METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, May 11, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., in the Planning Department conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Frank Garofalo, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival);Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson (late arrival) Richard Lopez (late arrival); Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes (late arrival); George Platt; Ray Warren; Harold Warner, Jr.; and Deanna Wheeler. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Associate Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Presentation on the Sedgwick County/City of Wichita Backyard Drainage Policies Effective. CHRIS CARRIER, Storm Water Engineer, City of Wichita briefed the MAPC members on the following report, and answered questions. 1. Develop Master Drainage Plan for the subdivision with a minimum of four required grade elevations identified at each lot on the plat. Streets, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer elevations will be checked by the appropriate governmental jurisdiction to assure they are built in accordance with the engineered plans. The developer will stipulate, for each buildable lot, whether a buried basement (B), view-out (VO) or walkout (WO) basement is proposed. The four elevations to be established for each lot or home are: A. Elevation of top of street curb. B. Minimum elevation of top of foundation. C. Minimum elevation of top of view-out wall or a walkout wall, whichever the lot is designed for. D. Rear drainage swale elevations (Survey monuments to be set on grade on each lot line and flagged). The Master Drainage Plan shall be submitted along with the final plat, a minimum of two weeks prior to consideration by the Subdivision Committee of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC). 2. Record Master Drainage Plan with Register of Deeds. 3. The Master Drainage Plan will provide detailed information for individual builders so that they will have all the necessary information as to the type of residences that can be built on certain lots. 4. Subdivision plats shall clearly label all easements, right-of-ways, or reserves as drainage facilities when said facilities are used as a part of the Master Drainage Plan or lot grading plan. 5. The subdivision plat shall clearly state that a drainage plan has been developed for the subdivision and that all drainage easements, right-of-ways, or reserves shall remain at the established grades and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of storm water. 6. If the subdivision Master Drainage Plan calls for the drainage of properties by back lot line drainage swales, the minimum allowable swale slope shall be 1.0%. Flatter slopes will require the paving of the swale or the installation of underground pipe and inlets to maintain positive drainage. Requirements to be imposed on builders are as follows: 1. Builders will be required to develop individual lot grading plans consistent with the subdivision Master Drainage Plan and to construct basement and foundation walls to comply with said plans. The objective of these requirements is to make sure that final grades can be set so that they will work in substantial compliance with the Master Drainage Plan for the lot and area. Minor variances may be allowed providing there is no negative impact on the Master Drainage Plan. 2. Builders will be required to get a verification from a surveyor after basement walls are poured and before plumbing groundwork inspection to verify that wall elevations are built in accordance with the lot grading plan. This verification can be provided by an engineer or registered surveyor and must be submitted to the appropriate building code enforcement agency in order to get the plumbing groundwork inspection. At the time the survey verification is done, the surveyor will be instructed to verify, in addition to the basement wall heights, the elevation of the rear and side lot flow line monuments, two curb elevations in front of the lot, the elevation of the top of any manholes on the property, and the elevation of any storm drainage inlets. Builder will be required to protect and maintain rear flow line monuments during construction. 3. If a walkout, or view-out, is designated as the correct residence on a particular lot and the builder wishes to vary from it, in terms of the elevation to be built, it will be allowed. However, the builder must consult with the design engineer for the subdivision and provide proof to the code enforcement agency that has jurisdiction that the drainage requirements can still be met. GAROFALO “Marvin, do we need to take any action on this?” KROUT “You could make a motion saying that you concur with this.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission concur with the report and forward it on to the governing body. MCKAY moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). Barfield arrived at the meeting at 1:07 p.m. Osborne-Howes arrived at the meeting at 1:10 p.m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: GAROFALO “I need to mention here that Agenda Item No. 8 has been withdrawn from the agenda. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Seeing none, that is taken care of.” 8. ZON2000-00008 - Sedgwick County Zone change from “RR” Rural Residential to “LC” Limited Commercial on property described as: A tract of land beginning 417.42 feet East of the Southwest Corner of Section 32, Township 25 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence North 208.71 feet; thence East 208.71 feet; thence South 208.71 feet; thence West 208.71 feet to the point of beginning. Generally located northeast of Seneca and 77th Street North in Valley Center, Kansas. BACKGROUND: The applicants are requesting approval of “LC” Limited Commercial zoning on one-acre of unplatted property currently zoned “RR” Rural Residential. The application area is a rectangular shaped parcel and is located northeast of Seneca and 77th Street North, Valley Center, Kansas. The applicants are requesting a zone change in order to permit an auto repair service. In 1997, the applicant and his brother opened the business unaware of the need for a zone change. The applicant’s brother has now left the business and does not live on site. The applicants operate the business, live in an adjacent dwelling, and have no outside employees. The applicants forwarded a letter to their neighbors explaining their request for a zone change (see attachment). The applicants reported that their neighbors are supportive of the business but would object to a salvage yard operation. The applicants only have one acre of land. This acreage does not conform to the requirements for a rural home occupation per the Unified Zoning Code (five acres) that could be waived as part of a Conditional Use request. Consequently, a zone change request is needed to be technically in compliance. The applicants have submitted a photograph of their current operation that depicts the uses on the property (see attachment) There is a solid cedar hedgerow located along the north property line, except for a gap north of the garage. This gap will need to be screened with appropriate screening materials (fencing or landscaping). Screening will also be needed on the east and west sides of the business. Lighting for the facility is on the garage and reflected away from residential uses per zoning ordinance. Currently the parking lot on the business site is unpaved. Landscape plantings are currently in place on the property. The applicants have one small sign affixed to the south face of the auto repair garage. There are commercial uses approximately one-mile east (81 Speedway) and approximately one-mile west (Bar-Te & Associates, TNT Auto Repair & Ramsey Signs). If approved, without having approval of a variance by the County’s Board of Zoning Appeals, the applicants will be required by code to screen with a six-foot fence (materials customarily used in construction) along the east, west and north property lines of the tract to be rezoned to “LC” Limited Commercial. CASE HISTORY: None. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “RR” Rural Residential Undeveloped Farmland EAST: “RR” Rural Residential Vacant Lot SOUTH: “RR” Rural Residential Undeveloped Farmland WEST: “RR” Rural Residential Vacant Lot PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has access via a private driveway that is maintained by the property owners. The driveway feeds onto 77th Street North; this driveway is approximately 500 feet east of Seneca. 77th Street North is a paved township road with no traffic data available. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “agricultural” use. This category has the intent of protecting agricultural resources and is meant to accommodate agricultural operations on substantial acreage. This category can allow other uses common in rural areas, which are no more offensive than normal agricultural uses. The Plan wants to minimize the detrimental impacts of higher intensity land uses and transportation facilities located near residential living environments. The Plan suggests “limiting commercial development in rural areas to activities which are agriculturally-oriented or provide necessary convenience services to residents in the immediate area, or provide highway–oriented services at interchange areas.” Furthermore, the Plan suggests “confining highway-oriented, auto-related and non-residential commercial uses to a limited number of urban areas, such as portions of Kellogg, Broadway, the CBD fringe, and other similar areas.” RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, MAPD staff recommends the application be DISAPPROVED. If, however, the MAPC and Board of County Commissioners determine that the rezoning is appropriate, staff recommends that platting occur within one year of approval and the following conditions: 1. Signs shall be limited to the existing single sign with an area of twelve square feet. The sign shall remain on the south face of the garage. 2. The subject property shall be restricted to a “Protective Overlay #71” which restricts the site to those uses permitted in the “RR” Rural Residential District and “Vehicle Repair Limited.” No additional outside employees are permitted. No more than two customer vehicles may be parked outside overnight at any one time. 3. The owner of the subject property shall maintain the solid row of evergreen trees along the north property line. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There are single-family homes located to the east and west of this property, zoned “RR.” The property to the north and south is also zoned “RR” but is undeveloped agricultural land. 2. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. The property to the north and south is undeveloped land. There are vacant lots, owned by the applicants, on the east and west side of the property. The Protective Overlay should reduce any detrimental effects imposed by this propose zone change. The business has been in operation for approximately three years with little or no detrimental impact to nearby property. 3. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently zoned “RR” and is developed with a single-family home and adjacent garage. The property is suitable for these uses. 4. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The private driveway is required to maintained by the applicants. The impact along 77th Street North will be minimal. -------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OSBORNE-HOWES “Is Item 2/1 going to be pulled? I would like to ask a question about it.” GAROFALO “Okay, Item 2/1 will be pulled.” 2. Subdivision Committee items 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, 2/5, 2/6, and 2/7 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. CARRAHER moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). 2/2. SUB2000-10 - Final Plat of BENCOR 2ND ADDITION, located on the southeast corner of 13th Street North and Waco. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any easements or guarantees. A guarantee shall be submitted for abandonment of the existing sewer line. A temporary easement should be established to cover the sewer line until abandonment. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The plat proposes one access opening along both Waco and 13th St. North. In accordance with the approved site plan, no access openings are proposed along Fairview, and complete access control should be dedicated along Fairview. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The dedication of access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. In accordance with the Subdivision regulations, any access openings located within 250 feet of the intersection of 13th St. North and Waco are limited to right-turns only, and shall be referenced on the face of the plat; or a guarantee provided for the future construction of a raised medial. E. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings being located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. F. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way for 13th St. North or Waco. A 50-ft half-street right-of-way is typically required for arterials. Traffic Engineering has approved a 40-ft half-street right-of-way. G. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. H. 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. I. A “Notice of Protective Overlay” document indicating the Protective Overlay has been filed with the MAPD shall be submitted. J. The legal description shall be revised to reference Lot 1226 of the Lewellen’s Addition and include a metes and bounds description of Reserve A. K. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. L. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) M. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. N. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. O. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. P. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. Q.. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. R. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. S. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell requests that the vacated alley be retained as a utility easement. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this plat shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. T. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. U. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed alley. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/3. SUB2000-18 - One-Step final plat of ANGLE ACRES 2ND ADDITION, located south of 47th Street South, east side of Seneca. A. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any additional guarantees or easements. No additional guarantees or easements 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. An off-site drainage easement is required for storm sewer. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the street jog of 150 feet of 50th St. South with 50th St. South in the A. Verne Roberts Addition to the west. Traffic Engineering has approved the location of 50th St. South. E. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings being located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. F. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. G. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the 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. H. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets in addition to Gold Street. I. 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. J. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. K. 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. L. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. M. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) N. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. O. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. P. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. Q. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. R. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. S. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. T. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. U. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------------------------------------------------------------- 2/4. SUB2000-26 - One-Step Final plat of SOUTH HEDGEWOOD ESTATES, located on the west side of Hoover, south of 95th Street South. 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. Standard soil testing is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. A drainage plan is required. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The Applicant shall coordinate the removal or modification of any terraces with NRCS. A Floodway Reserve Agreement is required along the north line of Lot 1. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening per lot along Hoover. The access openings shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the Exception Area. E. MAPD and County Engineering request that a contingent dedication be platted for the exception area to be effective upon the platting and division of the adjoining property to the west. 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 southerly lot shall be relabeled as Lot 1 and blocks shall be designated. H. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. I. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) J. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. K. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. L. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. M. The owner of the subdivision should 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. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Q. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/5. SUB2000-27 - One-Step Final Plat of RITCHIE’S FIRST ADDITION, located on the east side of Salina, South of 16th Street North. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. No additional guarantees or easements are needed. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The 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 final plat shall reference a tie point to a section corner. F. The platted lot exceeds the maximum lot width to lot depth ratio of 2.5 to 1. A modification will need to be approved. 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 AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/6. DED2000-08 - Dedication of additional street right-of-way from Bencor Investments, LLC, for property generally located on the northeast corner of Central and West Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as beginning 20 feet south of the southwest corner of Lot 1, NBW Building Addition, to the City of Wichita, KS; thence east parallel with the south line of Lot 1, NBW Addition, 10 feet; thence south parallel with the west line of Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 307 feet; thence southeasterly to a point 25 feet east of the west line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition; thence east parallel with the south line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, Rexstiller Addition, 175 feet; thence south parallel with the west line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 10 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition; thence west 200 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, thence north 332 feet to the point of beginning. As a requirement of Lot Split No. L/S-1029, this dedication is being made for the purpose of additional right-of-way along West Street. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/7. DED2000-09 - Dedication of Access Controls from Bencor Investments, LLC, for property generally located on the northeast corner of Central and West Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as commencing 20 feet south of the southwest corner of Lot 1, NBW Building Addition, to the City of Wichita, KS; thence east parallel with the south line of Lot 1, NBW Addition, 10 feet for a point of beginning; thence south parallel with the west line of Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 307 feet; thence southeasterly to a point 25 feet east of the west line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition; and 10 feet north of the south line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition; thence east parallel with the south line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 175 feet; thence north parallel with the west line of said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 97 feet; thence right angles to the last described line, 6 feet; thence north parallel with the west line of Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition, 40 feet; thence east at right angles to the last described line, 6 feet; thence north parallel with the west line said Lot 1, Rexstiller Addition; 185 feet to a point 20 feet south of the south line of Lot 1, NBW Building Addition; thence west 190 feet to the point of beginning. As a requirement of Lot Split No. L/S-1029, this dedication is being made for the purpose of access controls on West Street and on Central. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ---------------------------------------------------- 2/1. S/D 00-06 - Final Plat of STONEGATE PARK, located north of 47th Street South, west side of Greenwich Road. A. Since sanitary sewer is not able 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. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval from KDHE. This site has obtained approval from KDHE. The Health Department has concerns due to the lack of public sewer but will work with KDHE regarding testing for a lagoon system for the site. B. The site is beyond the Four-Mile Creek service area. County Engineering should comment on the status of an extension of the Four-Mile Creek sanitary sewer to serve the site. Sewer service is not available. C. The site is located within Rural Water District No. 3. The applicant shall contact this water district to determine the ability of this property being platted to connect to their water line and submit a letter from the water district regarding any requirements. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage easement located on the southeast corner of the plat should be relabeled as a Floodway Reserve and connect with the Floodway Reserve on the property to the south. A HEC-2 run is required. F. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The dedication of access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. County Engineering has required access control except for two openings along Greenwich. Complete access control is required adjacent to the Floodway Reserve. 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. County Engineering needs to indicate the need for additional right-of-way for Greenwich. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way is required for Greenwich (60 feet of half-street right-of-way required). The requested right-of-way has been denoted on the final plat. I. County Fire needs to comment on the acceptability of the plat. County Fire has required 20-ft wide openings. The internal streets shall meet suburban street standards. The plat is acceptable to County Fire Department. J. The southwest tie point shall reference the north half of the quarter section. K. The applicant shall provide a covenant for the Floodway Reserve which provides for ownership and maintenance of the Reserve. The covenant shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the Floodway Reserve 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 owners by the governing body. L. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. M. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) N. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. O. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. P. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. Q. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. R. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. S. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. T. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. U. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MCKAY “I would like to disclose that I have been contacted by the applicant on this item. “ At this point, every Commissioner said that they had been contacted by the applicant.” PLATT “I was contacted by other people other than the applicant on it, too.” KROUT “Would you like to disclose the nature of those contacts and how it might affect how you are looking at this case?” MCKAY “Jay Russell contacted me as to what was going on. It didn’t change my vote at all, based on the facts.” GAROFALO “The same here. It was just an explanation on what they are wanting to do.” WHEELER “I had a brief phone conversation with Mr. Russell that this was coming before us. It wouldn’t affect my vote.” LOPEZ “The same.” MARNELL “The same.” PLATT “And I also received information in the mail from people who were in opposition to it.” KROUT “Do you have copies of them?” PLATT “I don’t know whether or not I do.” KROUT “That’s okay.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I had a personal visit rather than a telephone call.” PLATT “I got some material from Commissioner Warren in the mail, too. I don’t know if that was for or against it.” Bill Johnson arrived at the meeting at 1:40 p.m. GAROFALO “Are there any other comments? Okay, Neil, go ahead.” NEIL STRAHL, Planning Staff. This is the Stonegate Park Addition, located north of 47th Street South on the west side of Greenwich Road. It is an 80-acre site, zoned ‘SF-20’ Single-family residential. The site is located in the County within 3 miles of Wichita City limits. The site obtained approval in 1969 by the Board of County Commissioners for an expansion of an existing mobile home park, limited to the eastern 40 acres of the site. The applicant currently proposes expansion of the manufactured home park within the eastern 40 acres (indicating) right here, along with a sewage lagoon system. The site has obtained approval from KDHE for the lagoon system. The County Engineering has approved two openings along Greenwich.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil?” KROUT “I have some comments, for the record and it probably would be better for me to make them before the applicants have an opportunity in case they want to respond to any of this. Planning staff is NOT recommending that you deny this subdivision plat. However, I do want to point out to you why I think this case should be a cause for real concern, for anyone who wears the hat of planner or planning commissioner or is concerned with smart growth in the county. This land was zoned back in 1969 by the MAPC and County Commission when County zoning only extended out 3 miles from Wichita, and Wichita’s boundaries had expanded to include this property within that ring. A handful of mobile homes sat on a small portion of a 40 acre parcel, and still today. The owner indicated he would like to expand his park someday. So he was granted a Conditional Use for 40 acres of mobile homes, without a plan for his property and without notice to his neighbors. However, the County Counselor’s office has ruled that the zoning was legal, and now the new owners want to develop this property for a mobile home park. Probably, the applicants can make a good claim that they have investment-backed expectations to develop this mobile home park, based on the zoning of the property and compliance with the subdivision regulations. This property is 2 ½ miles south of the south boundary of the 2030 urban service area in the updated Comprehensive Plan that the MAPC just approved. The development of this property for the proposed use is completely contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, even the updated version. This mobile home park represents an unfortunate throwback to the kind of leapfrog growth that was last permitted in the 1960s and 1970s to the east and west of Wichita. The mobile home parks and subdivisions in that area, like this one, were permitted to develop beyond where any city services could be extended, and be placed on private lagoons and small treatment plants. Eventually, most of those systems failed, and the federal government ordered Sedgwick County to establish public sewer districts to relieve the environmental problems that occurred. This is the kind of development that both our local health officials and KDHE staff have told us for many years to avoid repeating. However, the Health Department is now telling us that they do not believe they have jurisdiction – an issue that we are going to be looking into further -- and KDHE indicates that a lagoon for this proposed development can probably be permitted that meets their standards. Planning staff also raised the issue at the Subdivision Committee level of whether a new urban density mobile home park should be permitted without an urban level of fire service, meaning City water lines with sufficient pressure to feed fire hydrants. The Subdivision regulations state that the Fire Department with jurisdiction determines the acceptability of the development from a fire safety standpoint, and the County Fire Department apparently does not think this development presents a problem. The Planning staff was very surprised to hear this response, and we think that the subject of what is adequate fire protection is an appropriate subject for the MAPC to review in the future, just like the subject of what is adequate park and recreation service. So we are going to be inviting the City and County fire departments to a workshop this summer to discuss firefighting methods and philosophies. In sum, this appears to be one more case where, to quote Commissioner Warren: “like it or not, there are no legal reasons to deny this plat.” But I hope that this time, the MAPC will also state for the record that you don’t like it, and ask the Planning Department to come back to you with stronger policies and regulations, so developments of this type can be prevented in the future.” GAROFALO “Lets hear from the applicant, if he wishes to speak.” JAY RUSSELL “I am the applicant and I would like to respond real quickly to Marvin’s comments. It seems a little bit difficult to take something that was approved back in 1969 by the County Commission at that time and granted the zoning that these people needed to establish that mobile home park, which has 32 units at this time that are in extreme need of repair and the park definitely needs to be upgraded to a better level and as we can tell from the 2030 service plan, we are still going to be 2-1/2 miles away from the city in 30 years. It appears to me that we need to do something with this facility before it becomes a real problem. But he made a lot of comments there that may be appropriate to discuss, but I think I am going to go more toward the facts on this case. The zoning was granted in 1969, and per Rich Euson’s letter of December 29, 1999 that we introduced in the past, the Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the planning. Our thought is that we just want to remodel this existing one. There have been some discussions with some of you about our desire to expand it in the future. That is an entirely different hurdle and whether we get to that point or not is yet to be seen. Our sewer options, we basically have three different options that we can try to service this with. I believe that at this point, the lagoon option is the one that we are real confident that is our best option right now. KDHE has given us a letter and we introduced that into the Subdivision meeting last week. I am sure that at this time that is probably the avenue we are going to go with. On the Fire Department issue, they have had the same policy now for many, many years. That policy is that if sufficient water pressure is there, within a quarter to half a mile, that they want the fire hydrants installed. We have agreed that at the time that they are available within that type of a distance, that we definitely will install them. I believe we meet every one of their requirements. The water service issue has been addressed. We have a contract with the Rural Water District No. 3 for 100 water taps. The drainage issue that was discussed in Subdivision has been addressed. We are not just going to look at the water on our site; we are going to look at how it effects people upstream and downstream from us. I think that County Engineering has agreed to that. And finally, I think that this facility has the zoning and we need to do something with it to bring it up into a little better condition. Are there any questions?” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Russell?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just have a couple. Is the entire design in the 100-year flood plain?” RUSSELL “No. Just the far western portion of it, which does not have the zoning for it.” OSBORNE-HOWES “And, I guess you chose not to bring the entire site, just the part for expansion. You chose not to bring all of that at once, but just the site that currently has the zoning. Are you going to be replatting or doing something in the future, coming back with a request for an expansion?” RUSSELL “I have discussed that option with the Planning staff and with several of the members when I talked to them. I am not sure that that decision has been 100% decided.” WHEELER “I guess I didn’t follow Susan’s question. How much of this site are you currently platting?” RUSSELL “The east 40 acres. (Indicating) Everything from here to the east. That is the only part that has the zoning on it. If we do anything to the west, we will have to come back and get a zone change.” WHEELER “So this before us actually states 78.9 acres, but in reality what we are looking at is 40 acres, is that correct, Marvin?” KROUT “Yeah. Was it originally submitted for the full 80 acre plat?” RUSSELL “No.” KROUT “This is just a 40 acre plat.” WHEELER “Okay.” MARK SAVOY (From the audience) “Most of that back piece is a flood way reserve.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thanks, Jay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this plat? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Okay, seeing none, then we will bring it back to the Commission.” WARREN “Mr. Chair, as was quoted, I did support this in the Subdivision Committee meeting we had last Thursday. As with all mobile home parks, this one had a lot of discussion, a lot of conversation, a lot of questions. The major things that I had seen come up here though that could give us concern would be drainage, sewer and fire, and we listened to testimony, probably more of it in Subdivision than we have in this meeting, from the experts in this field, and none of them have given us any facts that would tell us that we have a real problem in either drainage, sewer or fire. So that is pretty much what is motivating me. I think I will state again that we have no legal grounds to turn down this plat. It is not a zoning case, it is a platting case.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body the request be approved. WARREN moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion. PLATT “I would like to ask a question of someone from the County Fire Department.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone here from the County Fire Department? Will you please come to the podium?” GREG THOMPSON “I am the Sedgwick County Fire Marshall.” PLATT “Sir, is there any limit to the number of subdivisions like this that you would find a problem in Sedgwick County with if we were to approve it?” THOMPSON “Do you mean is there a limit to the number of these subdivisions that we would allow within Sedgwick County?” PLATT “Yes.” THOMPSON “At this point, no.” PLATT “Thank you.” HENTZEN “I would like to ask Marvin a question.” GAROFALO “Does anyone have any other questions of the Fire Marshall? Okay, Bud, go ahead.” HENTZEN “As I recall, on former cases of mobile home parks, didn’t you provide us with a picture of areas that were already zoned properly for mobile home parks, and kind of indicated that if there was an application in here outside of that map that you were not in favor of it. Does this one fall into that category of already zoned properly for mobile home parks?” KROUT “The map that you are talking about, Commissioner, was a map for a smaller portion of the county, it wasn’t a county-wide map. It was a portion of the county from about Hillside on the east to West Street on the west in the south part of the county. So we didn’t look at where there was zoning available for mobile home parks outside of that area.” HENTZEN “It seems like that quadrant of the county was the one that was heavily zoned for mobile home parks and this is not in that same quadrant, but yet it has proper zoning. I took your remarks to mean that you are not in favor of this application.” KROUT “My remarks today?” HENTZEN “Yeah.” KROUT “Oh. I am not in favor of this development, but I don’t think there are sufficient reasons to deny the plat.” HENTZEN “Okay.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just have a comment. I looked at this both ways and I understand what Marvin is saying. I guess I look at this and also think right now what we could also be talking about is revitalization of part of this area, and if there is already the ability to zone the entire 80 acres, then I can understand why we could turn it down, but at the same time, I guess I have a couple of concerns and that is that this could lead to more leap-frog development. Especially if, in order to make this work financially for the developer, there is going to be another request for expansion, then I don’t know that that necessarily means that I would be supportive of that. So I see both sides.” JOHNSON “Marvin, those last couple of mobile home cases we had, which I think were around 55th Street and west of Broadway, it seems like the Planning Commission approved it and the County Commission didn’t approve them.” KROUT “The last two cases were 55th and Broadway, and I think the Planning Commission’s vote was still to deny. It was a closer vote the second time, and the County Commission denied it. We had another case that was a city case between 47th and 55th Street, west of West Street. The Planning Commission originally recommended denial. That was sent back and you recommended approval the second time and the City Council approved that mobile home park.” JOHNSON “Okay. But I think that most of the conversation I can remember was that most of the opposition said they didn’t want any more in that part of the county or city. I guess that is the only reason I see in this case; all of a sudden we are going to try to do one somewhere other than 55th and Broadway or 55th and Seneca. Do you think that will be a good place? I think those are the instructions that we kind of passed along to the applicant before. It needed to be someplace else besides in that park, which isn’t this.” KROUT “I guess I will be honest with you and say that I don’t think any mobile home park in Sedgwick County is a plus. We encourage people to go to Park City to achieve those objectives. (Laughter here) But in your work plan, as we described to you earlier in the year, we said that we think that the issue needs more discussion, so we want to work with the Planning Commission on developing a clearer policy about both the location and the design of future mobile home parks in the county. And we also have a neighborhood plan that we are going to be doing in the south Wichita/Haysville area and I am sure there are residents there who have already identified them as one of the issues that they want to talk about. So I think we will be talking about that issue some more. We have had more than one inquiry for mobile home parks that could sprinkle in other parts of the community, so you may have an opportunity to address them one on one, one at a time over the next year.” JOHNSON “There is also a mobile home park that is almost due west of this, like about a mile.” KROUT “Yes, there is.” JOHNSON “Is it mobile home zoning, or is it platted?” KROUT “I don’t know if it is non-conforming or not. I will let you know at the next meeting.” JOHNSON “Thank you.” BARFIELD “Initially, Marvin, the Planning Department had asked for denial. Now, is the change of heart based strictly on advice from the County Commission? Or has anything else taken place to cause that.” KROUT “I think that the Health Department deciding that the State has jurisdiction in this area in terms of permitting the lagoon is probably the key reason why. I think the County Fire Department always has jurisdiction, and their recommendation was clear at the Subdivision Committee meeting.” BARFIELD “So was the information we had in Subdivision solicited from the Wichita Fire Department?” KROUT “Did you receive information from the Wichita Fire Department?” WARREN “In Subdivision we had a letter from them.” KROUT “I shared the County Fire Department’s response on fire safety with the City Fire Chief and asked him if he agreed or had any comments on that. You saw his response. I think that that is an issue that deserves more attention, and that is why I said that we want to set up a workshop later this year to have the fire department talk about their philosophies and to maybe address further Commissioner Platt’s question, which was how many of these can the County Fire Department handle if we approve it. But I think that clearly in this case, according to the Subdivision Regulations, this is the county’s call on fire regulations.” BARFIELD “I do think that since the full Commission is going to vote, the full Commission should have access to that information.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Are there any other mobile home parks of this proposed density in the county now? I am just curious.” KROUT “I know of a couple out west, on West Kellogg that are still in the county.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Of this proposed density?” KROUT “Yes, but they are much older. Nothing that has been approved in the last 20 years.” OSBORNE-HOWES “That does not have access to water?” KROUT “Yes.” GAROFALO “Neil, I just want to clarify for myself, we are talking about just 40 acres here that is going to be involved with this plat?” STRAHL “No, the entire 80 is platted.” KROUT “But only these 40 acres is zoned to permit a mobile home park development, so that is the only portion of the tract that will be developed with pads for mobile home sites.” GAROFALO “Okay, that is what I wanted.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Only 40 of the acres will be developed as mobile home sites.” KROUT “By this plat. He still has the option to come back in and request the mobile home zoning to expand the park.” WHEELER “The current zoning is for 40 acres only?” KROUT “Right.” MOTION: That the question be called. LOPEZ moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion, and it carried with 13 votes in favor and 1 in opposition (Platt). VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: The motion carried with 14 votes in favor. There was no opposition. PLATT “Now, may I make a comment in terms of justifying my vote? For the record, I want to say that I voted in favor of this plat. I did so reluctantly but did so because of our legal advice that we have no other choice. I do want to note it for the record that I find it very disquieting in the year 2000 we are approving an urban density level area out in the county without the standard of water, sewer or fire protection that would be commonplace, assumed and expected in that kind of a city anyplace in the United States. I think we are in a bind. That is unfortunate. I would certainly urge the governing bodies to take immediate action to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.” WHEELER “I would just like to make a comment, also for the record, I supported this plat because I feel like once zoning is in place it is not an issue of ‘is this an appropriate use or not’ because that is existing. It is a matter of they met the platting requirements. But as we have discussed somewhat in the Comprehensive Plan update, I think there is a need for us to re-evaluate mobile home development and new zoning in the county, and I would urge the governing bodies, this is a separate issue and it was too complicated to address in the Comprehensive Plan. There are a lot of issues that dove-tail into it and I know the county has made comments that they are looking at the issues of sewer treatment plants, lagoons, those types of things. I assume at some point we might be addressing those issues at the Planning Commission, or at the county level.” WARREN “As long as we are just speaking for the record…. I didn’t agree with Commissioner Platt that we just need to carte blanche have some kind of a ruling that covers everything in the county. I think each one of these cases is going to have to come up and be judged on an individual basis, but I don’t think there is anybody on this Commission who has the expertise to question KDHE, or even County Health for that matter, and we have to rely on those people. They are the ones that told us that this was a ‘go’ case. I think we have insulted the Sedgwick County Fire Department. They can fight these fires. They have the equipment, they have the know-how and they have done it. I feel bad about that because like I said, they came in and said ladies and gentlemen we can take care of it, we know how to do it. I don’t think any of us are fire experts enough to question them, and we do not have any choice.” GAROFALO “Perhaps we need to look at having a workshop as you suggest, Marvin, on the whole issue of mobile or manufactured homes in the county and closer to the city and in the city. Maybe we ought to arrange that." KROUT “We are going to try to do that. And we definitely are setting up a series of summer brown bag lunch sessions like we have had before. We want to talk about fire service. I think that is an issue that we have wanted to talk about for a long time.” --------- -------------------------------------------------------- 3/1. VAC2000-0005 - Richy and Cynthia Fuller request to vacate a portion of a front yard setback described as: That part of Lot 8, Block A, Auburn Hills 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas commencing at the northeasterly corner of said Lot 8; thence S52deg40'41"W along the northerly line of said Lot 8, 25.87 feet to the intersection of a 25 foot building setback line; thence southeasterly along said setback line, said setback line being a curve to the left, having a central angle of 03deg55'09" and a radius of 75 feet, an arc distance of 5.13 feet, (having a chord length of 5.13 feet bearing S51deg21'51"E) to the point of beginning; thence continuing along said 25 foot building setback and said curve to the left, having a central angle of 10deg02'51" and a radius of 75 feet, an arc distance of 13.15 feet, (having a chord length of 13.14 feet bearing S58deg20'15"E); thence N44deg33'54"W, 12.76 feet; thence S45deg26'06"W, 3.13 feet to the point of beginning. Generally located east of 135th Street West and south of Maple on Limuel court (543 W. Limuel Court). The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of a platted front yard 25-foot setback. Upon purchase of the home the applicant was made aware of the minor protrusion of the home into the setback and wishes to resolve the problem through this vacation. 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 April 4, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described street right-of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of street right-of-way described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ------------------------------------------------------------- 3/2. VAC2000-00006 - 47th Street Associates, c/o Leslie Rudd request the vacation of a portion of a 35-foot building setback and a portion of access control along 37th Street North, described as: SETBACK VACATION: The south 5 feet of the north 35 feet of Lot 1, Block B, Northridge Industrial Park, Wichita, Kansas, EXCEPT the west 35 feet thereof, TOGETHER with the south 5 feet of the north 35 feet of Lot 2 in said Block B. ACCESS CONTROL VACATION: The east 50 feet of the north line along Lot 2, Block B, Northridge Industrial Park, Wichita, Kansas. Generally located at the southeast corner of Poplar and 37th Street North. The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of a platted 35-foot building setback and a portion of access control along 37th Street North for future development of this 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 April 4, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described street right- of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of street right-of-way described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning Staff “These vacation cases that were heard by the Subdivision Committee last week. Both were approved. I have nothing further to add, but would answer any questions that the other Commissioners might have.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone here to speak on these agenda items? If not, we can take a motion.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments. MCKAY moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 4. Case No. CUP2000-00004-DP111#4 - Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. (Owner/Applicant); Kaplan, McMillan, & Harris c/o Robert Kaplan; Ferris Consulting c/o Greg Ferris; an Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agents) request an amendment to permit outdoor storage where “GC” General Commercial zoning exists on Parcel 2, on property described as: Lot 7, Block 1, Mediterranean Plaza Commercial Second Addition, an addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, TOGETHER WITH Lot 2, Block 2, Home Design Center Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 29th Street North and east of Rock Road. SCOTT KNEBEL, 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 an amendment to the Mediterranean Plaza CUP to permit outdoor storage where “GC” General Commercial zoning exists on Parcel 2. The subject property is a 2.56-acre platted tract located north of 29th Street North and east of Rock. Outdoor storage is permitted in the “GC” General Commercial district but is not a permitted use in the Mediterranean Plaza CUP. Changes in permitted uses that permit more intensive uses require an amendment to the CUP. The applicant submitted a site plan (attached) that shows a 30,600 square foot outdoor storage area that would contain up to 50 storage containers or trailers containing merchandise. The outdoor storage would be located approximately 70 feet east of the existing Wal-Mart building within an existing parking lot. Existing landscaping consists of shade trees spaced 40 feet apart and ornamental trees spaced 20 feet apart along the east and south property lines. According to the site plan, Wal-Mart would have 32 parking spaces over the number required by the Unified Zoning Code after the reduction in parking spaces for the outdoor storage area. The surrounding area is predominately developed with commercial uses, with the nearest residentially-developed properties located approximately 600 feet to the southeast in the Penstemon 2nd Addition. To the north is a theater and a bowling alley on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and “LC” Limited Commercial. To the east is manufacturing and warehousing on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and a tavern on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. To the south is a veterinarian office on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and a church on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential. To the west are numerous retail businesses on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. CASE HISTORY: DP-111 (Mediterranean Plaza CUP) was approved in 1981, with three subsequent amendments and other adjustments. The subject property is platted as a part of the Home Design Center Addition, which was approved in 1990. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “GC” & “LC” Recreation and Entertainment, Indoor SOUTH: “LC” & “SF-6” Animal Care, Limited; Church; Single Family EAST: “GC” & “LC” Manufacturing, Limited; Warehousing; Tavern WEST: “LC” Retail PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access to Rock, a five-lane arterial with 1997 traffic volumes of approximately 23,000 vehicles per day, 29th Street North, a three-lane arterial with 1997 traffic volumes of approximately 8,000 vehicles per day, and Penstemon, an extra-wide, non-residential local street with no traffic volumes available. The 2030 Transportation Plan estimates the volumes on Rock and 29th Street North to increase to 29,000 and 11,000 vehicles per day, respectively. Municipal services are available to this site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Commercial” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Outdoor storage shall be limited to the west 200 feet of the north 153 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 of the Home Design Center Addition. 2. The outdoor storage area shall be screened by an 8-foot high masonry wall on the north, south, and east. The masonry wall shall be constructed of the same material and color as the existing masonry wall on the north property line. If stored materials or containers exceed 8 feet in height, a solid screening fence (chain link with woven black mesh or similar screening) shall be provided inside the masonry wall to the height of outdoor storage material. 3. Existing landscaping along the east property line where Parcel 2 fronts Penstemon shall be supplemented per a landscape plan approved by the Director of Planning. The additional landscaping shall consist of ornamental trees planted 10 feet apart from each other and the existing ornamental or shade trees. 4. General Provision #5 shall be modified to replace the phrase “Section 28.04.139 of the” with the term “sign” when referring to the Sign Code of the City of Wichita. Also, General Provision #5 shall be modified to require that ground/pole signs shall be spaced 150 feet apart on Parcel 2 and at least 150 feet from signs on other parcels in the CUP. 5. General Provision #14 shall be modified to replace the phrase “Section 28.04.140 of the Code of the City of Wichita” with the phrase “Unified Zoning Code” when referring to parking requirements. 6. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 7. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 8. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is predominately developed with commercial uses, with the nearest residentially-developed properties located approximately 600 feet to the southeast in the Penstemon 2nd Addition. To the north is a theater and a bowling alley on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and “LC” Limited Commercial. To the east is manufacturing and warehousing on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and a tavern on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. To the south is a veterinarian office on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and a church on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential. To the west are numerous retail businesses on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is currently developed as a commercial parking area. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the recommended conditions of approval for the CUP amendment. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Commercial” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. If approved with the recommended conditions of approval, the CUP amendment conforms to the Land Use Guide and the Commercial Locational Guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property for outdoor storage should have limited impact on community facilities. KNEBEL “This is an amendment to the Mediterranean Plaza CUP. The applicant has requested that the CUP be amended to permit outdoor storage where the General Commercial zoning exists on Parcel 2. Parcel 2 is outlined and as you can see here, the General Commercial zoning is about 2-1/2 acres, located along Penstemon. The outdoor storage is a permitted use in the General Commercial zoning district, however, it is not permitted by the CUP. Therefore the amendment has been requested. This is located about 70 feet to the east of the existing Wal-Mart building and would take up a number of parking spaces that are indicated on the site plan. Since the time the staff report was written, staff has received some correspondence that you should have received a copy of from both the Homeowners’ Association to the southeast and from the agent of the applicant. This correspondence represents an agreement regarding the conditions of approval under which the neighboring property owners would like to see this request approved. Based on that, Planning staff has reviewed this and they seem like reasonable conditions, so we have modified our recommendation, which is shown to you on a blue sheet that we handed out. We would like to replace the staff report recommendation with those that are on the blue sheet. I will go through those briefly. Basically, we recommend the amendment be approved, that the outdoor storage be limited to the area that is indicated on the site plan; with the exception of crushed boxes and some other small items that the outdoor storage be contained inside some type of metal container or a trailer; that the site be screened along the property lines here and here (indicating) and here and here with a 6-foot masonry wall; and that the storage area be screened additionally on these three sides with a solid screening fence a minimum of 12 feet high, but in any event, at least as high as the stored material. The Planning staff also recommends that the landscaping which exists currently today, primarily in the form of shade trees, be supplemented by adding ornamental trees so that you have trees every 15 feet on the exterior of the masonry walls. I am available for questions.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Scott?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Do you have any conversations about what a maximum height might be of that screening? Can it be 100 feet, 75 feet?” KNEBEL “No, we did not discuss that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “The storage material can’t be higher than the screening fence, but…” KNEBEL “Right. Primarily the reason that we have represented that in there is that the trailers that go on a semi tractor are typically 13 feet 8 inches tall, which would exceed the height of the 12-foot screening that the neighborhood association had requested.” OSBORNE-HOWES “It is just that I have seen other parts of town where you have storage that goes a lot higher than 12 feet.” KNEBEL “Yeah, and I don’t disagree that it would make sense to have a height limit on storage material.” HENTZEN “Scott, do you know the rules, what is required now to bring a, is it these ‘Box 4 U’ ? Is that what you are talking about?” KNEBEL “Yes, that is correct.” HENTZEN “And do they have to get Conditional Use permits to bring those in, or can they bring them in and put them in their parking lot?” KNEBEL “The outdoor storage is permitted in the General Commercial and less restrictive zoning districts, and it is required to be screened from public right-of-ways or from residential areas if it is within 150 feet.” HENTZEN “I see quite a few of them around town, and I guess they are using them in place of building a building. But if they have products that won’t deteriorate with hot or cold, I guess they would be all right.” KNEBEL “Yes, if they have the appropriate zoning and it is properly screened.” HENTZEN “Okay. If it is properly zoned, and they want to put some in, do they have to come to Central Inspection or to this department to get permission to put them there?” KNEBEL “Well, if they are going to be building a screening wall over 6 feet they would have to get a building permit for that, so to that extent, they would.” HENTZEN “Okay.” BARFIELD “How many of these units are we talking about storing on this property?” KNEBEL “Fifty.” BARFIELD “And how many parking spaces are we going to eliminate?” KNEBEL “It is on the site plan. One hundred and five spaces.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Scott? Are we supposed to have a letter or something from David Farha?” KNEBEL “You should have received that in the mail. It was mailed out separately because we received it after we sent out our packets. There appears to be some extra copies over here if you want one." GAROFALO “Okay. We will hear from the applicant now.” BOB KAPLAN “Commissioners, I am appearing on behalf of Wal-Mart. Normally, my platting cases are easy and my zoning cases are difficult, and today appears to be kind of the reverse. Basically, this is a thank-you session. I want to use a minute or two of my time; I don’t have a whole lot to add. I do want to thank the neighborhood for the cooperation they have shown in this matter. It has been extensive and appreciated. Mr. Krout and his staff have been very accommodating and have looked at this with a favorable eye and made some very fine suggestions that have been very helpful to us. Greg Ferris, who has been my liaison with the neighborhood and has done a yeoman’s job with the neighborhood associations. The Wal-Mart people in Bentonville who have given me the budget to work with to accomplish all of these things and it is a hefty, hefty, hefty number because we are screening the screening. David Freerks, who is here today is the local store manager, who has done, I think, an outstanding job of complying with Mr. Schroeder’s directives and in keeping the place clean. I think this has come together and it has been a classic example of how people can work together when you have a willing applicant and cooperative neighbors who want to see the problem resolved. So I appreciate that from all of you folks, and I want you to know that. Basically, we accept staff comments. I really have nothing further to add. There are certain persons here who asked me to reiterate into the record the conditions. Those are set forth in the revised staff report. Do you still wish me to do that? Okay. I am getting a negative response, so we will accept staff comments. We do have requisite parking. The engineer is here. To answer the question of the Commissioner who asked, we do have Code parking. I would like for you to top this whole exercise off if you would. I think it would be just fine if we had a unanimous approval. I think front door to back door, I think everyone is delighted with the result. Thank you all very much. I hope you can see your way clear to do that.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Kaplan?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Some pictures were passed around. I assume someone may talk about that later. I don’t know who passed them around. They are of what the storage looked like in November. There was a lot of outdoor storage that was visible. Does it still look that that?” KAPLAN “No, ma’am. That was a problem. We have been working on this for a number of months. Mr. Freerks, the store manager, who is present, took all of this material and put it into mini-warehouses here and there. It was a considerable exercise on his part. I don’t know when these slides were taken, but the area is clean, immaculate. I believe everybody is happy with it. One thing I didn’t mention and Greg reminds me, is that we have also committed to a regular trash pickup, so we are not going to have parking lot litter and Big gulp cups and that type of thing.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Would you accept a height limit on the screening and the storage?” KAPLAN “I don’t believe there is any problem with that, Commissioner, we are going with a 12-foot high chain link. I think those containers are 8 foot, oh, they are 9 feet?” OSBORNE-HOWES “It says minimum.” GREG FERRIS “I am representing Wal-Mart. If I might address this. I worked with the engineers on this. That is the standard length of that chain link. That is how it comes, in 12 foot lengths.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So it won’t go above 12 feet?” FERRIS “No. There is no reason for us to do that because it would cost more money.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So will you accept just 12 foot high?” FERRIS “That would be fine with us.” BARFIELD “My biggest problem with this is that being a regular visitor to this site, I do know that the vintage problem is parking on the west side. Now if we are going to talk about removing all of these parking places on the east side, which I believe is employees’ parking, and if there is an increased 143 vehicles on the east side, that is a major problem right now, parking.” KAPLAN “Mr. Ewy is here now. He had stepped out of the room. Do you want to address that, Russ? Or would you rather I did. I turned that over. That was an engineering exercise. I have been advised and understand that we do have requisite parking. I am understanding your comments to suggest that it is the location of the parks that is your issue here?” BARFIELD “No. What I am saying is, and I also think the letter we received from Mr. Farha says that at the present time you are having complaints from some of the neighboring merchants regarding Wal-Mart customers parking in their parking stalls. I am saying that now we are eliminating these, I believe you said 143 parking places at the rear of the store, and that means that these employees that are now parking in the rear are going to have to find parking places on the west side. We already have a congestion problem on both sides. How are we going to alleviate that?” KAPLAN “My response to that is simply that it is a matter of regulation. I don’t know that I can tell you what Wal-Mart can do to alleviate that. I can only tell you that we have provided more than the number of parks that we are required by Code to provide. I guess if the Code requirement is insufficient, I suppose my answer would be that we need to amend the parking code to require more spaces per square foot. Right now, we are in excess of what our legal requirement is, and obviously I cannot generate more parking stalls. There may be some redesign that can be done, a certain number, I guess, could be compact stalls, but I would leave that to the engineer. Mr. Ewy, do you have any suggestions you would care to make?” EWY (from the audience) “Not at this time.” KAPLAN “We just looked at it, Commissioner, from the standpoint of the Code and what we are required to do. So, perhaps you ought to look at an amendment to the Code if it is light. It has been that way for years as far as I know.” BARFIELD “I understand that, but I am saying that we do have a problem at the present time, and I can only see the problem getting worse. We have this letter from Mr. Farha which alludes to the fact that neighboring merchants are already complaining about the parking.” KAPLAN “I am aware of that. I have had communication with Mr. Farha. I think he appreciates the issue and appreciates the fact that we are in compliance. I don’t know what else we can do.” GAROFALO “I haven’t had an opportunity to read all of this stuff, but apparently the Farhas have made some complaints. Have these complaints been addressed?” KAPLAN “Yes, they have been addressed. Mr. Farha and I and Mr. Ferris have had communication. We have exchanged correspondence. Those gentlemen are here if you want to hear from them, but yes, everything has been addressed. I think, Frank, front door to back door we have massaged this very, very, very well, and I think everyone at this point is extremely satisfied with the accommodations that we have come to. That is my opinion. If there is someone here to speak against it, I am not aware of it.” GAROFALO “How often is this stuff picked up?” KAPLAN “They pick up on a daily basis. They do it at night.” GAROFALO “Aren’t these storage containers, the bailed cardboard…how often are they picked up?” KAPLAN “They pick up those bailed cardboards on a multi-daily basis. About three pick-ups a week, depending on the quantity. But keep in mind also, if you will, Mr. Chairman, that all of that bailed cardboard and all of those plastic totes, even though they don’t go within the containers, they will go within the storage area. They will be screened until picked up. They are not in the containers themselves, but they are behind the 12-foot chain link, and as we committed, will not extend beyond it. We pick them up two to three times per week, depending on the amount of cardboard. Their business is seasonal, as you are aware.” GAROFALO “I kind of feel somewhat like Commissioner Barfield about the spaces. I understand that legally the store may have enough spaces, but eliminating all of those spaces, and if that is where the employees park, they will have to park elsewhere, and you can’t provide any other area for the employees?” KAPLAN “That I don’t know. I am not a frequent visitor to that Wal-Mart. The time I have been out there, there appears to be ample spaces behind. The several times I have been out there throughout the course of this action, there seems to be a great many vacant stalls on the east side of the store that are simply unused. Every customer has to park by the door and that is just the way it is.” MARNELL “Is there still additional parking at the rear of the building for employees?” KAPLAN “Then I think this is an issue we ought to move on on. People will, in fact, try to always park near the door and that is what creates traffic circulation problems and why they have to police traffic. If this complies, and I have gone through there and have never seen that back lot, any of it full with cars, even coming close. I don’t see this as a parking issue.” KAPLAN “That is what I thought Commissioner Barfield was referring to. People won’t park behind the store and walk around. They just won’t do it.” MARNELL “But this won’t create a employee parking problem, moving this 100 plus spaces, which is what it was indicating. That is not going to happen.” KAPLAN “I don’t see how that can happen. Mr. Freerks, the store manager is here if you want to address that to him, but I would say the answer to that is negative.” MARNELL “I would assume being a business and not a government that the officials of the business and the employees park farthest away from the service entrance and the customers park closest to the entry. I know that is not the case in some locations, but a business would tend to do that.” KAPLAN “Mr. Freerks is nodding affirmatively. That is their policy that the employees do not take customer parks, but it is hard to be a parking lot policeman, it really is.” BARFIELD “ I don’t want to belabor this issue, but there are two factors that must be taken into consideration. No. 1, no customers use that parking lot on the east side that I know of. That is strictly for employees. No. 2, if we are going to talk about removing 143 parking places, we are going to have a problem. Where are those employees going to park? I, myself was there on Monday and I can assure you that three-quarters of those parking spaces were occupied, so I don’t want anybody telling me that removing 143 parking places wouldn’t be included in here if it was not necessary, and if it is necessary, where are those employees going to park?” KAPLAN “Obviously we eliminate parking stalls when we build the storage area, some 150 of them, but obviously only one item can go in one space at one time, so we have to do that. I am simply reiterating, call me redundant, I guess, we have the parking that is required by Code, and I think perhaps the onus here ought to be on the City to change the parking requirements, rather than on the retailer to exceed the legal limit. I don’t mean to be argumentative about it, maybe David has an idea about what he can do about it, but I can’t create more stalls on the property we own, they just aren’t there. Maybe some re-designing can be done. I certainly am amenable to asking the Baughman Company, who did this, to look at a re-design, because I know that there are regulations regarding that you can so many compact stalls and so on and so forth, and maybe some redesign can be that might be that can add a few stalls, and I would certainly commit, and I know Wal-Mart would be willing to spend the money to look at that. I can’t guarantee that it can happen is all. I am not a parking lot policeman or a parking lot engineer.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, is there anyone else besides the applicant to speak on this issue?” GEORGE SHERMAN “I live at 8609 Stoneridge. I was notified on this case because I happen to own some rental property in the neighborhood. To be honest with you, my property is not going to be affected by this. It is on the other side of Rock Road. As some of you know, I used to sit up there for a year or two. During that time, Wal-Mart came in four different times for things and I think I voted in favor of them every time. The pictures I am passing around aren’t of this building, they are of some the other buildings they have in town. The first time I remember them coming was 21st Street. We approved that here, I voted in favor of it. A lot of the neighbors, who are mostly people I would call C.A.V.E. people, that’s Citizens against virtually everything, came down here and had photos of the east Pawnee store. It showed trucks out back and pallets piled high and Wal-Mart got up and said that is an apparition, we don’t let that happen. We have already disciplined that manager. It will never happen again. You have the photos right there. They came in on West Kellogg. They wanted to move the Sam’s building back, do some other things, and get close to the neighborhood there on the north. We talked about trucks they had been parking out there and they insisted ‘Oh, no. Trucks are here a day or two and then they are out. It’s no big problem’. We asked them to put a wall in and they said ‘okay, fine’. We said ‘what about outdoor storage?’ They said ‘no storage higher than the wall, we will keep it all low, we will keep it screened behind the wall’. Again, you’ve got the photos. It is just piled up over the top there. Then they came in to expand this building. I think there was a 200 foot setback on the south at the time and they wanted to reduce it to 50 foot and they wanted to move the truck dock over there. They had to do that because they wanted to put the grocery in and they needed more parking. They had to have more parking so they couldn’t expand into the existing part there, but they wanted to take up the setback. We brought up the fact that they had a bunch of trucks parked out there and they said ‘they couldn’t be, they are never there more than about two days’. You saw some pictures from back in November; there were 40 or 50 of them around Christmas. Every time they have come here they have been real nice. They have been willing to talk and then they pretty much ignore whatever they have told you after they get out there. I am not totally against this thing, although personally my opinion is that if they want more storage, they should build a bigger building. I think there are going to be some parking problems out there and I think they will use this screening area until it overflows and then they will go and put stuff wherever they feel like out there. I haven’t seen the agreement, but what I heard from the neighbors, I think it has addressed it better than we did at any of the other places. I like the idea that you are going to add more. I would imagine they are planning that chain link with the slats through it. In a year or so, the slats will be broken and coming out…you know. I think that street back there, you know, when we originally platted all of this stuff, we thought in some ways that that was kind of going to be an alley back there, but it really has turned into a road that accesses the theater and a lot of the office buildings and some other things back there, so I think we have to consider what we do back there.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Mr. Sherman? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue?” DAVID FARHA “Some of the things Mr. Sherman spoke about to reiterate a lot of the things that have come up, we tried to word this to where the homeowners, I am the President of the Homeowners’ Association for Wilderness, and we got together with all of the businesses around Wal-Mart and we decided that we wanted to see some cooperation. We understand their need and we want to try to make this work, but it has to be done to where we can write into the CUP amendment to make them accountable. Okay? So that is what we have tried to do here is to make these stipulations that we are not unreasonable, but they were things that developers and builders and everybody else in other businesses around in the area had to do to get their building built. So that is where we came up with these lists of items. The pictures that are going around from Mr. Sherman and then the single sheet that has the pictures that we took back in November, showing the condition of the way that they were keeping that back area. We don’t want to see that happen again, and that is why we want to try to make it someway accountable that if things change after this is approved, we need to have some recourse to be able to go back and get it straightened out, but I don’t want to have to keep policing things every three months because things weren’t taken care of. A couple of things that I wanted to make sure that got written in that weren’t really included on the blue sheet. On No. 1, it talks about the crushed boxes and the plastic tote containers, that those do not have to be inside the storage trailers. That is correct, but they do need to be within that storage area. They also need to be picked up at least once a week. You will see in one of those photos that they have a wall of about 40 feet long of stacked up, crushed boxes that are not being picked up once a week, I guarantee that. The other thing was, I guess, in your original expansion, they had to enclose the two trash areas. One area has already been enclosed, the other one still needs to be enclosed. That hasn’t been done yet. Other than that, we support the recommendations in here, but we do want to make sure that Wal-Mart is accountable for what you guys decide today. Are there any questions?" MICHAELIS “Mr. Farha, how do you feel about the height of the masonry wall? Everything I have seen go around here is that the wall is kind of half way up on the trailers. Are you okay with that?” FARHA “What we have tried to do, on the perimeter of the property, where you see the curve lines and the landscaping area, that is where we are proposing the 6-foot high masonry wall. Then, the area that they are actually going to do the storage trailers, the 50 storage trailers, that is where it has to be the 12-foot high fence with the mesh material. So, basically, yes, it is a double screening, but what it does is that it brings into the rest of the neighborhood because the Penstemon subdivision, the Wilderness subdivision, the businesses across the street, the Chalet, Hollow Metal Door, they were all required to put in that same type of masonry wall around their property. So we wanted to get that same look and then still give them their storage area but keep that contained.” MICHAELIS “Okay. Then do you understand, because Mr. Sherman brought up a very good point about that chain link fence and what it is going to look like, do you understand that?” FARHA “Right. It needs to be maintained. I don’t know that using the slats is the more durable of the two. When they design it, it needs to be set up so that either the complete interior has solid steel bumper blocks or something so that when they are loading those trailers in and out they are not just dropping it and pushing it right through the fence.” MCKAY “Did I understand you to say, Mr. Farha, that you wanted some more verbiage to this agreement?” FARHA “Uh huh. Something to that effect.” MCKAY “That the crushed boxes on the outside should be in the outside storage and picked up weekly. You are wanting to add that to that?” FARHA “Yes.” MCKAY “What was the other one?” FARHA “Enclose the trash area. They have another trash area that has not been enclosed yet.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Mr. Farha? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?” DOUG MALONE “I am at 150 North Market. I represent 3130 Northrock, LLC, Emira-Five LLC, Dr. Max Moss and Alan Schimmel. George Sherman made some good points. I am kind of on the other side of this this time. I am usually developing these deals and working on the side of Mr. Kaplan, but George did make some good points about how Wal-Mart comes in and makes promises and doesn’t seem to keep them. When we first saw this proposal, we weren’t in agreement with it at all, but after some conversations with Mr. Ferris and Mr. Kaplan, I think Wal-Mart has done an outstanding job of being a cooperative neighbor and as a representative of the adjoining property owners, we are in support of what they are proposing with the changes that David Farha is requesting in the minutes. Thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Doug? Okay. Thanks, Doug. Is there anyone else to speak on this? Okay, then the applicant has two minutes of rebuttal.” GREG FERRIS “I am representing the Wal-Mart Company. Just a couple of quick issues. The first thing, I think it is important to understand with regard to parking, is that the area that we are talking about screening here, the entire area was wrongfully, and we will admit wrongfully, used as storage during the Christmas season. We are going to actually have more parking here than we did in the Christmas season from last year. The employees didn’t have any trouble, because they won’t let their employees park in the front. Since this is only employee parking, that will not be an issue. So I think that is an important point. We don’t plan to use the slats, rather the mesh, which we developed at the Lowe’s site if you remember when they did that out west in an almost identical type of situation. They enclosed it, only they went up as high as their building, which was quite a bit higher. Since we are apart from the building, that isn’t necessary, and that is why we are not going that high. So, we believe that those things shall take place. The other reason, frankly, the neighbors are not happy with Wal-Mart. We understand that. We have met with them, and the other reason they want the 6-foot enclosed screening wall is to keep Wal-Mart in. We recognize that. The reason that other areas have those fences is that they are required by Code to have those except for the neighborhoods they like to have them. We are not required for that extra wall, but frankly, we are willing to try and make up for the sins of the past to go not just the extra mile, but the extra two or three miles. So I hope that addresses the issues that were raised. I think that what you have is frankly a plan that goes well beyond. Wal-Mart thought the fence was zoned commercial and not all of us read Community Unit Plans close. They thought that because it was zoned commercial; they could do outside storage. They were not within 150 feet of the residential property, so they thought they could do it. They got it excessive. We have sat down with Mr. Freerks and informed him of the things that should be expected of him. I think he now understands and I think what the properties look like as a result of that. We also do agree with the amendments that David Farha added. We have no problem with that. I will be glad to answer any questions.” MARNELL “Did I hear reference to the trash area screening that it was a requirement on the building expansion that has yet to be…” FERRIS “It was not required initially. We actually did the first one voluntarily to try and keep that enclosed as we went through this process. We just went back and said ‘let’s get those enclosed’. They got one of them enclosed and then wanted to see if that was the right way to do it as we went through this process. So their intention is, and we do agree with that as well, is that will be enclosed when we do this other expansion. No problem there.” BARFIELD “Greg, I have a couple of questions. Are these stationery boxes going to be facing….” FERRIS “Yes. Those are those stationery boxes that they come and drop. These are not the trailers that you are used to seeing. Frankly, they are allowed by Code to bring those in for a day or two and unload them and those kinds of things. This is a situation where they are 8-1/2 to 9-foot storage containers that they drop. They leave them there. They usually have 8 to 10 of them, but during the Christmas season they might have as many as 40 to 50. Obviously they don’t keep them longer than they need to because they have to pay for them.” BARFIELD “Are you familiar with these pictures?” FERRIS “Are those from David or from Mr. Sherman.” BARFIELD “Mr. Sherman.” FERRIS “I have not seen Mr. Sherman’s pictures, I have seen David’s pictures.” BARFIELD “The reason I asked is that it appears here that these containers, if these are the containers, that they are stacked. We haven’t talked about that.” FERRIS “We do not have any problem if you want to include in there that they can’t be stacked one on top of another. We don’t do that there. I don’t know about that site or why they do it. It is a little harder. I don’t know how they unload those, but I don’t have any problem with it. Well, you have already included that here ‘no storage can be above the 12-foot fence’. So whether we stack it or not is irrelevant. We couldn’t go above the 12-foot fence anyway.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Mr. Ferris? Okay, thanks, Greg.” MCKAY “Just for clarification. What you are recommending now is on the blue memo dated April 27 with the changes?” GAROFALO “That’s correct.” MICHAELIS “Marvin, this is a question for you. Is there any kind of a ratio in this kind of a zoning for outdoor storage versus the size of the building?” KROUT “Well, in Limited Commercial district, and in this case tied by the Community Unit Plan, the maximum that you are normally allowed is 10 per cent of the core area of the building can be in addition to the display and the outside storage. If you have a 100,000 square foot building you can have 10,000 square feet of outside storage and it needs to meet screening requirements in the Code. This is exceeding the 10 per cent and that is why they have to obtain this amendment. MICHAELIS “I guess I would like to make a comment in reference to this whole thing because I am not a fan of outdoor storage. I think we are starting to abuse it. We sit here and we give it to Dillons and everybody else, and all of a sudden this outdoor storage turns into outside display and we sit here and talk about things that we are doing 3-1/2 miles out in the County and we are not concerned about things that we are doing within our City. I think this is something we need to take a look at. I don’t know that this is the appropriate time, but I think it is something we need to look at. I am just not a fan of this kind of stuff.” WHEELER “I have a question in the letter from Farha regarding the parking issue. There was a reference made, I think, to that they do have adequate parking, but when they put the temporary sales of landscape or something on the west lot, then they are not in compliance with the required storage. I guess I would just like to have a comment from staff on whether that is correct or incorrect. Some of the letters that were sent to us.” KROUT “We asked the applicant to do a calculation. I think Russ (Ewy) has that information.” RUSS EWY “I am the agent for the applicant with the Baughman Company. That was something we took a look at when reviewing this. If you recall, the expansion, the last CUP amendment that they processed some two or three years ago, in addition to adding that 80,000 square feet for the supermarket, they also addressed their outdoor storage for their outside seasonal display area, which takes up 70 some parking spaces, but the calculations consider that.” WHEELER “So they do have the required parking?” EWY “They do. I think that what was addressed earlier holds true. It is not so much how much parking they have, we do meet Code requirement, but you get into the situation where it is located and I don’t think any of the codes require where you actually place your parking stalls.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay. What’s the pleasure?” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is predominately developed with commercial uses, with the nearest residentially-developed properties located approximately 600 feet to the southeast in the Penstemon 2nd Addition. To the north is a theater and a bowling alley on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and “LC” Limited Commercial. To the east is manufacturing and warehousing on property zoned “GC” General Commercial and a tavern on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. To the south is a veterinarian office on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and a church on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential. To the west are numerous retail businesses on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is currently developed as a commercial parking area. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the recommended conditions of approval for the CUP amendment. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “Commercial” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. If approved with the recommended conditions of approval, the CUP amendment conforms to the Land Use Guide and the Commercial Locational Guidelines. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property for outdoor storage should have limited impact on community facilities.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. Outdoor storage shall be limited to the west 200 feet of the north 153 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 of the Home Design Center Addition. Outdoor storage shall be enclosed in storage containers or trailers with the exception of crushed boxes and plastic tote containers. Crushed boxes and plastic tote containers shall be removed from the site at least once per week. 2. A 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north, south, and east property lines of Lot 2, Block 2 of the Home Design Center Addition except for the locations of existing access drives. A 12-foot high solid screening fence (chain link with woven black mesh or similar screening) shall be constructed around the north, south, and east sides of the outdoor storage area. In no event shall the height of outdoor storage material exceed the height of the solid screening fence. 3. Existing landscaping along the east and south property lines of Lot 2, Block 2 of the Home Design Center Addition shall be supplemented per a landscape plan approved by the Director of Planning. The additional landscaping shall consist of ornamental trees planted 15 feet apart from each other and the existing ornamental or shade trees. All landscaping shall be located on east or south side of the masonry wall. 4. All areas on Parcel 2 containing trash containers shall be enclosed. 5. General Provision #5 shall be modified to replace the phrase “Section 28.04.139 of the” with the term “sign” when referring to the Sign Code of the City of Wichita. Also, General Provision #5 shall be modified to require that ground/pole signs shall be spaced 150 feet apart on Parcel 2 and at least 150 feet from signs on other parcels in the CUP. 6. General Provision #14 shall be modified to replace the phrase “Section 28.04.140 of the Code of the City of Wichita” with the phrase “Unified Zoning Code” when referring to parking requirements. 7. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 8. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 9. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “Would you be willing to ask that, something that the applicant volunteered, which was to take out the word ‘minimum’ on item No. 2 and just put 12 foot high.” MCKAY “I have no problem with that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I have another question, too. Would it be of any use on this chain link with the black mesh just to say something about it being maintained? Does that need to be placed on there?” KROUT “I think we have a general provision in the Zoning Ordinance that applies to wood screening fences or mesh screening or anything.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Just one comment, and that is that I hope this is tight enough because I know that Wal-Mart does have a bad reputation for that. I know that they are going to create another Wal-Mart in the northwest part of town, and I sure hope that there is something put into the C.U.P. that comes before us on that that takes care of some of these loopholes. It doesn’t provoke good community relations nor good customers to have things that way.” GAROFALO “Maybe they could build a building big enough that they could use part of it for that kind of stuff. Okay. Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor, and one vote in opposition (Michaelis). KROUT “This decision is final unless one of the property owners files a protest. He has 14 days in which to do that.” ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Case No. ZON2000-00006 - Brant Investment c/o Larry Hackney Owner/Applicant) request zone change from “MF- 29” Multi-Family Residential to “OW” Office Warehouse on property described as: Lots 13, 15, 17 & 19, on Dayton Avenue, Lawrence’s 7th Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located south of Kellogg and west of Seneca (1117 & 1121 W. Dayton. SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential to “OW” Office Warehouse on a 0.32 acre platted tract located south of Kellogg and west of Seneca (1117 & 1121 W. Dayton). The applicant proposes to convert the single-family residence at 1117 W. Dayton into an office and to construct a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot warehouse in the rear yard of both addresses for use by an electrical contracting business owned by the applicant. Access to the site would be from a paved alley running north from Dayton and parallel to Seneca. The applicant has indicated that he has an informal agreement with the adjoining commercial property to the east for access across their property to Seneca. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residences. The only commercial business in the immediate area is adjacent to the subject property to the east. Property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned “MF-29” Multi- Family Residential and is developed primarily with single-family residences with a few duplexes interspersed. Property to the east of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a tavern (Old English Pub). Off-street parking requirements in the Unified Zoning Code are 1 space per 250 square feet of office area and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse area. The applicant has indicated that he has an informal agreement with the adjoining commercial property to the east for off-site parking. Without a variance, the Unified Zoning Code permits no more than 50% of the required parking to be located off-site. Screening requirements in the Unified Zoning Code are decorative fencing, evergreen vegetation, or landscaped earth berms where adjacent to or across the street from residential zoning districts. In addition to screening, the Landscape Ordinance requires buffer tree planting along rear and side boundaries where adjacent to residential zoning districts. CASE HISTORY: The site is in Lawrence’s 7th Addition, which was platted April 25, 1887. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family SOUTH: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family EAST: “LC” Tavern/Drinking Establishment WEST: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has frontage to Dayton, a two-lane paved local street that accesses Seneca (a four-lane arterial) ½ block to the east. Current traffic volumes on Seneca are approximately 19,000 vehicles per day. The 2030 Transportation Plan estimates the volumes will increase to approximately 25,000 vehicles per day. The site is currently served with municipal water and sewer. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The proposed zone change does not adhere to either the Land Use Guide or the Commercial Locational Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be DENIED. However, if in the opinion of the Planning Commission the application should be approved, planning staff recommends that the approval be subject replatting and the following conditions of a Protective Overlay: 1. The zone change to “OW” Office Warehouse shall apply only to that portion of the application area to be used for commercial purposes. Any portion of the application area to be used for residential purposes shall be excluded from the “OW” Office Warehouse zoning lot. The applicant shall submit a revised legal description of the “OW” Office Warehouse zoning lot that excludes that portion of the application area to be used for residential purposes. 2. Only the following uses shall be permitted on the zoning lot: construction sales and service; office, general; and warehousing. 3. The warehouse building shall be setback at least 20 feet from the east property line to provide a loading and parking area. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residences. The only commercial business in the immediate area is adjacent to the subject property to the east. Property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single-family residences with a few duplexes interspersed. Property to the east of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a tavern (Old English Pub). 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “MF-29” Multi- Family Residential and is currently developed with viable residential uses. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Introducing commercial uses into a neighborhood that is used for residential purposes has the potential to cause a decline in the desirability of neighboring properties for residential use and could result in declining residential property values from nuisances such as lighting, noise, odor, etc. from the commercial uses. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The proposed zone change does not adhere to either the Land Use Guide or the Commercial Locational Guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Community facilities should not be adversely impacted. KNEBEL “This item was heard on April 13, two weeks ago and the minutes from that meeting are attached to the staff report. At that meeting, a motion was made to approve the request, subject to the conditions listed in the recommendations of the staff report. This motion resulted in a moot vote, which would have resulted in a failure to recommend approval. A second motion was made to approve ‘NO’ Neighborhood Office for the east half of the subject property, which was substituted with a motion for a two week deferral, which leads to the case being heard today. Staff doesn’t have anything to add to their presentation from two weeks ago; however, the applicant has put together an information packet and I believe has additional information for you.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Scott?” WARREN “I just wondered if Deanna is going to be back?” GAROFALO “I think Marvin said something about her having to leave at 3:30. Oh, here she is she’s back. Are there any questions of Scott? Okay, then, we will hear from the applicant.” LARRY HACKNEY “I am with Hackney Electric. I appreciate you giving this a second consideration. I hope you all received the packets that I mailed to you and additionally today the notarized letters from the two neighbors that would be most affected by my traffic. Other than what I have already sent and distributed to you and the discussions we have previously had, I can’t think of anything to add at this point, but I will answer any questions.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions for Mr. Hackney? Not at this point. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? If not, we will take it back to the Commission.” WARREN “I don’t know that I have a motion. I am not in favor of encroaching commercial zoning in on residential when I think residential has a chance to maybe retrieve itself, to better itself. But I think, in this case, whereas it is almost adjacent to an Interstate Highway, and it is adjacent to commercial, it is not the ideal use of the land, but I certainly don’t think it is any worse than what we are going to have if we don’t do this. Then I am looking at the opposite. What if we don’t do it? I think if we don’t allow this use, probably what we are going to see is just further deterioration. I am going to make a motion.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (1.The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residences. The only commercial business in the immediate area is adjacent to the subject property to the east. Property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single-family residences with a few duplexes interspersed. Property to the east of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a tavern (Old English Pub). The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential and is currently developed with viable residential uses. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Introducing commercial uses into a neighborhood that is used for reside