chris Carraher; John C. Frye; Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Richard Lopez; Ronald Marnell (Late arrival); John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Osborne-Howes; Warren and Wheeler. George Fulp was not present. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Joe Lang, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Workshop on Northwest Wichita Major Investment Study Mr. Clyde Prem of Bucher, Willis, Ratliff Corporation presented an executive summary of Northwest Wichita Major Investment Study (MIS). The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) initiated the Northwest Wichita Major Investment Study (NWW MIS) in 1997, recognizing the recent and potential growth occurring in the northwest portion of Wichita. The outcome of this study is a “Preferred Strategy” that addresses the identified transportation needs and establishes priorities for potential future projects in the study area. As part of the MIS, the public was involved in a variety of ways: The Project Steering Committee (PSC) provided input and guidance at key points along the way. Members of the PSC represented residents, organizations and businesses within the study area. A Technical Committee consisting of transportation planning and engineering officials from the city of Wichita, Sedgwick County, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Department was formed. They met regularly with the representatives from BWR, KDOT, and the FHWA to provide technical review; and Public forums were held at the “major milestones” during the study to update the public about project activities to date and to obtain input from the public about the study findings. THIS NWW MIS includes: An inventory and analysis of existing transportation conditions and projected future conditions in the study area; A statement of transportation needs reflecting the goals and objectives for the major transportation investment as developed by the PSC; the development of criteria and performance measures to evaluate the ability of the alternative strategies to meet the goals and objectives; the identification and analysis of possible strategies; and the evaluation or screening of the possible transportation improvement strategies. The highest-ranking strategy was presented for further consideration. This study includes a recommendation that the strategy be incorporated into the long-range transportation program. The initial screening process identified eight initial strategies that potentially address all or some of the transportation goals and objectives established for this study. Combinations of the initial strategies were developed to create four refined strategies. These strategies are summarized below: Strategy 1: Improve Arterials Includes the upgrade of existing arterials and the incorporation of TSM measures. This reflects a future no-build strategy in terms of including those projects likely to be constructed over the planning period but without a new transportation connector between US-54 and K-96. TDM measures were also an option. Strategy 2: Inner Connector Includes a new inner connector highway and the upgrade of select arterials from Strategy 1. TSM, TDM and ITS measures were incorporated into this strategy as appropriate. Strategy 3: Outer Connector Includes a new outer connector highway and the upgrade of select arterials from Strategy 1. TSM, TDM and ITS measures were incorporated into this strategy as appropriate. Strategy 4: Inner/Outer Connector Includes a new highway that incorporates components of the roadway alignments contained within Strategies 2 and 3. Extending from K-96 to US-54, the highway alignment would be identical to the inner connector as identified in Strategy 2. The variation from Strategy 2 (Inner Connector) is the addition of an east-west freeway segment generally paralleling US-54 from 167th Street West to west of the City of Goddard at which point it would join with US-54. In addition to the freeway component, this strategy also included the upgrade of select arterials, and the incorporation of TSM, TDM, and ITS measures. An environmental study was also conducted and no fatal flaws were identified in any of the four corridors during this investigation. More detailed analysis of the environmental impacts will be conducted during future phases of the project after alternative road alignments have been established. As part of the evaluation process, the PSC weighted the relative value of the goals on a scale. The weighting exercise and scoring process were used as a guide in identifying preferred transportation strategies by obtaining feedback from the PSC on the relative importance of the goals. Applying the goals and associated weightings to the alternative transportation strategies provides differential rankings. Performance measures were identified for each goal/issue. Values were obtained from the travel model and other sources to indicate potential conditions in the year 2030. Strategies 2 and 4 provided relative mobility benefits through reduces miles of congestion of vehicle hours of travel and lower accident rates. Strategy 1 had a relatively high score in cost-effectiveness. Strategies 2 and 4 were considered to have greater impact on the relative economic development. Strategy 1 had relatively less potential of an environmental impact. When considered in total, Strategies 2 and a4 were rated highest based on the weighted importance of the project goals and objectives. In addition to the described transportation improvement components, proactive corridor or right-of-way preservation measures were strongly recommended. Mr. Prem and Mr. Schwinger of BWR stated that the next phase of looking into alternative alignments will begin upon contract approval with KDOT. It may take at least a year to identify potential alignments, but the final alignment may not be known until some time after detailed environmental reviews are conducted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Subdivision Committee items 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 2/4 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). 2/1. V-2181 – Everett and Sharon Long request the vacation of a building setback and wall easement, described as: The 35 foot building setback and five foot wall easement on east side of Lot 18, except the north 35 feet thereof, Block 1, Timber Ridge 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located South of 21st Street North and west of Valleyview. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time June 22, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback and wall easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a building setback and wall easement described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: a. The applicant shall submit an administrative adjustment to remove the building setback and wall easement from the east line of Parcel 4 of the Greystone C.U.P. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE?S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: A. The applicant shall submit an administrative adjustment to remove the building setback and wall easement from the east line of Parcel 4 of the Greystone C.U.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2/2. V-2182 – Donald and Wilma O’Krakel request the vacation of a portion of a building setback described as: The west 3 feet of the 25-foot platted building setback except the north 25 feet and the south 15 feet on Lot 73, Block 3, Amarado Estates Addition. Generally located north of 13th Street North and west of Caddy Lane. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time June 22, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a building setback described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. The vacation shall only be for the portion of the existing home, which encroaches into the setback. b. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the administrative adjustment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: A. The vacation shall only be for the portion of the existing home, which encroaches into the setback. B. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the administrative adjustment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/3. V-2183 – Dr. Steven Twietmeyer requests the vacation of a portion of a building setback, described as: The north 15 feet and the east 15 feet of the building setback as platted on the south and west property lines of Lot 2, Kessler Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County. Generally located north of 31st Street South and east of West Street. The applicant is requesting to vacate 15 feet of the 35-foot platted building setback. This would allow expansion of the dental office on-site. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time June 22, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a building setback described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan, which is attached. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: A. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan, which is attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/4. V-2184 – Maize Road Partnership, c/o Mike Loveland, request the vacation of a portion of a building setback, described as: The west 80 feet of the 150-foot platted setback except the south 45 feet of Lot 2, Huntington Park Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located south of 13th Street North and west of Maize Road. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time June 22, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a building setback described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall file an administrative adjustment on Parcel 1 of DP-153 to reduce the building setback from 150 feet to 70 feet. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant shall file an administrative adjustment on Parcel 1 of DP-153 to reduce the building setback from 150 feet to 70 feet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/5. V-2185 - Marie and Greg Goscha and Michael and Amy Bankston, owners, request the vacation of the 16 foot platted walk easement, described as: The platted 16-foot walk easement between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Rockhurst Addition, located north of 13th Street North and west of Governeour. KEITH GOOCH, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: The applicants are requesting to vacate the 16-foot platted walk easement, which runs between their two homes. The applicants have stated that there have been problems with individuals walking along this easement and vandalizing their property. This sidewalk is used by children and others to go to and come from Coleman Middle School. A signal is available for people using this sidewalk to cross Governeour. If this walk is vacated, individuals attempting to reach the middle school would have to walk along 13th Street North, a four-lane arterial with current traffic counts of 22,088 between Woodlawn and Governeour, or cross Governeour at 14th Street, an uncontrolled crossing which seems very dangerous. Staff did request a report from the Wichita Police Department about any problems that have been reported in this area for the past two years. The only report which was filed was a disorderly conduct at 1400 North Governeour (Park property), which is east of this easement.” A request by the adjoining property owners to vacate the sidewalk easement was reviewed extensively by CPO 2 and the MAPC, and was ultimately denied by the Wichita City Council in 1997. Materials from the previous case file are attached, as is a report to the City Council last month which summarizes the previous case and provides an update on activity in the area since the City Council denied the vacation. RECOMMENDATION: A requirement of all vacations by State Statute is that no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. This request will potentially injure, endanger and inconvenience children and others, particularly those who reside in Block 1 of the Rockhurst Addition, but also others, who do not wish to walk along 13th Street North, a street with high traffic counts, and who wish to cross Governeour at a signalized intersection and not be crossing on a busy street. No evidence has been submitted to change the facts that were reviewed in 1997 and which led to the City Council’s denial at that time. In fact, the evidence seems to be that the collective efforts of the neighbors, the City, and Coleman administrators has led to a successful elimination of threats and vandalism. The Police Chief and the Traffic Engineer joined the Planning staff in recommending against the vacation previously. The Comprehensive Plan calls for interconnection of subdivisions with streets and/or walkways. The City Council stated in denying this request in 1997 that the “gating” of subdivisions was counter to positive community building. As the co-author of “Fortress America” stated: “The ubiquitous gated communities of the suburbs are coming to look like a fortified honeycomb, with each residential neighborhood encased in its own space with little or no regard for the community as a whole. As we enter a new century, the choice should not be between secession from the public realm or leading a life of poverty and fear…. How can this nation fulfill its democratic destiny by building neighborhoods that create economic, racial, and social barriers?” Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that the request be DENIED. FRYE “When this came before the Commission in 1997, did the Commission recommend that it be closed?” GOOCH ”The Planning Commission recommended it be closed, yes.” FRYE “The other thing is, you were talking about sidewalks on 13th Street and that it is dangerous to walk on, correct? The children that live south of 13th Street that live over in the addition near about Edgemoor and 13th, now before we talked about them being bused part of the time but that they voluntarily could walk to school. Is that the same? “ GOOCH “I don’t know.” KROUT “I don’t know if those children are bused.” FRYE “Wasn’t that one of the concerns then?” KROUT “I think you will have to find out from the applicants whether it was or wasn’t.” FRYE “Is it not true they have put in sidewalks though all the way from Edgemoor clear to Woodlawn on the north side or south side?” KROUT “There are new sidewalks on the south side, yes.” GOOCH “Those are all on the south side.” FRYE “And then on Woodlawn to Governeour there are sidewalks on the north side, correct?” JOHNSON “Are there any other questions of staff? Applicant or agent.“ MARIE GOSCHA “I live at 7026 Timberon Lane, just north of the sidewalk. Most of you I think are quite familiar with our previous request to vacate this easement that runs through are property and the Bankstons to the south. We provided you much detailed documentation at our last visit, and I will not spend time going over information that you have already received. What I would like for you to know is that we continuing experience problems directly related to the sidewalk. When this matter was last brought before the City Council, it was stated to us that if the problems continued related to the sidewalk that we could bring our concerns back to the City. That is why we are here today. It is easy to believe that there are no problems with the sidewalk when you live away from it and do not have to experience the nuisances that occur because of it on a on- going basis. The instances have been minimized by those who do not experience them and I would like to share trash that frequently finds it way down the sidewalk. When I say trash I am not talking about the occasional Taco Tico cup or candy bar wrapper that the opposing view has thrown back at us. I would like to show you what we get frequently in our yards that are within reach my three and five year olds. This is what I found on the sidewalk. I honestly do not believe that my five-year old knows how to write that. We have spent numerous hours on documentation in the past, and to keep this short, I would like you to know that regular urinating on the fence and bushes continues and climbing on the fences and vulgarities and profanity shouted out at us as we are outside in our yards. Two additional motorcycles have passed through the sidewalks since our last visit. Again as my children are playing nearby. There is frequent nighttime loitering on the sidewalk by individuals who park directly behind our fences, and when we go out to see what is going on, they run away to their cars and drive off. We have had on-going contact with the City, with the Police Department, and the School, for the past three years. I don’t know what all is involved in filing a police report, but I am here to say that I have called 911 several times myself and I know that my neighbor has too. I do not know if that does not get documented because they do not find the person. All I can say is that I have called 911 and notified the appropriate officials on several occasions. The argument has been presented from the opposing view that is one for safety for children getting to and from Coleman School in Eastview Park. I might just point out that there is no signalized crossing at Governour at the easement. There is a sign there but there is no signalized crossing, those have been moved to Thirteenth Street. I believe there is three along that area. I would also like to say that I do not believe that the sidewalk on 13th Street is unsafe. According to the police report that we have received there has been no children hit on a sidewalk in the City ever. I would like to know also how often that the 22,000 cars a day that pass down 13th Street are present at one time during the day. As for the time and convenience and getting to the park and the school created by closing the sidewalk, walking it myself it would require about 2 ½ to 3 additional minutes to reach the park and school using 13th Street. In closing, we come to you in good faith. Asking you to consider our concerns with an open mind, free of prejudice, trusting that we are doing that we are doing what we feel is best for the safety and well-being of our families and our neighbors who are experiencing the unfortunate but real situations occurring on our property. We ask you to honor our request to vacate this easement. Finally I would like to challenge everybody in this room regardless of their opinion on this matter to show courtesy and respect to each other as we discuss this. Maybe we can even set an example for the children that are present here today. Thank you.” JOHNSON “Are there any questions of the applicant?” FRYE “I raise the question at one time in 1997 they talked about the children that live in what used to be called Williamsburg Apartments, now I think they have changed the name. Those children, one concern for them was because at that time they said that they bused those children if they wished to be bused, but if they didn’t they could walk. It was their choice. Is that the way that things happen there?” GOSCHA “I do not know. When that was brought up the opposing side had a meeting with the school and worked some of those arrangements out. If I remember directly I think that that was just a trial basis, but I would like to point out, that the majority of the problems that we are having are not related to school children. Some of those things are happening and that has diminished and the school and the Police Department have worked wonderfully with us on that. The things that we are concerned about more are motorcycles, and the types of things that I am passing around. If these actions occurred once in a while it would be no big deal. But it happens a lot and this is my home.” FRYE “Thank you.” GAROFALO “You have mentioned the 911 calls. You mentioned working with the Police. What does the Community Police Officer said? Have you had conversation and meetings with them? What efforts or help have they been?” GOSCHA “Yes. We had a meeting with the Parks Department and the Police Department and we have done this with the Police Department frequently. They have put thorny bushes in as recommended by, I think, the Police Chief. Last time we were here we thought maybe that would deteriorate some of it. I think maybe it has helped some with the fence climbing, but the bushes are short and it will be a little while before they will help with that. The neighborhood police have on several occasions came and parked during after school hours, it is funny, when they are out there a lot of people choose not to use the sidewalk, they go an alternate route. They have done a great job in helping with some of the school problems.” MICHAELIS “Did I understand you to say that there is no signal at that particular crossing?” GOSCHA “That is correct.” MICHAELIS “Is there one down at 13th and Governeour?” GOSCHA “Yes, I think there are two.” FRYE “No, there isn’t at 13th and Governeour.” GOSCHA “It is a little bit north of there I think.” MICHAELIS “Okay. There is a sidewalk on the north side of 13th running along 13th from Lawrence to Governeour?” GOSCHA “Yes.” HENTZEN “Is your home shown on that map?” GOSCHA “Lot number 10.” JOHNSON “Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. The applicant still has 5 minutes and 15 seconds. Are there any other homeowners that would like to speak?” GOSCHA “That is all.” JOHNSON “Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this item? Anyone here to speak in opposition? May we have a show of hands? Please come forward. Because we only show four hands showing, so let’s hold our questions to them, so that we do not end up getting into a talking match and be our own worse enemy on this.” BECKY WADE “Until two weeks ago I lived at 7000 Stonegate, I now reside at 625 N. Rutland. Even though I have moved from the neighborhood I still have very strong feelings about keeping the sidewalk open. I lived there with this issue for the last eight years, and that is why I bring my comments to you today. Two years ago the argument for closing the sidewalk was that things were getting worse and worse in the neighborhood. My argument today is that things are getting better and better. The police report that and incidences reported to them have virtually ceased. Coleman Middle School has only had one report made to them in the last two years and more important to me, unless I have been asleep for the last two years, we have not had any neighborhood watch meetings at all. Bringing any of these issues to the people in the neighborhood that there was any problems going on. There has been no information provided to us that there was ongoing problems that needed to be addressed. Now if the problem is still so bad, why have the neighbors living in the neighborhood not informed us? We were just totally blind sighted with this issue even coming back up again, and quite frankly we are in shock. So if we do not sound very prepared today it is because we are just stunned that we are even here having this conversation again. So, now when we all thought that things were wonderful in the neighborhood after two years of working very hard to make things better, we hear again how dismal and awful and crime ridden our neighborhood is. We did not even know that it was bad. If it is so awful, why are there so many long-term residences living there? If it is so awful, why have so many new families chosen to move into the neighborhood? If it is so awful, why are so many garage doors left open all day right by the sidewalk? I tell you why my doors were left open. I felt safe in this neighborhood. Estimates are that at least nine to ten people a day use the walk. That is almost 300 per month. That sounds like a lot, but 10 a day is not very many. If even one nuisance a week occurs that still only 1%. Why should the other 296 behaving people be denied the right to walk on a city sidewalk to a school and to a city park? That is way out of proportion. I have always felt that the part of the problems was that some of the people using the walk are from other neighborhoods, as referred to twice today. Some of those people on the block do not think that these people do not think that they belong in our neighborhood. I know for a fact, that in 1997 when the incident list was typed up of problems in the neighborhood, it was listed on May 13, 1997, and I quote, ‘Brought basketball and stopped to play on a driveway.’ Well, the last time a checked a basketball was not a lethal weapon. Yet Coleman was notified that kids are playing basketball. The kids were invited to my house to play basketball with my son. The problem is the kids were black. They got reported for being in our neighborhood. I think that is wrong, they were not doing anything, they were not breaking in any windows, they were not peeing on anybody’s fence and they were playing basketball at my house by invitation. In my opinion none of the white kids have ever been reported for playing basketball at my house. That is racial. Another item that was reported on the list that on April 14, 1997, a school bus let out a person in front of the house and then that person walked towards Coleman. Coleman was called and notified, was this a crime? Is this vandalism? The bus driver may have been lost, things like that should not be counted as incidence against the sidewalk. There were some other items on the list that are inappropriate I agree, but when silly things like a lost bus driver and a racially motivated item like at my house are used against the sidewalk, I have a problem with that. Several times myself and others have tried to get information from the applicant’s about what has been happening for the last two years, when we heard this was coming back up again. All that we got was vague comments and no specific factual information. So I was glad to see that there was a bag passed around. I have to wonder how bad the problem is and we can’t get more information then that. The protective covenants for the Rockhurst Addition prohibit any fencing on the easement. Vacating the easement would violate that covenant. The State of Kansas, as you already have been told, requires that before a vacation can be granted, no private rights would be injured or endangered by the vacation, and the public will suffer no lose or inconvenience. That means walking five more minutes around the block. There will be private rights injured, there will be people inconvenienced and there will be public loss if this vacation is approved. That would be a violation of the State of Kansas Statute. The sidewalk works, it is getting neighborhood kids to Coleman quickly and safely. It is getting people to the park. CPO voted unanimously to keep the walk open, Planning Staff recommends that it stay open. It is a nice safe area, closing the walk is negative and permanent. As stated in the Eagle Editorial this morning the, City of Wichita did not get to be an All American City because it closes off sidewalks. Thank you.” JOHNSON “Are there any questions?” CHRIS WALLACE “I live at 6908 STONEGATE “I am here as a mother. I have lived there for 17 years. When we bought that house, we continued to be big supporters of public education. One of the reasons that we bought that house is because of the proximity to Harris Elementary and to Coleman Middle School. I have two daughters, both of which are here today, one in an 11 year-old and one a 14 year old. My 14 year-old just finished three wonderful years at Coleman Middle School. She used that walkway, that sidewalk, everyday, either to or from or sometime both to school. Even at times coming home after volleyball practice when it was dark. She never once had anybody harass, intimidate, talk ugly to her, or any of the other things that these people say happened. I frankly do not believe it. Sometimes she walked with black children and that was great and that was fine with me. If you vote to recommend closing it off, her only choice in the future would be to go on 13th Street, where, yes, there are 22,000 cars a day and there are sidewalks. But that is not why we bought that house, so that she could go around 13th Street. Or she goes to 14th Street, where there are no sidewalks, and she walks in the street. She is moving on and she will be in high school. But, her little sister now will start 6th grade there. It is not an acceptable alternative for me as a parent to have her any either of those two situations. In closing, I would just ask that you think of the safety of my child, and all the other children and the other people, adults that use this, everyday, for thirty years when it was built. I would also like to pass out, in case you did not have a chance to see, a copy of today’s Wichita Eagle Editorial, which is a strong recommendation that this City, which takes pride in our City, does not close off sidewalks. I also have a copy of the latest issue of the Community Voice. Last year in November 1997, the City Council voted 6-1 that we keep our street and our sidewalks open.” JOHNSON “Thank you. Are there any questions?” GAROFALO “Would you point out on the map where you live?” THOMAS FUNK “I live at 6907 Timberon. I have lived at the residence for approximately 15 years. In that time I have used that sidewalk probably one thousand of times, to walk in the park which, primarily is what I use it for. When this all originally came up, I was concerned when the applicants came to me and asked if I would support them on this issue and they began to tell me some of things that had happened. I was concerned at that time, because I was not aware of anything happening. I was more than happy to sit and listen. Although I was not necessarily in favor of closing the sidewalk, I decided to become neutral on the item, in the interest of just attempting to just get along with people, and it wasn’t that big a thing, I did not think, to me. But as this thing went on and as time has gone on and the tension in the neighborhood that has resulted from this, it is a real sad occurrence to me. It is no reflection on the applicants in any way, shape, or form. I decided that I needed to stand up for what I really believed, and that is, there is no way that the sidewalk should be closed. It is an amenity to the community; it has always been an amenity. It helped me to decide to purchase that home 15 years ago. I never have regretted it. I have never experienced any of the problems that have been discussed, although I am a ways from there, so I would not be in that area. Recently, on a Saturday morning, I walked down Lawrence Lane, and in the grass along the sidewalk I discovered a almost nearly full bottle of Jack Daniel’s and a bottle of coke, a two liter bottle, and a bag of ice and some cups. Now, had a child been along, and discovered that before I did, I don’t know, maybe they would have taken a shot of the Jack Daniel’s, all I am saying is that things happen. I am guessing that somebody dumped it as they got near a Police car or something. The point of the issue is that one of the children in the neighborhood could have easily found that. I am not here to apply to close Lawrence Lane. The point of issue is that I think when you move into a community and you move next to a sidewalk, near a school, I think you have to be aware that there are going to be some problems. I have some friends that live near a school in another part of the city, and they experience problems fairly regularly of the same type. I am just here to say that this is beyond me. I am done. Thank you.” JOHNSON “Are there any questions? Is there anybody else here to speak in opposition?” SALLY SMITH GOOCH “I live at 7013 Stonegate, which is Block 12 next to 11, on the corner. I have lived in the Rockhurst Addition for only about 8 months. My history of the neighborhood expands approximately 25 years. I grew up in nearby Spring Acres and attended school at Price Elementary and Coleman Junior High. I knew many kids from the Rockhurst Addition and in fact spent the night regularly in the house that I now own when I was in grade school. The sidewalk in question has been in existence as long as I can remember. I walked it regularly when I attended Coleman. Never did I see anything that was out of the ordinary. My brother- in-law and sister-in-law lived in Rockhurst for 8 years and just recently moved. Their son, my nephew, safely walked that sidewalk for three years. My husband and I specifically bought in this neighborhood for these reasons. I have two children, a 5 year-old daughter and a 20- month old son. The nearby park and the school district and the fact that the Rockhurst Addition was considered by the Police as a crime free neighborhood were the reasons we purchased our house. The sidewalk was a major selling point for us. I remembered walking it when I attended Coleman, and I wanted to have safe access for my children. On Monday evening my husband addressed the CPO and specifically asked for facts that support the closing of the sidewalk. To this date we have received none. I am not referring to the nuisance items documented in the first round in 1997. I ask you, who hasn’t experienced at least one of these types of occurrences before? Especially if they choose to live next to a school, park or sidewalk? Dogs were teased, someone jumped on the fence, someone moved a sprinkler, and yes even someone urinated on the fence. All of these are irritating and non-desirable, but not critically to the point of closing the sidewalk. I submit to you that all of these occurrences could occur if the sidewalk was not there. The applicants still have a back fence line that backs up to Governeour Street, as do I. It backs up to Coleman and the park. What will stop someone from jumping the fence, teasing the dog, and yes even urinating from Governeour? What is next, closing Governeour? If you choose to close the sidewalk, you will be denying my children and many more in the neighborhood; safe and direct access to the park and later to Coleman. I have taught in middle school for the past 10 years. It has been my experience that administrators work hard with patrons to solve nuisance items. I know the Coleman Administrators and it has been recognized by the applicant’s that they have worked hard to solve this problem. I also know middle school kids. They usually react to how they are treated. I have personally witnessed certain neighbors lining the sidewalk and staring down certain children who are walking across the sidewalk. I find this behavior intimating, and I would guess that the students or the kids would also. These particular kids kept walking, said nothing, and continued through and on out of Rockhurst. In fact in the eight months that my husband and I have lived there, we have seen absolutely nothing or heard of absolutely nothing recent to justify the closure of this sidewalk. The fact that there is no additional documentation since this matter was decisively voted in 1997, carries no weight for me. In closing, my husband and I, strongly oppose the closing of the sidewalk. We want safe access for our children in the future. The good of the few does not out weight the good of the many. If the sidewalk is closed then it is forever. What of the future people in the neighborhood? What of my children who will go to Coleman someday? What of the neighborhood kids that will be attending Coleman next year? If this sidewalk closes what is next? College Hill? Harrison Park? Boston Park? Or possibly higher fences, barbed wire? Thank you.” JOHNSON “Anyone else to speak in opposition?” ALLEY WALLACE “I live at 6908 Stonegate. I will be a sixth grader next year and I will go to Coleman. I will have to go through the crosswalk. It is the easiest and the safest way to get to Coleman. I think safety should be the number one issue. The two other options to walk are 14th Street or 13th Street. 14th Street has no sidewalks; I would have to walk in the street. There are sidewalks on 13th Street but that is an extremely busy street. It is obvious that the crosswalk is the safest way. I hope that for the next three years I will be able to have the easy access to Coleman or any other place around there. The crosswalk has been there for 30 years and I think that it should stay.” JOHNSON “Are there any questions? Is there anyone else to speak in opposition?” MORGAN WALLACE “I live at 6908 Stonegate. I am going to be a freshman at Southeast High School and for the past three years I have attended Coleman Middle School. Almost everyday to get to and from school I walked on the crosswalk. Not once did I ever experience any problems. Never anything but kindness from the kids that walked across there with me. Even at times when it was getting dark after volleyball practice and I walked home. It is the safest way also. To walk through 14th Street or 13th Street is not safe, because 14th has no sidewalks, and 13th is very busy with traffic. I do not have any idea why anyone would want to close a crosswalk that is used for so many kids’ safety. Is our street really so private that we can’t have harmless kids walking down it? Of course not.” OSBORNE-HOWES “You used that sidewalk last year? Do you know about how many kids also from Rockhurst use that sidewalk? “ MORGAN WALLACE “I know that Drew Wade did. That is about all I can think of and Scott Cullens used to. Three of us.” JOHNSON “Is there anyone else to speak in opposition?” DREW WADE “I live at 625 Rutland. Until two weeks ago I lived at 7000 Stonegate. I am against closing the sidewalk. I used the sidewalk for more than three years walking to and from school and also walking to the park. I used the sidewalk at least twice a day and never had any problems. I never saw any graffiti written on sidewalks or fences. Or kids yelling at neighbors. It was a quick and convenient way for my friend and I to get to places without walking to 13th Street. Believe me, during the winter I wanted to get to school quick, in the cold weather, without taking a five-minute detour along 13th Street. I hope that my cousins that now live on the block will get to have the same opportunity that I had to use the sidewalk. Thank you.” JOHNSON “Are there questions? Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Seeing none, the applicant has two minutes for rebuttal. The applicant declines?” GOSCHA “There is nothing else to add.” JOHNSON “I will bring it back to the Commission. What is the pleasure of the Commission?” MICHAELIS “Did I understand that there was about ten students, or ten children a day that use this? I think the answer that Susan got was that there was three from Rockhurst, is that right? “ MORGAN WALLACE “There are other children that live in other areas of Rockhurst that walk through it to. “ MARNELL “I have question for staff on this. This is a utility easement as well, are there any utilities in that easement currently?” GOOCH “I would have to check that out.” KROUT “I believe that there are, and the intention is not to vacate the utility easement, that this would remain and would be available for utilities, whether for existing or future utilities. It is just to vacate the portion of the easement that deals with the sidewalk easement and the no-fencing requirement.” MARNELL “My second question is, this would have to do with the planning stages, if this came up as a subdivision, with a subdivision committee, would this be put in presently in the way that the plats are done today?” GOOCH “I couldn’t give you a 100% guarantee but I think planning staff would at least attempt to do something sort of like this to insure safety. All the time that we put in streets that connect other subdivisions, and therefore I think that we would also try to connect with sidewalks, which we generally do.“ MARNELL “I have seen several subdivision plats over the years but this is unique.” KROUT “I think that this is not the usual, and I think it is something that the staff would encourage. But as new plats come in, it is not something that the subdivision regulations require, and so we can only encourage it but we can’t require it of people who are doing new subdivisions. We have also encouraged that if two cul-de-sacs have lots back to back that we provide those side yard easements, if the streets don’t connect, that they at least connect with a walking path, pedestrian paths. But, I would agree with you that you don’t see this very often, although this is kind of feature that is encouraged in the sub-division regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. “ FRYE “I am familiar with only one other which is over in my area which is connecting between two properties. Price School connecting to the back schoolyard onto a cul-de-sac. If there are any others in the City that adjoin a park or a school, I am not aware of it.” KROUT “Frankly, the Planning Commission, is technically, on a regular basis, and maybe it is our fault for not pointing it out to you, where we have cases of blocks that face and connect onto collector or arterial streets. There is a recommendation that has been not adhered to about having some mid-block connections. “ OSBORNE-HOWES “I remember hearing this case a couple of years ago, didn’t we hear it twice?” JOHNSON “It was deferred.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I believe I voted against the last time and I do not see any reason to change my vote. If anything, I thought that some of the comments that the neighbors made reaffirmed my view. It sounds like this is a young neighborhood. I was asking a question, how many students would use it and we have got some young families moving in there knowing that their kids would use it sometime. I think I agree that it is an amenity and just a part of living next to a public sidewalk where you are going to have occasional altercations. I see no reason to close it off. “ MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that this request be denied. OSBORNE-HOWES moved, PLATT seconded the motion. KROUT “I just want to point out, because the question was raised about the private covenants that apply to this subdivision and whether or not that means that private rights would be injured if the City were to vacate it. That the covenants would go against it. I have talked to the Law office, but not Joe Lang, who is here this afternoon, and maybe he could elaborate. I did talk to Doug Mossier from the Law Department, and he suggested, and I guess I agree, that if the City were to take an action to vacate the sidewalk--allow the closing of the sidewalk--there are still covenants that if they are enforceable, they are still enforceable. The City’s action does not prevent the owners in this addition from continuing to take action. I think that we should say to you, taking the action of vacating the sidewalk and allowing it to be closed, does not prevent the homeowners from taking private action and so it does not injure those private rights that are established by the covenant. I do not think that is necessarily a reason for you to approve the vacation, I think there is a public policy issue here. But I do not think you should rely on the fact that it is injuring private rights. I think it has more to do with the loss it could be to the public if you were to deny it.” JOHNSON “Are there any questions?” FRYE “You did not mention this at all before.” KROUT “About the covenants?” FRYE “I did not hear any of this before. He did not point this out to us before.” KROUT “This issue of the covenants was not raised two years ago, so we did not look at it so closely. “ MCKAY “I am having a real problem with this. When we first heard this in 1997, we said go back neighbors and work it out, and it does not work, and now it two or three year later and evidently it still has not worked. I see the thing that has popped up since then, we were listening to the facts and now we are talking about nation’s rights, and democratic destiny and creating economic racial and social barriers. This one thing is going to cause Wichita not to get anything, anymore. I can’t support this motion. This Planning Commission voted 11-2 to close it, and the political pressure was put on our City Council, and they did not have guts enough to follow through with what we said. Now we are hearing it again. I cannot vote for the motion. I think this is ridiculous the way that this has been presented to us by the staff.” GAROFALO “Marvin, is it completely out of the realm of the possibility, if this sidewalk was closed, that a sidewalk couldn’t be put up by 14th Street? It is not very far up to 14th Street. It wouldn’t be between a couple of houses. Is that something that couldn’t be done?” KROUT “Is Randy Hoskins here? Will you please help me answer this question? The normal responsibility for constructing sidewalks and maintaining sidewalks is with homeowners. But we do have a fund for missing links, and in this case, does the Council have an option of at-large funds to build a sidewalk? Or because that would be a local street, 14th Street would they have to order in the sidewalk and then access it against the property owners on 14th Street?” RANDY HOSKINS, City Traffic Engineer “Typically, the funds that we have for sidewalks within the city are only for filling in arterial streets where the sidewalk is missing. The way that it is typically handled is that any sidewalk along residential streets is assessed and paid for by the residents. However, City Council would have the chance to waive that policy.” KROUT “Can’t they order in the sidewalk that is missing and access it? Even if the owners don’t want it to be accessed. “ HOSKINS “I would imagine they have that power.” GAROFALO “I would imagine that if this is so important to people, that they may be willing to pay for it if they had to. That is just a comment. To me it would seem to solve two problems. If the sidewalk was put up at 14th Street, it would solve these peoples’ problems, the homeowners, and it wouldn’t be in anybody’s backyard so to speak. 14th Street would be accessible to everybody.” WHEELER “The last time we discussed this, the crosswalk location on Governeour to the school is not aligned with this walkway. We sent it back to the neighborhood to try and solve. At least in my mind what we were trying to do was to line up pedestrian traffic with crosswalks to the school. If I recall the crosswalk aligns with 14th Street, is that correct?” GOOCH “Showing slides describing area.” KROUT “Maybe someone from the neighborhood could help us out?” OSBORNE-HOWES “It does align with the sidewalk easement.” KROUT “Was there a signal at that location at one time?” MICHAEL BANKSTON “I live at 7017 Stonegate. There was a signal at one time and we did the research to find out, that was before our time here in the neighborhood. It was taken out because so many of the students that would be traveling to Coleman did not live in this neighborhood. Maybe thirty years, and there were many more students that lived in the neighborhood, and they felt like it was appropriate to have that signalizing the crossing there. That was taken out and moved in favor of another location actually on 13th Street. There are two signalized locations that are on either side of where Governor would end. One to the west and one to the east. Now Governeour and 13th has a crosswalk, but it is not a signalized crosswalk. It is a crossing that you can cross there. It might be also important to point out that on 13th Street, they had just finished the construction on repairing all the sidewalk along 13th Street, just adjacent to our neighborhood. So the sidewalk is almost brand new now, is perfectly smooth, it is not next to 13th Street like you see some sidewalks that are just like right there.” LOPEZ “Marvin, you stated that there are utilities running down the easement.” KROUT “I think there is some utility but I do not remember which.” LOPEZ “If there is utilities would they still be maintained? Will the City allow the fencing to block it off? “ KROUT “Yes. We normally do.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed with 6 votes in favor (Lopez, Osborne-Howes, Warren, Garofalo, Platt and Carraher) and 7 in opposition (McKay, Johnson, Michaelis, Marnell, Frye, Hentzen and Wheeler). MOTION: That the request be approved. MCKAY moved MICHAELIS second the motion. KROUT “Do you want to talk about private rights and pubic convenience in your motion, John? MCKAY “No, all I want to talk about is the fact that I feel we have some neighborhoods out here that have tried to work together for the past three years and it does not always seem to be working. Of the people that were opposed some of them do not even live in the neighborhood any more. I do not know if you are taking one’s rights away from the other and give it to the other. “ KROUT “I would think that you are probably making the finding that there is not a substantial loss of inconvenience, because of the existing sidewalk on 13th Street.” MCKAY “Not for two families out of all of these around here. I have heard nothing to substantiate the fact, other than the two families that live in the area that use it. If people would be coming that go to Coleman school, and been here in rows and that we don’t want to use it every day. But I think we have a neighborhood situation here. We voted 11-2 before to close it. I think the pressure was put on City Council, and the motion was made to deny it and it failed, and so I am making a motion to approve the vacation. I don’t think anybody’s rights are being hurt.” GAROFALO “I would still like to see the possibility of seeing putting a sidewalk up at 14th Street if this was closed.” MCKAY “I don’t think you can make that part of the motion and you could make that as a recommendation if this thing passes then do it. “ KROUT “I think that it is already in the record and I will point it out when this case goes to City Council next Tuesday. After this motion, if you wanted to make a motion and see if there is a consensus within the Planning Commission about that, then we might want to do that.“ WARREN “I think the legal issue is going to be interesting. I certainly can’t predict what it is. We all know that those of us that have been in the real estate business. But once we granted somebody the right to use a certain egress, ingress it is pretty hard to take it away from them. Particularly if it is on public land. It is pretty difficult to take it way from them on private land.” MCKAY “I don’t think that is our responsibility.” WHEELER “The neighborhoods south of 13th and those children go to Coleman and they access from 13th Street like Hartmoor and those neighborhoods.” MCKAY “I think this is a situation that one or two people that did use it or would use it want to leave it opened an some people that live next door to it because of what has happened want it closed.” WHEELER “If we vacate as a public sidewalk when we refer to the covenants. That could become a private matter?” KROUT “Yes. I think there is some possibility that it is not our job to try to and interpret that private covenants are enforceable. The covenants could be enforced and the sidewalk forced to stay open. But they seem to be in effect. They say that unless there is a 60% vote to modify them or terminate them that it would not be a violation of those covenants to close the sidewalk. It is something the private owners would need to enforce.” WHEELER “Are you suggesting that this sidewalk is mentioned in that “covenants? KROUT “Yes. It specifically states that Lots 10 and 11 will leave that ingress and egress, and not fence across that area.” MCKAY “That is why you let the neighborhood make that decision.” WHEELER “Then it becomes an issue of the neighborhood of whether it is a private access.” PLATT “It seems to me that what we have got here is a argument between what I would call a planning decision and on the other hand a political decision. When the area was subdivided, the issue was raised that we need access to the park for this area that is being developed. We need access to the school; probably the right solution would have been to not allow that to be cul-de-sac but to put a street through there. Cul-de-sacs are popular and so somebody says all right, we will get around that by providing sidewalk access. Which in one sense makes a lot of sense, I suppose, but it produces a problem. It seems to me that the planning solution to this still says that there should be access to the school and the park. Now if for some reason people are not behaving and we get into a whole bunch of difficulties over personal issues, that is a political problem. The City Council being an elected body is the group that ought to be able to deal with the political problem. I have no problem at all if the City Council says close it, that is their job. Our job from a planning standpoint is to say there ought to be access through there, and certainly, in terms of the number of people speaking today, I have not seen any reason to suggest otherwise. “ FRYE “I voted against the previous motion because when it came up before, I voted to close this sidewalk. I am still going to vote to close this sidewalk. If you are looking at it from a planning standpoint, when that was put through there and that addition was there that was thirty years ago. Things change, situations change, we do not do things the same way we did thirty years ago. We did not have sidewalks along 13th Street. I know when I lived on 13th we had a ditch. Things change. I think they do have access to that school and that park. It may be a little bit different but they do have access. I do not believe that it is a safety factor at all. Quite frankly, when I see four people in the Editorial page to recommend something that usually is a sign for me to vote the other way.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 7 votes in favor (Johnson, Wheeler, Marnell, McKay, Michaelis, Frye and Hentzen), and 6 in opposition (Platt, Carraher, Garofalo, Warren, Osborne-Howes and Lopez). MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to look at the alternative of replacing this sidewalk with a sidewalk at 14th Street. GAROFALO moved, FRYE seconded the motion. MCKAY “Could that have been a part of the motion? I started to make that a part of the original motion.” LANG “You have the right to place conditions on your actions, but, a sidewalk is an action that requires a whole different set of procedures. I think a recommendation is probably the best way to go.” KROUT “Let’s talk about this Joe. I think that it would be possible it can be closed have a motion that a condition of the vacation would be that only if the sidewalk is replaced on 14th Street.” MCKAY “Does that mean that Garofalo motion would be a recommendation.” KROUT “Right now that is what it is, unless you are willing to amend your motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “My comment is that if we think that they obviously still need a sidewalk, then what that says is we shouldn’t have voted to oppose this in the first place. That is my opinion.” MCKAY “I think if the politicians would not have gotten involved in this it would have been taken care of two years ago.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 11 votes in favor and 2 in opposition (Osborne-Howes and Platt). KROUT “For the audience who is here on this case, this will be on the City Council Agenda under Unfinished Business which, puts it at the beginning of the Council Agenda. As you heard earlier this afternoon, the Councils policy is not to open up this item or any item on which that they had the advertised public hearing. You may want to be there in case the Council has any specific questions of either the applicants or of the neighborhood. You should not expect that they are going to open it up like this for public hearing.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON “We will be pulling items 2/6, 2/9 and 2/12 for comments.” Subdivision items 2/7, 2/8, 2/10 and 2/11 were approved, subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations (MCKAY moved WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). Items taken out of order: 2/7. S/D 99-32 – Final Plat of BLUESTEM ACRES ADDITION (Formerly Kaydee’s Summit Addition), located on the northeast corner of 279th Street West and 61st Street North. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Health Department shall comment on the feasibility of building sites for lots 6, 7 and 8 which are encumbered by floodway reserves. Health Department has approved the site for sewage lagoons. The applicant shall place a note on thew face of the plat regarding lagoon placement. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. The northwestern portion of the site is encumbered by the 100-year floodplain and platted as a floodway reserve. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. Minimum building elevations need to be revised. D. County Engineering should comment on the proposed access controls and the need for complete access control from the intersection. County Engineering has requested 100-ft of complete access control from the intersection for each street. Access control except one opening per lot is required along the south line of the plat. The requested access controls have been denoted. E. A temporary turnaround will need to be established by separate instrument. F. County Fire should comment on the length of the private street (2,600 ft) which exceeds the 1,600 ft limitation specified in the Subdivision regulations. The platting of the street as a stub for future connection to the north is acceptable. G. The applicant needs to guarantee the installation of the street, and dedicate it as a public right-of-way. H. The applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. County Fire shall comment on the acceptability of the street name. The street name is acceptable. J. A covenant shall be filed setting forth ownership and maintenance of the private drive reserve along with future reversionary rights of the reserve to the lots benefiting from the reserve. 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.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell has requested an additional 10-ft utility easement to be located within the building setback. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/8. S/D 99-43 – One-step final plat of CASA DE AGUA ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of Meridian and 61st Street North. A. City water is available to serve this site, which will be utilized to serve Valley Center. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for easements or guarantees. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening along 61st St. North and complete access control along Meridian; consistent with the site plan submitted with the Conditional Use. Traffic Engineering has requested that the opening be located within the west 30 feet of the plat. E. On the final plat tracing, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat indicating that this Addition is subject to conditions of Conditional Use, CU-503. F. The final plat tracing should be signed by the party holding a mortgage on the site as indicated by the plat binder. G. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. H. The applicant’s agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/10. S/D 99-44 – One-Step Final Plat of BUU QUANG TEMPLE ADDITION, located on the west side of Hydraulic Avenue, south of 47th Street South. A. Existing municipal services appear to be available to this site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes an existing access opening along the south 30 feet of the lot’s frontage to Hydraulic. The access controls are acceptable. E. 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. F. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. G. 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. H. 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.) I. 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. J. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. K. 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. L. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. M. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. N. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. O. 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. P. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/11. S/D 98-17 – One-Step Final Plat of WESTRIDGE ADDITION, located on the east side of 119th Street West, South of 29th Street North. A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed, to allow for the lot sizes being platted. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for other guarantees or easements. 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. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. A guarantee is required. County Engineering requests a copy of the drainage plan. E. The plat proposes two points of access from 119th St. West. G. Traffic Engineering shall comment on the need for additional right-of-way for 119th St. West. No additional right-of-way is required. H. Traffic Engineering shall comment on the need for improvements to 119th St. West. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for left turn lanes at both accesses onto 119th Street. I. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the interior streets. The paving guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on one side of the continuous through streets – Ryan, Parkridge and Central Park. J. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. K. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. L. City Fire shall comment on the acceptability of the street names. City Fire has requested that the loop street extending off of Ryan shall be renamed “Ryan Place”. M. If the pipeline easement indicated in the platting binder is encumbering the plat, it shall be shown and the plat will be subject to the standard pipeline conditions. Otherwise, verification must be provided that the easement is off-site or has been released. N. The final plat tracing shall reference a tie point to a section corner. O. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. 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 316-729-0102) 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 be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 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. Southwestern Bell and KGE have requested additional easements. Y. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item taken out of order: 2/6. S/D 97-14 – Revised Final Plat of REGENCY PARK ADDITION, located on the south side of 29th Street North and on the west side of Greenwich. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. An off-site drainage agreement and cross-lot drainage agreement are required. A drainage guarantee is also required. D. The plat shall delete the word “complete” in the access control area adjoining Lot 1, Block 1. E. The proposed 25-ft building setbacks do not conform with those imposed by the Protective Overlay (50-foot front yard setback). An administrative adjustment would be required. F. The Protective Overlay required the platting of a public access easement connecting the K-96 Expressway bike trail to the soccer fields located west of this plat. The connection will be located within the right-of-way and an administrative adjustment will be required to eliminate this condition. G. A cross-lot circulation agreement is required for internal access in accordance with the protective overlay. H. Fire Department shall comment on the acceptability of the street names. I. Lot 1 shall be limited to one access opening to Greenwich in the south 60 feet of this lot. J. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the interior streets. K. Lot 1, Block 1 exceeds the lot depth to width ratio and a modification will need to be granted. L. 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. M. 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. N. 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. O. A Notice of Protective Overlay Certificate shall be provided, identifying the approved Protective overlay and its special conditions for development on this property. 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 316-729-0102) 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 be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 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. KGE has requested additional easements. Y. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. Z. The Applicant shall include the soccer fields as part of this plat and include the City of Wichita as a signatory to the plat. DALE MILLER, Planning staff “This is basically a debate over access control. It is my understanding that the applicant has a lot here. It is fairly large. This would be 29th Street, if it were there. Twenty-ninth Street has been vacated sometime in the past, so there is a ‘T’ intersection here with Greenwich, 29th Street comes in from the east and ‘Ts’, so if 29th were here, it would go on. There is about 70 feet of space between the north property line and this line to what would be the south pavement of 29th Street as proposed for those of you on the Subdivision Committee. You may remember that Regency Park Addition is a warehouse industrial project, but that this balance here that is not shown is going to be a recreational center for soccer and baseball fields, if that helps you get oriented. What is proposed by staff is that there be no access along this particular lot to Greenwich other than a temporary access point until such time as 29th Street is put in, and at that time there would be a permanent access north to 29th Street. The argument is that we try and minimize the number of access points to arterial streets. With this eventually going in to serve the soccer field, that they could provide a connection here and not have a connection there. As you can see, there are lots that are backing up to this and then this is the proposed street here. Another solution would have been for there to be an access point to come up from the south and connect here. Greg Allison is here for the applicant, and Randy Hoskins is here from Traffic Engineering if you have any more questions. But I think that is the basic issue at hand.” JOHNSON “Are there any other questions? Applicant or agent.” GREG ALLISON “I am with Mid-Kansas Engineering, representing the applicant. I have a couple of handouts that I want to pass out. What I want to do with the handout is to be able to represent to you what is going on in a drawing where hopefully it is understandable what we are wanting to do. As Dale said, this road leads to the soccer field that was donated to the City by the applicant some time back, and also to the proposed northeast baseball facilities, which are yet to be constructed. Then on west of there is Jabara Airport, so it will be essentially a dead-end road, and really it is a drive to access these facilities, primarily. What I have is on the bigger one. This shows the layout of the lot adjacent to the road, and that road, as you can see, is right off Greenwich. It is about 70 feet from our north property line. Our north property line is separated by some open space along there. What we propose to do is to have a permanent point of access along the south property line that is approximately 60 feet wide, provided you guys vote in favor of that. What I would like to do with the second hand-out; this is a study that has been done on the northeast Wichita Sewer Service area, and the shaded area represents the extent of what the City is able to serve with sewer at this point without having to do some major improvements, other than the extension of lines. In other words, just north of this road is the top of the hill where sewer can be served, so as far as we know, no other public improvements are intended to be out further some time in the future. The other thing is, along 29th, east of here it is my understanding that that is classified as a collector road right now, and up to the year 2020. I know they are doing a new study now, so I don’t know if that is going to change any classifications there. What I hope to do with this information is to represent to you how far away we are from the intersection. We feel that there is adequate distance there to get people in and out of not only our lot here, but also the soccer field and any activity along 29th Street. The other thing is just to kind of represent to you how this is maybe the ‘end of the world’ so to speak, as far as City improvements that can be extended without some major undertaking by the City. We don’t foresee a lot of development going on, hence, how that relates to traffic improvements, and how this access point will affect anything else going on. I know in the Subdivision regs, the new ones that were just passed, they have a regulation about being 250 feet from a major arterial road, and you can have right-in, right- out only. What I want to do is represent, on the bigger drawing, that we are over the 250 for that kind of rule and we feel a full access is really something that has been approved before in other places with a lot more congestion and traffic than this one, and we would like to be able to have that same consideration here. The owner of the parcel is here, too and would be happy to answer any questions you might have as well.” KROUT “I have two questions. Did you say 29th Street is going to be developed as a private road and not a public street?” ALLISON “Do you mean going west of Greenwich? Well, at this time, I have talked with Vicky (Huang) and she will get back with me as to whether they want that as a public road or a private road, but essentially, it serves the soccer field and the baseball field, and as part of some agreements, it will serve this lot. So we do intend to have access off of that, but we also would like to have access off of Greenwich, as well.” KROUT “Maybe that relates to the other question. I don’t know if the Subdivision Committee talked about it, but this does require a waiver of regulations that say that lots should not be more than 3 times longer than they are wide. It is a very long and narrow lot, and it is kind of unusual. Are there plans for this particular property?” ALLISON “I think there is. The land is under contract, as far as I now, right now, and I think Mr. Ramseyer with Ritchie Associates can answer some of those questions. Rob?” ROB RAMSEYER “I am with Ritchie Associates. We are the managing partner of Regency Park, LLC, who owns this ground at this time. We feel strongly that we need another access into this lot. Twenty-ninth Street, as far as I know, at this time, will be a public road, that is the way it is petitioned; serving that lot, the soccer fields and the baseball field. We feel that at certain times when the soccer field is in use and the baseball field is in use, it would be inappropriate to have the users of that lot jam up with any soccer or baseball traffic. We feel that that unfairly burdens that lot and is a real inconvenience and detriment to that lot. There are other openings along there. We don’t feel that we have asked for too many openings along there. We are a ways from 29th Street which would be a dead-end street going back to the west. As you all know, we donated the ground for the soccer fields to the City and Partners put the infrastructure in at a substantial cost. It is our hope that those things will kick off and be used quite a bit, which is a good news/bad news thing for that lot. As Greg said, without reiterating, we are a ways away from the 29th Street Intersection there, being basically a ‘T’ back into the soccer fields. In general, we have been pretty agreeable to staff recommendations. While we have argued a little bit, we have been agreeable to, on other plats on accesses, etc., probably more so than any of our neighbors in the other areas of other plats, so we sure would appreciate your consideration on this.” KROUT “Did you say how you thought the lot was going to develop?” RAMSEYER “We have somebody, if he is not under contract he will be shortly, and so I really don’t want to say. It could be a user that would be a reasonably large building, requiring that kind of space, but not a whole bunch of people involved.” KROUT “Have you considered an easement from 28th Street between the lots off of 28th Street as an alternative?” RAMSEYER “Yeah, we have looked at a number more. We have spent more money on land planning on this thing than I hate to admit, and with the people we have kicking tires and seriously negotiating contracts right now, I don’t think that would work.” WARREN “It is my understanding that your main concern and your advocacy at this point is to get an opening onto Greenwich into what I think is Lot 1?” RAMSEYER “Right. Lot 1 is right here and all we are asking is for one more opening.” KROUT “Limited to the southern 60 feet. Isn’t that right?” RAMSEYER “Yeah, that is what Greg has proposed.” WARREN “Isn’t that what we approved in Subdivision?” KROUT “Apparently not.” MCKAY “No, what we approved was, when we were discussing this, there were two things brought up. One, the cross from the south with an easement, like Marvin was talking about, and we were discussing the temporary and then Greg said no, that 29th Street was going to go in, blah, blah, blah, blah, so we thought that 29th was going to be there and we would utilize 29th rather than the one over here because the Traffic Engineer and staff recommended not to put one there.” WARREN “I see. I see no problem with what they are asking for.” MCKAY “Well, I am just saying that the motion was made to that effect.” WARREN “What is on the north side of 29th Street?” RAMSEYER “The north side of 29th, adjacent to the soccer fields would be the property the city has purchased for baseball, and then there is another private user, an original family trust still owns some undeveloped ground there.” WARREN “Twenty-ninth is going to die right there as it goes west?” RAMSEYER “Yes, sir.” JOHNSON “Are there any other questions?” PLATT “First of all, you mentioned kicking tires…are you talking about a used car lot here?” (Laughter) RAMSEYER “No, sir.” PLATT “Sorry, I couldn’t resist that. Who owns this part called ‘open space’ on this?” RAMSEYER “That would be this lot right here (indicating).” PLATT “Okay. You are calling it open space. It is between the lot and 29th Street.” ALLISON “That open space is part of what will be the road right-of-way or reserve, which probably would be dedicated to the soccer field. That is more than likely what it would be, road or soccer field-type maintenance.” MCKAY “Greg, does that mean you guys are going to build this 300+ medial that you have designed here? Is it going to be that long?” ALLISON “Yes. We proposed that because of the stacking that goes on with the disbursement of the soccer field. We worked that out with the owners and with the City Engineering.” JOHNSON “Are there any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. The Traffic Engineer is here if anybody has questions of him.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved subject to Subdivision Committee recommendations, with the exception that an opening off of Greenwich onto Lot 1 in the southerly 60 foot be allowed. WARREN moved, FRYE seconded the motion. JOHNSON “Is there any discussion?” KROUT “I guess I would just say that the Traffic Engineer is suggesting to you that that 250 feet is a minimum standard. On the other hand, I do have to say that the idea of having only an access point to that lot via a street that is going to be primarily a street for kids and sports, we would normally want to separate out the industrial traffic from the residential traffic, so if you were going to make an exception from good access management, I think this would probably be a good place to do it. Somehow, I think with all of that private planning, there is a better solution there to that lot with its configuration, but I guess I think that if you are going to make an exception, I can see the reason why in terms of not wanting to mix the traffic and rely on that street that is primarily for playing fields.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (13-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/9. S/D 99-42 – One-Step Final Plat of HOLLAND VENTURES ADDITION, located north of Kellogg, on the west side of Tyler. A. Existing municipal services appear to be available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to verify if other guarantees are required. No other guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A revised drainage plan is required. D. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. E. The legal description shall be revised to accurately portray the land being platted. F. The plat is located within the immediate proximity of the proposed new interchange of US 54 Highway and Tyler Road. Traffic Engineering should comment on any improvements needed to Tyler. No improvements are required. G. 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. H. 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.) I. 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. J. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. K. 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. L. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. M. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. N. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. O. 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 disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. JOHNSON “Commissioner Garofalo had a question on this item.” GAROFALO “I have a couple of questions. One, I was wondering, and I have no idea who voted in the negative on this in the Subdivision, but I am curious. I just wondered why? Also, I have jotted down here…what about access now and later? I will have to refresh my own memory on what I meant by that.” MCKAY “Frank, I believe the reason George voted against that was because the Traffic Engineer wanted to line up the approaches across the street from each other. We said we didn’t think that was necessary because they are under construction over there, too, and this is already in existence and he would have to move it. I think that was why George voted against it, right, George?” PLATT “Yes.” MCKAY “I can’t answer your other question.” WARREN “But we are talking about an existing drive, aren’t we?” MCKAY “Yes.” JOHNSON “What was your other question?” GAROFALO “The other question was about access, but now I can’t recall what I wanted to know.” KROUT “Is this an existing drive for a developed property?” MILLER “We were doing the orientation and Neil was in here.” GAROFALO “I will let the other question go because I don’t want to waste any time.” JOHNSON “Is there anyone else here to speak on item 2/9? Seeing none, what is the pleasure of the Commission?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WHEELER moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/12. S/D 99-45 – One step final plat of NEWMAN UNIVERSITY ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of Sheridan and McCormick. A. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. City Engineering requests the platting of a utility easement along lots 3, 4 and 5 to cover the existing sanitary sewer. A guarantee is required for the extension of sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A cross-lot drainage agreement is required. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes two access openings along McCormick Avenue. Traffic Engineering has limited the site to no more than one access opening along McCormick. E. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. F. The applicant’s agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. 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. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities, which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell has requested additional utility easements. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. JOHNSON “Susan will be abstaining on this item. Are there any questions on it?” GAROFALO “I do have one. What is the status on the vacations?” KROUT “I know that at least two of those have been vacated. Keith, can you answer that?” GOOCH “To the best of my knowledge, they are mostly being vacated through this plat.” MCKAY “Right.” GOOCH “That is how we are going to vacate them instead of going through the separate replatting of this area. Through the plat you are allowed to vacate streets.” GAROFALO “Those are like on the campus?” GOOCH “Yes.” MCKAY “Frank, there is a street between the main campus and where the athletic field is, and they are just cleaning it all up is basically what they are doing.” GAROFALO “Okay.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MCKAY moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried with 12 votes in favor. There was no opposition. Osborne-Howes abstained. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 3a. Case No. DP-138 Amendment #2 – Amendment to Parcel 5 of the Meridian Outlet Mall CUP to allow a communication tower as a permitted use, and; 3b. Case No. Z-3324 – Zone change from “LC” Limited Commercial to “GC” General Commercial on property described as: The South 85 feet of the West 85 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, YMCA South Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Lots 1-3 inclusive, Block 1, YMCA South Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of I-235, approximately one-half mile west of Meridian. KROUT “Donna, we are expecting a request for a 2 week deferral on this case, so you can just be very brief with the presentation.” DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to amend Parcel 5 of the Meridian Outlet Mall CUP (DP-138) to allow, as a permitted use, a 150 foot communication tower and to rezone 7,225 square feet from “LC” Limited Commercial to “GC” General Commercial. The application area is located north of I-235, approximately one-half mile west of Meridian, in the extreme southwestern corner of a larger tract, the Meridian Outlet Mall. The Meridian Outlet Mall is bordered by Meridian Avenue on the east, by a drainage channel extending from the end of Sheridan to I-235 on the west, by 33rd Street South on the north, and by I-235 on the south. The application area is adjacent to Parcel 4 which is currently being developed as the Wichita YMCA New South Branch. The applicant has submitted a site plan, which shows two 12 by 20-foot buildings, each of which could be used by two separate carriers, and another 8 foot by 12 foot pad site for a third potential carrier. The 150-foot “monopole type” tower would be located in the northeastern portion of the site. A six-foot tall chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire is shown surrounding the tower and pad sites to enclose the area between the buildings and prevent unauthorized access to the site. A gate at the southeastern corner of the fenced area would allow authorized entrance to the site via open space to the YMCA parking lot approximately 1000 feet to the east. All development is located in the northeastern quadrant of the site in order to comply with the 35 foot setback required on the southern and western property lines by the CUP. The site is Parcel 5 of the CUP, created by administrative adjustment May 9, 1999, from Parcel 4 of the CUP. This adjustment reduced the size of Parcel 4 from 57.90 acres to 57.73 acres and created Parcel 5 with 7,225 square feet and a maximum height of 35 feet, maximum coverage of 35 percent, and maximum gross floor area of 35 percent. Uses were limited to outdoor and indoor recreational uses, the same as previously allowed for Parcel 4. In order to allow the development of the communication tower, the applicant is now seeking an amendment to the CUP to allow “commercial communication tower” as a permitted use and a zoning change from “LC” to “GC” as required for communication towers. In addition, the applicant is seeking a variance to the compatibility setback requirements of 345 feet to 50 feet from the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 22 (BZA 17-99) to allow the tower to be 150 feet in height. The Unified Zoning Code permits communication towers in the "GC" General Commercial and more intensive districts by right. However, the Zoning Code requires the applicant to provide the following information, in order to ensure that no more new towers are constructed than are absolutely necessary: (1) there is no available space on existing or approved towers or other structures, which can be utilized to meet the applicant's communication needs; (2) existing tower or other such structure on which the communication equipment may be located, or to modify an approved tower or other structure. A rebuilding opportunity will be considered fiscally feasible if the cost of rebuilding an existing tower is no more than the cost of building a new tower on a new site; (3) the owner of the tower shall agree in writing at the time of the issuance of a building permit the following; (a) that the tower is designed to accommodate at least three communication companies and that reasonable accommodations will be made to lease space on the tower to other communication companies so as to avoid having a proliferation of towers which are not fully utilized, and (b) the owner of the land and the tower will make available in the future the opportunity for another party to pay the cost to rebuild the tower to support additional communication equipment where physically and fiscally feasible. Communications Information Services, Inc. has provided an evaluation of the proposed request for the cell tower. The findings were that a facility in this area is reasonably necessary to the I-235 and the adjacent areas. It pointed to two potential existing sites, the existing tower located at the Cleaveland Traditional Magnet School, and Site 62 (3101 South All Hallows). Cellular One has responded that Site 62 is too far north to provide adequate coverage of the holes in service that they are experiencing. CIS confirmed verbally that Site 62 is far enough to the north that even if Cellular One were to co-locate on this tower, it would still be faced with needing improved coverage to the south of I-235 and need to build an additional tower in that vicinity. Cellular One has agreed that the Cleaveland Elementary site would be an adequate substitute for the South YMCA site and would be willing to use it if it is available. At the time of preparation of the staff report it was not known if the school site would be available. Recent communications to Cellular One provided to Staff has indicated that AT&T is interested in co-locating on the site. The surrounding land use is a mix of institutional, quasi-institutional and transportation uses. As previously mentioned, Parcel 5 is carved out of the southwest corner of a 58 acre tract (Parcel 4 of Meridian Mall Outlet) that is being developed as the Wichita YMCA South Branch (“YMCA”). The YMCA is constructing a large indoor recreation facility on the center of the tract, accessed from a serpentine parkway connecting with Meridian. The site plan includes eventual development of eight soccer fields and 18 baseball/softball fields. To the west of the site, there is a drainage channel and a large open field owned by USD #259. Cleaveland Traditional Magnet Elementary School is located on the northern portion of the tract. To the south of the site is I-235, but there is no direct access to the highway from the site. There are two large church properties located south of I-235 across from the site. The nearest residential areas are Southwest Village Fourth Addition beginning 900 feet northwest of the site and Southwest Village Third Addition beginning 1,200 feet north of the site. CASE HISTORY: YMCA South Addition was platted July 7, 1998. The property was rezoned “LC” and approved as Meridian Outlet Mall Amendment #1 March 3, 1998. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC” Wichita YMCA South Branch SOUTH: “SF-6” Drainage ditch, I-235, church EAST: “LC” Wichita YMCA South Branch WEST: “SF-6” Drainage channel, open field, Cleaveland Elementary School PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access across an open field to the YMCA’s parking lot and from there, to Meridian. Traffic demand generated by the site would be minimal. Municipal water and sewer are available to serve the site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide identifies this area as appropriate for commercial development, medium and high density uses. However, the property was rezoned “LC” in 1998 as part of Amendment #1 to the CUP, effectively recommending commercial use for the entire Meridian Outlet Mall tract. The Plan recommends that commercial developments of this size should be located in "planned centers" versus extended strip developments. Such "centers" should be designed with shared internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, combined signage, similar landscaping and building materials, and combined ingress/egress locations. The Transportation utilities locational guidelines in the Plan also recommend that utility facilities with significant noise, odor, and other nuisance elements should be located away from residential areas. Adopted policy in the treatment of communication towers is also established in the Zoning Code, regarding the need to document that no existing or approved towers or structures can meet the communication need, or an existing or approved tower or structure can be used, modified, or rebuilt before a new tower is permitted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that this is a potentially suitable site for a communication tower. The tower would be separated from residential uses by drainage channels, I-235, a school, a large open field, and the YMCA recreational fields. However, since it has not yet been determined that this is the only feasible option, due to the possibility of utilizing the Cleaveland School site, staff recommends deferring this request until it has been determined if Cellular One can co-locate at Cleveland School. Should the MAPC vote to approve this request, we recommend the motion and findings as follows: A. APPROVE the rezoning from “LC” Limited Commercial to “GC” General Commercial. B. APPROVE the amendment to the Meridian Outlet Mall C.U.P. to allow a communication tower on Parcel 5, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan, with a six-foot tall chain link fence constructed around the perimeter of the site. The 85 foot by 85 foot area shall only be used for a communication tower and related equipment. 2. All requirements of Section III.D.6.g of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. 3. The applicant shall file and receive approval for a variance request to reduce the compatibility setback requirement from 345 feet to 50 feet for a 150-foot tall communication tower. 4. The tower shall be a monopole type tower and not exceed 150 feet in height and be in conformance with the site plan as approved and attached hereto. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning uses and character of the neighborhood: There are large open spaces located on all sides of Parcel 4. The nearest buildings are the YMCA, a school, and a church. A drainage ditch is located just to the west and south of the application area. The closest residential development is approximately 900 feet northwest of the application area. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is currently zoned “LC” and is undeveloped. There is no “GC” General Commercial zoning in the area but because it is such a small area and the conditions placed on the request it is unlikely that there are any possible uses of this property, which would be unsuitable for the area. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The communication tower will not significantly increase trash, noise, or traffic in the area and therefore should not detrimentally affect nearby properties. The residential property to the north and northwest should not be significantly impacted due to the separation by other uses between the tower and the residences. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for medium density residential use, however since the remaining portion of the area already is being developed as commercial (YMCA), it is unlikely any of the tract could be utilized for medium density residential. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None identified. KROUT “Let me explain to the Planning Commission why I think we are getting a request for a deferral. You may have heard that the City Council did approve the CUP amendment and the rezoning for the Carriage Park Tower, but after that motion they also voted to direct the staff to bring back a resolution to consider adopting a moratorium on the permitting of new towers for a 6 month period and that period time would coincide with the study that we hope to have under way, beginning next month. We have Request for Proposals out, and we have proposals coming in, so we do hope to hire a consultant team to work on a study that would be at least City-wide and possibly involve county as well as city land. So, given that circumstance and given the fact that there is still the potential for Cellular One to cooperate with Cleveland School, right next door, which has a tower that could be capable of being modified or rebuilt, and given that the school board, Monday night said that they were not going to take any actions on working with carriers on rebuilding or modifying, or locating equipment on our towers until after the City’s study is done because we want to be in sync with the City’s study. We can’t say that there is not still an opportunity, but we also can’t say that there is, right now, an opportunity for Cleveland School. So, we suggested to the applicant that the best thing to do is to request a deferral. If they are requesting a deferral for two weeks, which will give them enough time to see exactly what the City Council does next Tuesday in terms of a moratorium, I think that maybe the applicant’s agent may want to add to that. But that is the situation as we understand it.” JOHNSON “Applicant or agent.” RUSS EWY “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. As Marvin said, we would be agreeable, I guess, to the 2- week deferral in order to clarify this moratorium that was proposed last Tuesday. Unless, of course, you all figure that you have enough evidence in front of you to make an overwhelming approval today. We would accept that also. In light of that, we would be agreeable to the deferral. Do you have any questions about what we are proposing that can’t wait?” WHEELER “Marvin, if we deferred this for two weeks and then they adopt a moratorium, then this may be put off for 6 months then, is that the case?” KROUT “Yes. Joe, would that action preclude the Planning Commission from taking action?” JOE ALLEN LANG, Law Department, “There is nothing that would legally preclude the MAPC from acting on it today, but it is rezoning, it would go to the City Council, and they would express an opinion on what they are going to do with it.” MOTION: That the item be deferred for 2 weeks. FRYE moved, MCKAY seconded the motion. JOHNSON “Is there anybody else here to speak on this item?” KROUT “By the way, this is new Commissioner Ron Marnell. He came in a little late, so we didn’t get a chance to introduce him appropriately. He was appointed by Councilmember Martz. Didn’t you say you wanted to abstain on this item due to a conflict of interest?” MARNELL “Yes. If you look at the documents, I am probably the one who signed them. I probably should abstain.” KROUT “I would say so.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 12 votes in favor. There was no opposition. Marnell abstained. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Case No. CU-526 – Halfway House for Adults, Inc. c/o Alan McGregor, request a Conditional Use to permit a correctional placement residence on property described as: The East 6 feet of Lot 118, all of Lots 120 and 122, the West 10 feet of Lot 124, the South 100’ of the East 15 feet of Lot 124, the South 100 feet of Lot 126, and the South 100 feet of the West 10 feet of Lot 128, all on Central Avenue in Central Avenue Addition to the city of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. And The North 40 feet of the East 15 feet of Lot 124 and the North 40 feet of Lots 126, 128, 130 and 132, on Central Avenue in Central Avenue Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. And Lots 1,3,5 and 7, on Chautauqua Avenue in central Avenue Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of Central and west of Chautauqua. KEITH GOOCH, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use permit to allow a correctional placement residence on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial located north of Central and west of Chautauqua. A portion of the property is zoned “TF-3” Two- family but would be limited to a parking lot through a BZA use exception approved in 1980 for ancillary parking. Correctional placement residences are permitted “by-right” in areas zoned “LC”, as well as other commercial and industrial districts, except when the property is located within 750 feet from a residential zone (unless it is separated by a major barrier). In this case, a correctional placement residence requires a Conditional Use permit. The existing facility is located in a City-owned building at 1137 North Broadway and has to be relocated because they lost their lease. The applicant has stated that there will be a total of 33 (24 men and nine females) persons at this location, with all individuals being federal pretrial or pre release inmates. The applicant has stated that as a rule, “no individuals at this location would be convicted of violent crimes.” All individuals would be required to be in the building by 9 p.m. unless at work. The only place for individuals to be outside of the building is a small smoking area north of the main building, which has a camera on it at all times. No persons would be permitted to loiter in the neighborhood. There is currently a vacant 6,992 square foot building located along Central with 16 parking spaces to the west of this building. The site would have one opening to Central and would be connected to four lots along Chautauqua. These four lots along Chautauqua consist of an existing home and 22 parking spaces. A six-foot tall fence is located along west and north property lines on these four lots. The applicant’s site plan shows two openings to Chautauqua, one of these will be constructed if approved. The Unified Zoning Code requires correctional placement residences, general to provide one parking space per occupant plus one parking space. Therefore, the applicant would be required to provide 34 parking spaces. The site plan shows a total of 37 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant would meet the Unified Zoning Code parking requirement. There are commercial properties to the east, south and west of the application area zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. No