METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 16, 1999 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, December 16, 1999 at 10:00 a.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; Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner; Ray Warren; and Deanna Wheeler. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Lisa Verts, Senior Planner, Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Approval of the minutes of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission meetings of September 30, 1999 and October 14, 1999. MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes for the September 30, 1999 and October 14, 1999 meetings as submitted. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). 2. Subdivision Committee items 2/4 and 2/9, 2/10, 2/11, and 2/12 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MCKAY moved, WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/1. S/D 95-56 – Final Plat of BAHTHROP FOURTH ADDITION (FORMERLY CLARK ADDITION), located north of Central, on the west side of K-96. A. As this site is adjacent to Wichita’s city limits, the applicant shall submit a request for annexation. If the Applicant chooses to complete the plat prior to annexation, both City and County consideration is needed and the County Commissioner signature block will be required. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. This guarantee shall be with the County for service through the Four Mile Creek sanitary sewer system. On the final plat tracing, appropriate wording shall be added to the Mayor’s signature block indicating the City’s agreement to allow a County sewer district to be formed within the City. County Engineering requests a sanitary sewer layout. C. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water to serve the lots being platted. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. E. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. A drainage guarantee and an off-site drainage agreement is required. F. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for the paving of the interior streets. This guarantee shall also provide for a sidewalk along one side of the looped street (Tipperary/White Tail/Bracken) and the related street connections (Woodridge and Tipperary). G. City Fire Department needs to comment on the need for an emergency access easement to provide for two points of access to this site. City Fire Department has limited development to 1600 feet from the closest intersection in the Balthrop Addition until an emergency access easement is installed. H. City Fire Department needs to indicate if the street names being platted are appropriate. The street names are acceptable. I. Lots 21-24 exceed the maximum depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1 and a modification will need to be granted. The Subdivision Committee has approved the modification. J. To allow for County Surveyor approval, the appropriate signature block needs to be added. K. 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. 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 comm ent on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. GAROFALO “It is requested that this item be deferred. Is there someone here to speak on this item?” KROUT “It is the final plat of the Balthop Fourth Addition, is there anyone here to speak on it?” GARY WILEY “Mr. Chair, Commissioners, we would just like to defer this to the January 13th meeting so we can get some emergency access easements worked out.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions?” MOTION: That the item be deferred to the January 13 meeting. GAROFALO moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2/2. S/D 99-70 – One-Step final plat of STONEBOROUGH SECOND ADDITION, located on the west side of Broadway, north of 55th Street South. A. Existing municipal services are available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to verify if any guarantees are required. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A private storm sewer extension is required at the time of site development. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along Broadway, including one joint access. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. Traffic Engineering has approved one access opening per lot. The Subdivision Committee has approved the plat with two openings subject to concurrence by KDOT. E. The MAPC signature block should be revised to reference “Francis S. Garofalo” as the MAPC Chairman. F. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. G. The applicant’s agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. H. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. I. The dimension along the north line of the plat needs to be revised to correspond with the legal description. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should 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. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. STRAHL “As you may recall, this plat is subject to a 1977 agreement between the City of Wichita and KDOT, whereby the City agreed not to permit any additional openings on this portion of Broadway. The City requested an exception from KDOT from this agreement to allow for one opening per lot. The action of the Subdivision Committee was to approve this plat, subject to concurrence by KDOT of the one opening per lot. The action of the planning Commission at the last meeting was to defer this plat until response was received from KDOT regarding their position on the access openings. As of today, we have not received response from KDOT. Staff has been advised from the City Law Department that we should proceed today with consideration of the plat and the City should not be bound by any future approvals or disapprovals by KDOT regarding access to this plat. Upon further review, both MAPD and City Engineering request the approval of this plat, subject to the following: Two openings would be permitted, one access opening along the north property line to allow for possible shared access with the property to the north and one opening on the south lot across the street from the existing opening there. Also, the dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along Broadway. This is needed to the existing roadway configuration whereby the center line of Broadway is offset 20 feet from the center line of the paving. Are there any questions of staff?” GAROFALO “Neil, what happens if KDOT comes back and doesn’t like this?” MCKAY “He just said that the Law Department said we didn’t have to pay any attention to them.” GAROFALO “Okay, we will let the Law Department take care of it.” STRAHL “They suggested that we proceed.” GAROFALO “What is the pleasure?” MCKAY “I would like to hear the applicant’s response.” GAROFALO “Okay, let’s hear from the applicant.” SAVOY “I am with Savoy, Ruggles, and Bohm, representing the applicant. We are in agreement with the recommended access controls as stated by Neil, and we are in agreement with the dedication with an additional 10-foot of street right-of-way.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions? Thanks, Mark.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that this request be approved. MCKAY moved, WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). --------------------------------------------------------- 2/3. S/D 99-65 – Final Plat of NORTH VALLEY FARMS ADDITION, located on the east and west sides of Meridian, north of 117th Street North. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Health Department should comment on the buildable area for Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, which contain a floodplain reserve. Health Department has requested a plot plan to insure sufficient area for installation of sewage lagoons. Approval of groundwater testing is also required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage concept. A flood study is required including a HEC-2 run. A drainage easement is requested along the south line of Lot 6. D. County Fire should comment on the plat’s street names. The street names are approved. E. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. F. The applicant’s agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. G. Lots 1 through 6, Block 3 exceed the maximum lot width to lot depth ratio of 2.5 to 1. A modification will need to be approved. The Subdivision Committee has approved a modification. H. The MAPC Chair should be revised to reference “Francis S. Garofalo”. I. County Fire should comment on the street length. The 1950-ft length of the interior streets exceeds the 1200-ft maximum street length imposed by the Subdivision Regulations. The street length has been approved. J. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the interior streets to the suburban street standard. This guarantee shall include the installation of temporary cul-de-sacs for the termination of the streets. K. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. L. Bearings, distances and recording information need to be added for the pipeline easements on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2; Lot 3, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 2; and Lot 1, Block 4. M. The easement located in Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 5 needs to be labeled and dimensioned. N. Dimensions need to be added for the north lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. O. Dimensions need to be added for the south lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. P. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. Q. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) R. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. S. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. T. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. U. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. V. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. W. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. X. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Y. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “This item is North Valley Farms, located on the east and west sides Meridian, north of 117th Street North. This plat is located in the County, and was approved by the Subdivision Committee at our last meeting. It is located within the 100-year flood plain and lots along the eastern portion of the plat are encumbered by the flood plain and we need the Health Department to receive a site plan to ensure that there is additional area for installation of the sewage lagoons. Other than that, I believe all of the other issues have been resolved. County Engineering did approve the drainage plan and County Fire approved street names and a modification was approved by the Subdivision Committee for the lot depth/width ratio with 2-1/2 to 1 being exceeded by the lots along the eastern portion of the plat. Are there any questions for staff?” MARNELL “Is this falling in the flood plain?” STRAHL “Yes, the eastern portion.” MARNELL “What provisions to alleviate that in regard to building have been made?” STRAHL “They have platted for minimum building pads, actually for all of the lots, and the little chart down here which would set the minimum floor level for new construction. There is also a flood study that is being done to be submitted to County Engineering as reflected in Item C.” MARNELL “So do I understand that to mean that the construction itself on any of this land will be above the 100-year flood plain?” STRAHL “After construction, yes.” MARNELL “Are there any other questions of Neil? Okay. Is the applicant here?” MARK SAVOY “I am with Savoy, Ruggles and Bohm. We are in agreement with staff comments.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions?” MCKAY “I would like to hear from the Health Department on the concerns of water and stuff.” RACHELLE MEYERES “Good morning. I am with Wichita/Sedgwick County Health Department. I spoke with Jack Brown this morning about this issue. We are working with the applicant and the engineering firm on hydrology tests with the geologists. These are for quantity of the aquifer that they will be withdrawing from, and any impact that the aquifer, if it is to pull any more from that aquifer, and any effects to the southern portions of those properties.” MCKAY “Are you saying that there is not enough water, there is enough water..what?” MEYERES “There has just been an issue. The quantity is not enough. It will pull the aquifer and affect surrounding properties or neighboring homes. The main thing to do here is to get testing done on the quantity of that water, or that aquifer.” MCKAY “There is not a rural water district there?” MEYERES “Not to my knowledge, there is not. Not that far north.” MCKAY “It is just east of Sedgwick and north of Valley, so I guess there is no rural water district that goes into any of that area.” MEYERES “I have done that through the subdivision and I did not see that that was adequate to tie into rural water district.” MCKAY “So are you saying to approve this subject to working it out with you and making sure it is okay, or to defer it until you get it worked out.” MEYERES “Deferring could be an option. We could also approve it at this time when sufficient quantity tests have been completed.” LOPEZ “What about the separation between sewage and the water table?” MEYERES “There has been adequate distance; there is the ten foot requirement. Other than that, we have gone through the plat to establish what type of groundwater, what elevation it is at, where it is at opposed to the flood plain. So that will all be decided when we can issue a permit or not.” GAROFALO “Mark, can I ask you to come up? Would you have a problem with a deferral?” SAVOY “I would rather you would vote on it. We agreed to meet Health Department requirements at Subdivision, and the water test was not a part of that, but we are willing to add that into the bore tests and the other items that were required by the Health Department and satisfy those requirements in the same fashion that we had planned them.” MCKAY “If they don’t come out positive, you are willing to drop this?” SAVOY “Well, if we don’t satisfy the Health Department, I guess we would have a problem with them, I suppose.” GAROFALO “Are there any other speakers on this issue?” JOEY RATHBUN “I live at Route One Sedgwick. I spoke to you before. I am a neighbor of this particular property. As we have said before, we have a number of concerns. The quantity of water; the quality of water. Certainly the quality of water after 18 lagoons are added. Yes, some of this property is within the 100-year flood plain, but as all of you know, for the 100-year flood plain, we don’t wait 100 years for that flood anymore. It happens about twice a year. So I would think that common sense prevails over existing code. Thank you.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments and Health Department approval. MCKAY moved, WARREN seconded the motion. KROUT “Mark, will you come up again? Can you explain in a little more detail what drainage studies still have to be done?” SAVOY “Actually, it is completed. We used a HEC program that Jim Weber was not familiar with. It is one that Bob George is actually the one that reviews the drainage. The sliver of ground right here (indicating) is in a 100-year flood zone. The structures and lagoons fit up out of that without any problem. We are not going to encroach into it. Our minimum pad elevation has been established based on that 100-year flood elevation, and the natural ground is above it. What we do in those drainage concerns with the County is that we retain water so that no more water leaves the site and the developed state is the undeveloped state. That is fairly easy to do on large tracts like this because you are not creating near as much hard surface as you are in an urban subdivision.” MCKAY “Mr. Chair, if the second will agree, I would like to change my motion from approval to deferral until this is all taken care of. At Subdivision last week, the deal on the HEC study was supposed to be taken care of by this week. If it hasn’t gotten to the County and they haven’t approved it, then I don’t want two conditions on it. I would just as soon defer it until they get it all taken care of.” SAVOY “I am saying that it has been.” MCKAY “Weber hasn’t approved it because he was supposed to let us know.” SAVOY “That is the word he gave Neil. Neil checked with him this morning.” MCKAY “Okay. I misunderstood that.” KROUT “Just to follow up, because normally they don’t keep retention on 5-acre lot developments. Are you saying that you are retaining the water?” SAVOY “No. You’ve got a flood zone there. Of course the neighbors are concerned about how much water leaves that site, and if we contribute additional water to it, how much additional effect that has downstream. And it is not unusual on any plat, whether it is 5 acres or a half acre to maintain your drainage at the present undeveloped rate.” MARNELL “Are there restrictions on those lots on the right side that prevents construction in that flood zone?” SAVOY “We have a floodway reserve easement there, we have minimum pad elevations. You can’t build in the easement and the easement is designed to include all of the ground that is in the 100-year zone. On top of that, we have minimum pad elevations that do not allow excavation lower than that on adjacent property that is now presently above that.” KROUT “I am sorry, and I know that this is a small case, but when we require detention, we usually have a reserve somewhere on the site where all of the detention is directed to before it goes on down stream. Do you have a place like that?” SAVOY “This is a floodway reserve that the flood zone is in. We are going to retain it within that floodway reserve through a series of small dams, you might call them.” KROUT “Okay. They will be designed to contain water?” SAVOY “To not allow an increase in run-off off of this property. “ KROUT “But to carry the 100-year storm water.” SAVOY “Yes, sir.” PLATT “Based on this motion, would the case not proceed to the County Commission until the Health Department approved it, or would it go to them and then the building permit would be held up until it was approved?” KROUT “You are asking if it would not proceed to the County Commission until the Health Department? Right.” PLATT “It would not.” MCKAY “If you want me to, I will make that part of the motion.” REVISED MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments and the approval of the drainage by the County Engineer, and the approval by the Health Department. And that it not proceed until that is all accomplished. MCKAY moved, WARREN seconded the motion. LOPEZ “I have a question of Mark again, on this retention issue. If you are going to design a series of, as you stated, dams, to limit the flow of run-off so it isn’t any higher than it would be during a regular 100 year flood plain, are you saying that the dams will be higher than the water level during the 100-year flood plain when you are finished constructing the dams?” SAVOY “I am saying that it will slow the rate of flow such that water will not leave this property at any greater rate after it is developed than it does presently in its undeveloped state. As to the height of the dam, we could get into design, but I would rather not design. I don’t know how high they are going to be or anything.” LOPEZ “My question is that I am assuming that we will know what the height of water level will be in that area of the 100 year flood plain. So if you know what that height is…” SAVOY “Right, but I don’t design them, so I would need one of my partners here to answer that question for you specifically.” KROUT “I’m sorry, but if we haven’t designed what the height of the dam is going to be, how do we know how wide that flood reserve needs to be?” SAVOY “The flood reserve is based on the 100-year storm today. We aren’t going to increase that area any by slowing down the rate of the flow. There will be excavation that takes place in there for retention. It is an engineering mystical, magical marvel as far as I am concerned.” KROUT “The Planning Commission and others have become more skeptical about the engineering marvels, and what affect they are having on the flood plain. I just want to try to get a better understanding.” MCKAY “I want it understood that we have all of these conditions in writing prior to this proceeding to the County Commission.” KROUT “It is just very unusual. I have never heard that the County Engineer was requiring retention for 5-acre lots before.” SAVOY “I don’t know that he required it.” KROUT “Okay. It is not part of your drainage plan, then. It is just something you are agreeing to.” SAVOY “Not necessarily. It is really for an aesthetic value somewhat. We have homes here, potential water in this area at different times in the year, and property back here that could potentially be used but not accessible in some cases. So the desire is to build kind of a little joint pond in pairs of lots, leaving a way to get to the backside of the property basically. If you want to call them dams, through the little dams.” KROUT “If it is not part of your engineering approval now, who will be required to approve that later?” SAVOY “It all goes through the County. Anything we do in that flood zone has to be approved by the County. We can’t do anything in the flood zone without permission.” MCKAY “That was my point, Marvin. The County has to approve what they are going to do.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 10 votes in favor. There was no opposition. KROUT “Mrs. Rathbun, we will notify you one way or the other as to whether the Health Department is testing or not.” NOBEL CALLOWAY “I would like to speak on this, sir, if I could. I am one of the property owners.” GAROFALO “I asked if there was anyone to speak and you didn’t raise your hand.” CALLOWAY “I guess I didn’t hear you sir, I’m sorry.” GAROFALO “Well, we have already had a motion, and have passed that motion. We will hear your comments for the record.” CALLOWAY “Just south of this area that we are talking about, and this damming area that they are talking about, this 100-year water problem, if you are going to build dams there, the houses are going to have to be elevated so high that there won’t be water going into them. If they leave it like it is, the people that bought this property comes in there and cut a drainway out of this property where this area is, there is usually about three or four acres of water standing there, mostly all of the time when it rains and floods out there. This is in a floodplain area. I know for a fact that this was cut through here not too long ago, and dirt was taken and piled all along the fence row to this neighbor that I am talking about so that that water could drain out of that field. If you go in there and dam it all, there is going to be more than a 3 or 4 acre lake up there in this particular area that we are talking about. My concern is just like Joey Rathbun said, it floods about once or twice a year out there, and several times a year you can’t even get out of that property. I can’t go into Valley Center, I can’t get out on 125th Street, I can’t go to Sedgwick and get out because it is usually flooded there, too. So if you come in there and build a bunch more homes with lagoons, my well particularly has been under water two or three times since I have been out there because of this high water. If we start putting homes in there, we are going to have the same problem, only it is going to be worse than what it is. That field that this water comes through is usually always wet down there, at least two or three months out of the year. Since I have been out there, there has always been water down in this field. I just wanted to put my comments in about that because it is a problem. Thank you.” GAROFALO “Okay, thank you.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 2/5. S/D 99-62 – Final Plat of RIDGEPORT NORTH 3RD ADDITION, located on the south side of 37th Street North, east of Ridge Road. A. This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change and any related conditions of such a zone change. Prior to this plat being heard by the MAPC, the zone change have been submitted and approved. B. As the eastern portion of this site is adjacent to Wichita’s city limits, the applicant shall submit a request for annexation. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the eastern portion of the site will need to be completed. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single-Family Residential and thereby permit the lot sizes being platted. C. This site is located beyond the Northwest Wichita sanitary sewer growth limits. The boundary will need to be extended to include service to this plat. The applicant shall guarantee extension of sanitary sewer and City water. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any additional guarantees or easements. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for paving of the west half of Eisenhower. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. E. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A drainage guarantee is required. 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 sidewalks or drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the sidewalks or 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. City Fire Department needs to comment on the plat’s street names. The final plat tracing needs to indicate the following street name changes: 34th St. North Circle to 34th Circle North, and 34th St. North Court to 34th Court North. I. The applicant shall guarantee the construction of the proposed interior streets. This guarantee shall include the installation of a temporary cul-de-sac for Lakeway. The guarantee shall also include sidewalks on one side of the through streets – 34th St. North, Lakeway, Brookview and Ridge Port. J. The final plat shall indicate a 10-ft dedication of right-of-way along the south portion of Eisenhower and a 30-ft dedication along the north portion of Eisenhower. The requested right-of-way has been provided. K. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent 15-foot street, drainage and utility easements, a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. L. Traffic Engineering shall comment on the need for improvements to perimeter streets. No improvements are required. M. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. N. City Fire Department should comment on the length of the interior streets. Brookview Court (700 ft) in Block 2 exceeds the 600-ft limitation on street length. City Fire has approved the length of this street due to its 64 foot width. O. The platting binder indicates that an additional party has an ownership interest in the site. This party needs to be added as part of the owner’s signature block. P. The dimensions on the north and south lines of Lot 27, Block 1, do not match the dimension on the north line of Lot 28, Block 1. Q. The triangular piece of land north of Lot 1, Block 2, needs to be labeled as a Reserve. R. 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. S. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. T. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) U. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. V. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. W. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. X. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. Y. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Z. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. AA. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. The Applicant shall meet with KGE and Southwestern Bell before the MAPC meeting to determine location of additional easements. BB. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “This was approved by the Subdivision Committee, contingent upon the applicant meeting with the utility companies and coming to an agreement on the location in width of additional easements as is stated in Item AA. Utility easements are typically centered on the side and rear lot lines and they are usually 20 feet wide along the rear lot lines and 10 feet wide along the side lot lines. The Subdivision regulations specify additional width may be added in instances where utility easements may be used for drainage purposes. In this plat, there are lots where storm sewers are planned to be located within a utility easement, and the utility companies have requested additional width, in some cases up to 30 feet. That has been objected to by the applicant, and therefore a meeting was requested between the applicant and the utility companies. As of today, the applicant has met with the utility companies. The width and location of all of the easements has been agreed upon. They are all to be within 20 feet wide and the specific locations of Southwestern Bell, KG&E, sanitary and storm sewer have all been specified.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil? Okay. Is the applicant here?” PHIL MEYER “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. We are in agreement as Neil present this.” MICHAELIS “Am I to understand, then, that basically we are right back where everything is fitting into a 20-foot easement, and we really didn’t have to do any extensions or anything?” MEYER “We re-adjusted some locations to make sure that everything fit within the 20-foot to keep each utility company happy. So we made some location changes but we kept the width the same.” MCKAY “I have a statement. One of the things KG&E and the utilities requested was 30 foot carte blanche clear across the whole project. What this is now, as far as I am concerned, is when they bring in one, if they request it, and it is not for the whole plat, it is just where they actually need it. Because going to 5,000 square foot lots, and if you are going to take 30 feet off of the back of a piece of property, especially where property is already existing that only has a 10-foot easement, you have to get it all in a new plat, it may make it undoable, let’s put it that way.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone else to speak on this item? Okay, we will take it back to the Commission.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARREN moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/6. S/D 99-84 – Final Plat of RIDGE PORT 3RD ADDITION, located north of 29th Street North, east of Ridge Road. A. This site is located beyond the Northwest Wichita sanitary sewer growth limits. The boundary will need to be extended to include service to this plat. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of sewer service to this plat. The applicant shall guarantee extension of sanitary sewer and City water. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any additional guarantees or easements. A respread agreement is 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. A drainage guarantee is required. D. 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. E. For those reserves being platted for pedestrian improvements or drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the pedestrian improvements or 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. F. City Fire Department needs to comment on the plat’s street names. The street names are acceptable. G. The applicant shall guarantee the construction of the proposed interior streets. H. 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. I. City Fire Department should comment on the length of the interior streets. Northwind (680 ft) exceeds the 600-ft limitation on street length. City Fire has approved the length of this street due to its 64 foot width. J. 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. 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. The Applicant shall meet with KGE and Southwestern Bell before the MAPC meeting to determine location of additional easements. T. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “This plat, like the previous plat, was approved by the Subdivision Committee conditioned upon the applicant meeting with the utility companies and coming to an agreement on all of the utility easements. Subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant has met with the utility companies and the location of the utility easements has been agreed upon.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil? Is the applicant present? Do you want to comment on anything? You are in agreement?” PHIL MEYER (From the audience) “The same as the other one.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? If not, we will bring it back to the Commission. What’s the pleasure?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MICHAELIS moved, WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/7. S/D 99-53 – Revised Final Plat of UNIVERSAL 4TH ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of Greenwich Road and Kellogg. A. Municipal services are available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. No guarantees are required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the proposed access controls. The plat denotes two openings along Greenwich Road including a joint access between the two lots. Complete access control has been dedicated along Kellogg with one opening along the west 30 feet of the plat contingent upon construction of a frontage road. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control. Distances should be shown for all access controls. The access controls are approved. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way. The Applicant shall meet with Traffic Engineering before the MAPC meeting regarding Traffic Engineering’s request for the dedication of an additional ten feet of right-of-way along Greenwich. F. The platting binder indicates that the site’s ownership is in the name of an additional party. This party must be included in the owner’s signature block. G. The platting binder indicates a mortgagor on the site. The final plat tracing needs to be signed by any party holding a mortgage on the site. H. The scale needs to be corrected. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “This plat is located on the northwest corner of Greenwich Road and Kellogg. The Subdivision Committee had approved this plat, conditioned upon the applicant meeting with Traffic Engineering and coming into an agreement regarding the right-of-way along Greenwich. The applicant has met with Traffic Engineering and has agreed to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on Greenwich that will utilize, for the future, the Kellogg/Greenwich interchange. Are there any questions for staff?” GAROFALO “Are there any questions? Okay. Is the applicant present?” PHIL MEYER “We are in agreement with this.” GAROFALO “Okay, thank you. Are there any questions? Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? Okay, we will take it back to the Commission. What is the pleasure?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. LOPEZ moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion and it carried unanimously (11-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/8. S/D 99-81- One-step Final Plat of WILSON FARMS 2ND ADDITION, located south of 21st Street North, west of Webb Road. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff “Similar to the others, this plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee conditioned upon the applicant meeting with the utility companies and coming to an agreement on the location and with the utility easements. That meeting has occurred and the utility easements have all been agreed upon to be within 20 feet.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil? Is the applicant present?” GREG ALLISON “I am with Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing the applicant. We have come to an agreement with staff comments.” GAROFALO “Okay, thank you. Are there any questions? Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Commission.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MICHAELIS moved, WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------- GAROFALO “We can take items 2/4, 2/9, 2/10, 2/11, and 2/12 in one motion now, unless someone has questions on one of them.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MCKAY moved, WHEELER seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anyone here to speak on any of these items?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (11-0). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/4. S/D 97-34 - Final Plat of RESTHAVEN GARDENS OF MEMORY ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of Kellogg and 119th Street West. A. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees and easements. A petition is required for both City water and sanitary sewer; the sewer petition to be held until future need arises. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. No guarantees are required. D. The applicant proposes four access openings along Kellogg and two openings along 119th St. West. Traffic Engineering has advised the applicant that the four openings along Kellogg will connect to the one way proposed frontage road and access will be limited to right in and right out movements. The plattor’s text should note these access controls as being contingent upon construction of the frontage road. E. Traffic Engineering has required 75-ft of half street right-of-way along 119th St. West for a distance of 175 feet north of the Kellogg right-of-way line, then tapering to 50 feet in width at a distance of 275 feet north of the intersection. The right-of-way on the southwestern corner of the plat shall consist of a 60-ft radius connecting the 119th St. right-of- way line and the Kellogg right-of-way line. The final plat has included the requested right-of-way. F. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. G. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) H. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. K. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. O. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/9. S/D 99-82 – One-Step Final Plat of LAWRENZ ADDITION, located south of 95th Street South, on the east side of 151st Street West. 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. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes one opening per lot. The access controls are acceptable. 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 bearing for the east line of the plat needs to correspond with the legal description in the plattor’s text. H. Utility easements must be definitely located as per Subdivision Regulations. I. The MAPC signature block should be revised to reference “Francis S. Garofalo” as the MAPC Chairman. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should 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. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/10. S/D 99-77 – One-step final plat of VIA CHRISTI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of Murdock and Topeka. A. Prior to this plat being heard by the MAPC, the zone change and CUP Amendment shall have been approved. B. City water and sewer appears to be available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. No guarantees are required. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes two access openings along Topeka and two access openings along Murdock. The plat also denotes 150 feet of complete access control along both perimeter streets from the intersection in accordance with the Subdivision regulations. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of the street returns for Emporia. Distances shall be shown for all segments of access control. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for a left turn bay on Murdock and for modifications of the traffic signal at Emporia. F. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for traffic improvements (e.g. westbound right-turn lane along Murdock, signal modifications, etc.) G. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for dedication of additional right-of-way along perimeter streets; particularly additional right-of-way along Murdock for a potential westbound right turn lane. No additional right-of-way is needed. H. On the final plat, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat indicating that this Addition is subject to the conditions of Community Unit Plan DP-132, Amendment #1. I. The MAPC signature block should be revised to reference “Francis S. Garofalo” as the MAPC Chairman. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should 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. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/11. S/D 99-80 – One-Step Final Plat of RAINBOW ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, located on the east side of Seneca, South of 55th Street South. A. City Engineering needs to indicate if petitions for extensions of municipal water or sanitary sewer need to be provided at this time. Municipal water is available to serve the site. A petition for extension of sanitary sewer is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. County Engineering has requested a drainage easement along the north lot line. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The preliminary plat denotes two existing access openings. County Engineering has limited the site to one access opening. The access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text on the final plat tracing. F. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. G. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. H. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. I. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) J. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. K. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) 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 Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------- 2/12. S/D 99-85 – One-step Final Plat of DONALDSON-TALBERT ADDITION, located on the north side of MacArthur Road, east of West Street. A. Since this property is adjacent to the City of Wichita, the Applicant shall request annexation into the City. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single Family Residential. If annexation is completed prior to the plat’s submittal for City Council review, the County Commissioner’s signature block may be eliminated. B. 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. C. City Engineering requests the Applicant attempt to obtain a valid sewer petition. A petition for future City water (and sewer if applicable), shall be required. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. An off-site drainage easement is required. E. City Fire Department requires a 20-foot gravel road with a turnaround to within 150 feet of the most remote point of any structure. A site plan shall be submitted to City Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. G. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. H. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------------------------------------------------------------------- GAROFALO “Now we will take items 2/13 through 2/18.” KROUT “Do any of these items need special attention?” VERTS “No.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience to speak on these six vacation items? There was a man here, I don’t know if he still is. There he is. Sir, do you want to say anything here? Okay. I guess we can take them all in one motion, then.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WHEELER moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). 2/13. V-2205 – Gordon and Margaret Stewart request the vacation of a portion of a building setback described as: The west 20 feet of the 30-foot building setback as plated on Lot 26, Sherwood Glen 3rd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 37th street North and west of Seneca (4033 N. Amidon). A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The appearance of the room addition shall be similar in style and color to the existing home. 2. The roofline of the room addition may be lower in elevation than the existing roofline, but it shall have the same pitch and angle as the existing roof. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The appearance of the room addition shall be similar in style and color to the existing home. 2. The roofline of the room addition may be lower in elevation than the existing roofline, but it shall have the same pitch and angle as the existing roof. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/14. V-2206 – RRGNL,LLC c/o Jay Russell requests the vacation of a portionof access control, described as: The east 30 feet of the west 275 feet of access control adjacent to Reserve C along 29th Street North, Ridge Port Additin, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 29th Street North and 1/4 mile east of Ridge Road. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 4. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 5. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 6. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/15. V-2207 – Starr Investments, LLC, c/o Steven Barrett (owner); Bencor Development, c/o Jon Gorski (contract purchaser) requests the vacation of utility easements on property described as: Easement recorded in Misc. Book 469, page 388: Beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 10, Howard’s Addition, 191.75 feet east of the center line of Hillside Avenue; thence south to a point on the north line of Lot 2, Holyoke Avenue, Floral 2nd Addition, 191.75 feet east of the center line of Hillside Avenue; thence west 36.67 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on the south line of Lot 9, Howard’s Addition, 171.75 feet east of the center line of Hillside Avenue; thence east to the point of beginning. Easement recorded in Misc. Book 496, page 385: Beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 10, Howard’s Addition, 191.75 feet east of the center line of Hillside Avenue; thence north to a point on the north line of Lot 7, Howard’s Addition, 191.75 feet east of the center line of Hillside Avenue; thence west 20 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 8, Howard’s Addition, 20 feet west of the point of beginning; thence east to the point of beginning. Generally located on the southeast corner of Central and Hillside. The applicant is requesting to vacate adjoining utility easements (totaling 20-feet in width) on adjacent lots. These lots will be used for future commercial development. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, a substitute easement for the sewer line to be relocated as required by the City of Wichita Departments of Public Works and Engineering. 2. The applicant shall grant a temporary easement by separate instrument covering the existing easements until such time as the replacement lines are in place. 3. The applicant shall submit a guarantee for the construction of the new lines until such time as the replacement lines are in place. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, a substitute easement for the sewer line to be relocated as required by the City of Wichita Departments of Public Works and Engineering. 2. The applicant shall grant a temporary easement by separate instrument covering the existing easements until such time as the replacement lines are in place. 3. The applicant shall submit a guarantee for the construction of the new lines until such time as the replacement lines are in place. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/16. V-2208 – Bencor/Maize21, LLC, c/o Jon Gorski requests the vacation of a contingent street dedication, described as: The south 15 feet of the east 252.74 feet of Lot 1, Block A, L.R. Jones 3rd Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas, and a portion of said Lot 1 described as follows: Beginning at a point 15 feet north and 58.57 feet west of the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence on a curve to the left 92.80 feet to the east line of said Lot 1, said curve having a radius of 60 feet, and a long chord of 83.83 feet bearing N 44018’38”E; thence south along the east line of said Lot 1 for a distance of 58.57 feet; thence S88037’15”W for a distance of 58.57 feet to the point of beginning, except the west 4.16 feet thereof. Originally granted on the Contingent Dedication recorded on Film 1949, page 931 and shown on the Lot Split recorded on Film 1957, page 99. Northwest corner of 21st Street North and Maize Road The applicant is requesting to vacate a contingent street dedication for commercial development of the site. The applicant will dedicate street right-of-way that is continuous with previous 20-foot street dedication west of this property, along 21st Street North, and an additional 5 feet of street right-of-way along Maize Road. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, additional street right-of way, which shall include 20 feet along the south property line (21st Street North) and 5 feet along the east property line (Maize Road). The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, additional street right-of way, which shall include 20 feet along the south property line (21st Street North) and 5 feet along the east property line (Maize Road). ----------------------------------------------- 2/17. V-2209 – Riverside Health Systems, Inc., c/o Robert Dixon request the vacation of a utility easement, described as: The north 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Riverside Health Systems 3rd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located between Edwards Avenue and McLean Bouelvard, south of 9th Street North. 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: 7. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 8. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 9. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. D. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The west 20 feet shall be retained as utility easement. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The west 20 feet shall be retained as utility easement. ------------------------------------------------------- 2/18. V-2210 – Midwest Environmental Contractors, Inc., request the vacation of an access control, described as: Lots 1 and 2, West Towne Industrial Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the east side of Hoover between Harry and Kellogg (1400 Block of South Hoover). A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time November 23, 1999, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of utility easements described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, access control along Hoover Rd. as indicated on the submitted site plan. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall dedicate, by separate instrument, access control along Hoover Rd. as indicated on the submitted site plan. ---------------------------------------------------- MCKAY “Mr. Chair, I have a question. When we make conditions on the Subdivision and they have been adhered to by the time it gets here, why do we take these individually?” GAROFALO “That is a good question.” MCKAY “I understand on the one out in the County, because it is a question, but if these have been adhered to and they have gotten together and the staff tells us it is okay, then why?” KROUT “Sometimes you pull those kinds of items out and ask us what has happened since subdivision?” GAROFALO “That’s true.” VERTS “This is the official public hearing for those cases.” KROUT “He was talking about the plats.” MCKAY “Yes, the plats.” VERTS “Oh, okay, I’m sorry.” MCKAY “That is all I am talking about. We would have six plats here that we could have taken in one motion, I think, except for the one.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 3. Case No. Z-3345 – Nelson Tucker (Owner) and P.E.C. c/o Gary Wiley (Agent) request zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family Residential to “GC” General Commercial on 3.5 acres of property, described as: A tract of land in the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as follows: The East 630 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 17, except the South 649.5 feet; and except the North 200 feet; and except the south 25 feet of the North 225 feet of the East 342 feet; and except the East 300 feet of the North 444.15 feet of the South 1293.65 feet thereof. Generally located north of 47th Street South and west of Broadway. 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 to rezone a 3.5 acre tract located north of 47th Street South and west of Broadway from “SF-6” Single Family Residential to “GC” General Commercial. The site is currently undeveloped and unplatted. The applicant is seeking the zone change to expand an existing vehicle sales lot about 2.6 acres in size located immediately east of the site requested for rezoning. The applicant’s current vehicle sales lot is located further north on Broadway near 31st Street South, but there is not sufficient land available at that location to expand the business. If this request is approved, the applicant will move his car lot to this larger location. The property south of the site is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with a grocery store and an auto parts store. The property north of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with a restaurant, a motel, and single family residences. The property east of the site is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with a recreational vehicle sales lot and a strip commercial center. The property west of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. CASE HISTORY: The site is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC & SF-6” Restaurant, motel, and single family residences SOUTH: “GC” Grocery store and auto parts store EAST: “GC” Recreational vehicle sales lot and commercial center WEST: “SF-6” Single family residences PUBLIC SERVICES: Municipal water and sewer are available to serve this site. The site has access to Broadway, a five-lane arterial with existing traffic volumes of 16,000 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed 2030 Transportation Plan estimates future traffic volumes of 20,000 ADT. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that auto-related uses should be guided to areas such as this site where auto-related uses already exist. Expansions of businesses at existing sites are generally encouraged over constructing completely new sites for business expansions. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within 1-year and the following conditions in the form of a Protective Overlay: A 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the west and north property lines where a residential district abuts the site. The site shall be developed in accordance with the screening requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance including street landscaping requirements along Broadway; parking lot tree requirements, and buffer tree planting on the west and north property lines. Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted. The following uses shall not be permitted: adult entertainment establishments, group homes, group residences, halfway houses, correctional placement residences, private clubs, taverns, and drinking establishments. Restaurants that serve liquor can be developed and may serve liquor, as long as food is the primary service of the establishment. The following uses shall be prohibited within 200 feet of residentially-zoned property: service stations, convenience stores with gas islands, restaurants with drive-in or drive-thru facilities, and vehicle service or repair uses that have overhead doors facing those districts. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The property south and east of the site is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with commercial uses, including auto-related uses. The property north of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with commercial uses and single family residences. The property to the west of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential; however, the site is unlikely to develop with single family residences due to its location. The site is surrounded by existing commercial uses on the north, south, and east and has no access to a street without an easement through developed property. Expansion of the existing commercial uses from the east onto the site seems to be a more logical option than expanding the existing residential uses from the north or west onto the site. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The conditions imposed upon the applicant, including the screening wall, landscaping, and the limitation on the proposed uses, should alleviate any potential impacts on the surrounding properties. 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 “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that auto-related uses should be guided to areas such as this site where auto-related uses already exist. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Development of the site will slightly increase traffic in the area; however, the roadways in the area are sufficient to handle the increase in traffic. Water and sewer service can be extended to the site from adjacent properties. There should be minimal impact on municipal services in the area. KNEBEL “Staff is recommending that a 6 foot masonry wall be built along the west line, between the car lot and the residences. The staff report also indicates the north line. When I included that in there, I was under the impression that the lot went all the way up to this point here (indicating), rather than that. Perhaps the Planning Commission would rather consider a fence or no screening requirement at all between the two commercial. Staff has also recommended landscaping. In the landscaping, the staff comments state a buffer here and then along the north. As with the wall, the buffer on the north probably would not be required. It also mentions the street landscaping along Broadway, but really the zoning is for this lot here and the applicant prefers that the landscaping of this lot be done in conjunction with the building permit when the structures are demolished, rather than as a condition of the zoning. Also, the staff report mentions parking lot tree requirements, which are typically not required in car sales. The other conditions include no outdoor speakers or sound amplification restricting several permitted uses in the ‘GC’ district, such as adult entertainment, group homes and residences, half-way houses and etc., and also restricting uses such as service stations, convenience stores, etc. from the back 200 feet from the residential property. These are based on the findings found in your staff report. I will stand for any questions.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions?” HENTZEN “Where you require a privacy wall, I assume you are talking about a masonry wall?” KNEBEL “That is correct.” HENTZEN “Okay. If you put a masonry wall up there and then you require a buffer of trees, why do we put the wall up to keep the neighbors from looking at the trees? In other words, if you put up a privacy fence, you are talking about trees on this man’s property?” KNEBEL “Correct. I think the intent is that the wall would restrict the ground level view of the property and the trees would then extend above the wall, and hide any taller structures that may exist on this site.” HENTZEN “I just don’t accept the idea that you need walls and trees both. Out on the Broadway side, if you are going to try to landscape along the road or something, that is a different thing.” MARNELL “Scott, would you just clarify your comments again with respect to Condition No. 1 and No. 2. I took your comments to mean that you were removing those issues.” SCOTT “Right. I think when I recommended the north line, I don’t see that that makes any sense that you have general commercial here. Perhaps you would want to require a fence, but I don’t think that that is absolutely necessary. Then, on item No. 2, the street landscaping on Broadway, since it is not actually in the zoning change, but is a part of a single ownership, could be handled as a requirement of the building permit when they demolish the existing structures and rebuild the parking lot. Tree requirements, which I understand are not typically required for vehicle sales lots, only for parking lots. And then again, the tree buffering along the north line could be removed. If there is not going to be a wall or fence, I don’t see that a tree buffering is necessary either.” GAROFALO “Scott, should we have something about lighting in these conditions?” SCOTT “I didn’t think of that, but I did get Susan’s speakers and sound amplification in there, but I didn’t think of shielding the lights or restricting the height limit to them.” MARNELL “Would you object to Condition No. 2 being totally removed from the conditions?” SCOTT “I still think that we should have a buffer tree planting on the west line. That would be the only item.” MCKAY “Why? It is not required for car lots.” KROUT “Well, what is not required for car lots is that you provide low shrubs to screen, like we do parking lots, to screen the street. We still do require of a car lot that they comply with the Landscaping requirements, which is to plant trees every 50 feet or so. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask along Broadway.” MARNELL “So could we strike it after Broadway, since that is going to be covered by the Landscape Ordinance anyway?” KROUT “Yes. I think that what after Broadway you could strike it because it is covered by the Landscape Ordinance.” WARREN “So you are just going to keep the first sentence?” MARNELL “Yes, to the semi-colon.” GAROFALO “And strike the rest? Okay. Are there any other questions of Scott?” MARNELL “We would also strike the word ‘north’ out.” JOHNSON “Marvin, at the Dillon’s south of there, are there trees planted along that fence?” KROUT “I think that may have been developed before that landscaping requirement.” MICHAELIS “So are we saying, then, that the way this written that we are going to require the wall and not the trees, except on Broadway, and Broadway will conform to the Landscape Ordinance?” KROUT “The Landscape Ordinance does require buffered trees when you are adjacent to a residential zone.” MICHAELIS “And that is every 50 feet.” KROUT “Well, every 50 feet along Broadway, every 40 feet along the residential line.” GAROFALO “Okay. I guess that would have to be part of a motion. Or, can we even do that. Okay, we will hear from the applicant.” GARY WILEY ”I am here on behalf of the applicant. To clarify things, in Item No. 1, if we just scratch the north property line, we are satisfied with that. In No. 2, if we would just stop after the Landscape Ordinance. Period. We are in agreement with that. In planting the trees as required by the Landscape Ordinance along the fence lines.” WARREN “That would be on the west wall?” WILEY “That would be on the west wall? “And we are in agreement with Conditions 3,4, and 5 as set out.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Gary? Is there anyone else to speak on this item?” DON FEY “Good morning. I am a resident of what to you would be Lot 2, (indicating) right here. It is 4614 South Main. I am also speaking for the owner of Lot No. 1, that is Mr. Gene Stetler, sitting over here, and the owner of Lot No. 3, Dottie Shields, who is ill and couldn’t be here today. I am also a licensed general contractor. I am a custom homebuilder, and occasionally I am a consultant for people in matters regarding property values and issues that affect them. Anyone that knows anything about real estate knows very well that the value of property is primarily a function of location, and the location is not just your address, it is your neighborhood. It is what surrounds you. In a question of property value, sales appeal and the quality of living in a particular place, when the neighborhood changes, your location has changed. Along with that go all of the associated impacts affecting the value and the appeal of your property, and most importantly, the quality of life in that location. That is why we have zoning. That is why zoning is critical to maintaining property values. Our values have been increasing in that we have had four houses on this one two block section of Main Street that have been totally rehabilitated in the last few years. So people have been upgrading in there substantially. In terms of our proximity, and bear in mind that I am speaking for the people immediately behind this property to the west. You might think that these adjacent properties are already so close to commercial property that we would have little impact as a result of this change. I want you to understand that the situation is just the opposite. This is a small pocket of homes. The road goes north two blocks, west a block, south a block. We are kind of closed off, so it is very quiet, it is very private, and it has a surprisingly pleasant environment. As a result, most of the owners are long-term residents and the property that does go on to the market there sells well and at a pretty good price. I might mention that Lot 4 was sold recently, and I think, due to the timing, that the owner of that property is unaware of this zoning procedure. I doubt very much if he would have received notice. It would have gone to the prior owner. It may have been returned back to him, I don’t know. That may be an issue that should be considered. In any event, the property in question here is a thing that buffers our property from commercial development. That is the only thing that keeps our neighborhood quiet and peaceful and keeps our values in tact. I bought my home 6 years ago as an investment, planning to upgrade it and sell it in 2 or 3 years. It has turned out to be a nice enough place to live that I have stayed there 6 years and I am not planning on moving. I did my homework before I bought it and I checked on the zoning of the adjacent property, especially this to the east because it was undeveloped and I found it was single-family residential. I would consider that a condition of the purchase that I know the neighborhood I am buying in. I have made a number of improvements accordingly, not just to fix the house up because we were going to sell it, but because I am going to live there. So I have a bay window in the kitchen, I have decks all the way around the back of my house, a landscape pond and a waterfall, a sliding door out of my master bedroom, all with a view of this property that you are talking about making into a car lot. Right now, my back yard is somewhat like a park. Zoning tends to have a creeping compromise. The property where the Dillon’s store is down there was always commercial. You may remember that that used to be the T-Bone Restaurant. There was a club and some other things. Before the Dillon’s was built, which, of course, fits the zoning, I had a view of trees in that direction. Now, I have a view of a large block building and a dozen elevated parking lot lights. Nice, bright, amber high-powered lights that shine in my bedroom window at night. Currently, we are wanting to extend that from kind of this way to my bedroom window, to right there (indicating). I don’t find that very appealing, from my standpoint. I feel that that is very detrimental to our property. The position of myself and the owners I represent is not that we want to prevent the owner from using this land, but we do want to prevent him from doing so at the expense of our real estate values and the quality of life in the place we live. He is free to do anything that the zoning permits, which is single-family housing, be it one or a dozen. I am familiar with that, I will help get it platted, I will help him build it, but I totally object to the idea that we change this to a commercial piece of property. As I said, I speak for my neighbors at the same time. We oppose that, even with privacy restrictions.” Osborne-Howes arrived at 11:00 a.m. GAROFALO “Sir, your time is up, do you need more time?” FEY “Yes, I do. About two minutes.” MOTION: That the speaker’s time be extended for 1 minute. FEY “There is a privacy fence, as described, around the Dillon’s store. It doesn’t change my view at all. It has no impact on this altitude. I want to tell you that with my experience in real estate and values, that if this property changes hands and follows the course of the application, my property will go down in value about $10,000, with the privacy wall, with the trees, and things of that nature. That is an impact I am not willing to pay so that someone else can have a car lot. So we oppose any change from the existing zoning, and I ask the Commission to reject the application without compromise. That pretty well states my case.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Mr. Fey?” JOHNSON “With your experience, and the comments you have made, even though the owner presently could build a car lot out front in the area along Broadway, and he would have no screening requirements, so you could look at a car lot anyway, that is one scenario that could happen today. Secondly, you yourself said being a residential owner backing up to this, you have the opportunity of having a wall and the trees, but if the owner left the zoning like it is today, do you think that he could sell some residential lots backed up to a car lot with no screening?” FEY “Possibly not. That makes a difference in whether this is his problem, or he makes it my problem. JOHNSON “I just wondered if you thought he could sell it then.” FEY “If you want a given piece of property of a particular kind of zoning and you acquired it that way, then that is what you have to work with. This is passing his problem on to the adjacent property-owners without compensation. I don’t consider that just.” WARREN “I am afraid what we are going to be faced with, as Commissioners, as a land-use case, and that is what this is, is that this guy has this piece of land that is commercial on three sides, heavy commercial on three sides. I am afraid that we are going to conclude that it is not applicable for single-family. Now, thinking in terms of a compromise, we have, in the past, required a 20-foot easement that maybe would give you a little denser landscape. Would that, in any way satisfy some of the concerns that you have if some compromise like that were reached?” FEY “I think if there were to be some sort of compromise, I would look for a wall, that rather than being on the property line would be set back substantially from the property line and the trees would be on the west side of the wall rather than the east side. The trees could mask both the wall and the various aspects of the commercial business from the residential property. So I would put the buffer zone between the west property line and the wall.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak on this case?” MICHAELIS “I have a question for Marvin kind of along that line. Marvin, is that something we could do? That seems to make some sense.” KROUT “Yes, it can be done. A 20-foot area is a little bit hard to maintain. There would have to access in there through a gate or something to get in there, and in the past, sometimes owners have said that it is kind of a no-man’s land, a little difficult to mow and maintain and it is a place where trash can go, but it has been done in other cases, and so I think it is an option.” MICHAELIS “Could it be in the form of a covenant where the adjacent property owners would maintain it and take care of it since it benefits them?” KROUT “We couldn’t require, through our zoning that another property-owner maintain someone’s property, something would have to be done privately.” FEY “I might comment to that that they are mowing it now, so they are already maintaining that area. Only, I wouldn’t put that wall 20 foot back, I would put it 50 foot back. If it were 50-foot back, I would have no further problem with it. If we don’t have a suitable protection for the value of the property, then I will go as far as I need to go to put a stop to the development. Thank you for your time.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Anyone else to speak on this item? Okay, the applicant has two minutes for rebuttal.” WILEY “In response to moving the wall, we would be willing. There is a 10-foot utility easement along the west property line. We would be willing to set the wall at 10 foot back and do the landscaping, the tree planting on the property to the west of the wall if the owners would be agreeable to that; maintaining the trees and that.” MCKAY “What are we going to do about the utilities, Gary?” WILEY “We can’t put a wall in the utility easement.” MCKAY “I realize that, but you could plant trees on the utility easement.” WILEY “Oh, yeah, we could do that. All of the utilities are already in.” MCKAY “I know you can do it, but what are the utility companies going to say?” WILEY “I don’t think there would be problem.” MICHAELIS “They would just tear them out and you have to replace them, they don’t care.” WILEY “But we would be willing to do that, if that would help.” MCKAY “In the past what we have done, we did it at Tyler Road and Central and we also did it out east, was to put the fence on the property line with a 5-foot fence easement, and then we tacked on a 20 or 25-foot landscaping inside the fence, so it keeps the property away. Out west, if you remember, we had 100 foot from the fence.” KROUT “It was on Tyler Road. It was a larger tract but we did do a 100-foot landscaping and then the wall. But that was a much larger piece of property in proportion.” MCKAY “I understand that. I have no problem with the fence being 10 foot in.” KROUT “I think the way to do the wall is to move it 10 feet back.” WILEY “Yeah, we would have done that.” GAROFALO “So that would be set back how far then, all together, just 10 feet?” WILEY “Ten feet, uh huh.” PLATT “Would you agree to put the wall back 20 foot?” WILEY “Would prefer not to. That is given 20 feet by some 400 and some feet. That is a lot of land area. And this property has no access to any public street anywhere. There is a 30-foot access easement through the commercial to the south of this George Addition that provides access to this parcel. The City Service has a gas line that catty-corners through the northern portion of this particular site. It has a total of a 100-foot setback and easements through there. We will not be on that with the wall.” KROUT “Gary, on a buffer, a normal buffer or tree planting is one tree for every 40 feet. Are you able to improve on that any?” WILEY “We would prefer not to. I think there are already some trees back there that we will be subsidizing. We don’t plan on taking them out. We have 469 feet, so, one tree every 40 feet would be what, 11 or 12 trees, plus the 6 foot masonry wall.” WARREN “There would be nothing prohibiting those property owners from going ahead and planting some cedars along the wall.” WILEY “Yeah, and I think Marvin was right on the Dillon’s. The Dillon’s did do the masonry wall down there, but that was prior to the requirement of the tree plantings at that time.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of the applicant?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just have a question about lighting.” (Laughter) WILEY “Somebody already brought that up on your behalf.” MCKAY “That is now called the ‘Susan amendment’.” WILEY “We would be agreeable to the standard lighting, shielding the lights from the residential to the west.” KROUT “That is already in the Code. The Code says that light standards should be 1 foot in height for every 2 feet back from a property, but then Central Inspection can make exceptions if they look at the aiming of the light and say that it is not being directed down and then they can permit it to be higher. So there is no real limit on height.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So what would be the height that would be allowed then, if we talk about this 10 or 20 foot setback?” KROUT “What I think it means is that they wouldn’t be able to put a standard 30-foot light pole in the first 60 feet unless it was done in a way that it was aiming away from the property and not just down lighted.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you, Gary. Okay, we will take it back to the Commission.” MCKAY “Let me ask this. Do we have the authority, as the Planning Commission to say that their lights will be no higher than a certain height? I thought we had done that in the past.” KROUT “We have done that in some cases, said no more than a certain type within a certain feet of the residential property line. No more than 20 feet tall or 16 feet tall, within 100 feet or 200 feet.” MCKAY “We do have that right.” GAROFALO “That’s what I thought. I think we have done 15 feet on a couple of them. Okay. What is 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 property south and east of the site is zoned “GC” General Commercial and is developed with commercial uses, including auto-related uses. The property north of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with commercial uses and single family residences. The property to the west of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential; however, the site is unlikely to develop with single family residences due to its location. The site is surrounded by existing commercial uses on the north, south, and east and has no access to a street without an easement through developed property. Expansion of the existing commercial uses from the east onto the site seems to be a more logical option than expanding the existing residential uses from the north or west onto the site. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The conditions imposed upon the applicant, including the screening wall, landscaping, and the limitation on the proposed uses, should alleviate any potential impacts on the surrounding properties. 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 “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that auto-related uses should be guided to areas such as this site where auto- related uses already exist. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Development of the site will slightly increase traffic in the area; however, the roadways in the area are sufficient to handle the increase in traffic. Water and sewer service can be extended to the site from adjacent properties. There should be minimal impact on municipal services in the area.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to platting within 1-year and the following conditions in the form of a Protective Overlay: 1. A 6-foot masonry wall running the entire length of the west property line shall be constructed 10 feet east of the west property line. Buffer tree planting between the wall and the west property line shall be in conformance with the Landscape Ordinance. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the screening requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance. 3. Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted. 4. The following uses shall not be permitted: adult entertainment establishments, group homes, group residences, halfway houses, correctional placement residences, private clubs, taverns, and drinking establishments. Restaurants that serve liquor can be developed and may serve liquor, as long as food is the primary service of the establishment. 5. The following uses shall be prohibited within 200 feet of residentially-zoned property: service stations, convenience stores with gas islands, restaurants with drive-in or drive-thru facilities, and vehicle service or repair uses that have overhead doors facing those districts. 6. Light poles within 20 feet of the west property line shall be limited to 15 feet in height. MICHAELIS moved, WARREN seconded the motion. MICHAELIS “I included the Susan Amendment.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, the Susan Amendment is going to be with a 15-foot height on the lights. We have done that often.” MICHAELIS “I would like to ask Gary that question.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just want to be sure.” WILEY “For how far, Susan?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Not for everything. I am just looking at the west side.” WILEY “Within 20 feet of the west side or something? I think we could live with that and then on up from that point.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Yes. Is that all right?” MICHAELIS “That will be in the motion.” WARREN “And I will second.” MARNELL “And did you make the changes to Section 2 as part of your motion?” MICHAELIS “Yes. The changes that were made on Items 1 and 2.” PLATT “I am going to vote against the motion. It seems to me that this is a very difficult case. The kind that comes along every now and then because things evol