METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 16, 2000 The regular meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Frank Garofalo, Chair; Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner; Ray Warren and Deanna Wheeler (late arrival). James Barfield; Bud Hentzen and Ron Marnell were not present. Staff members present were: Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Lisa Verts, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Associate Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Approval of January 19, January 24, January 27, February 3 and February 10, 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan meeting minutes. GAROFALO “I don’t know if we are prepared to approve these or not. I have not personally gotten through all of those minutes.” WARREN “I would like to give you some corrections. On the January 13th MAPC minutes, on page 56, about 30 percent of the way down that page, I said ‘but we don’t have to allow the free enterprise system’. The word ‘don’t’ was not supposed to be in there. It should have said ‘but we do have to’. It would be unlikely that I would say that we don’t have to acknowledge the free enterprise system.” GAROFALO “You are talking about the regular MAPC meeting? I had mentioned the others first.” WARREN “Oh, okay. Well, on the other meetings of February 10th, on Page 7, again what I was quoted as saying there I surely wouldn’t do it in public. On the fourth paragraph down in the middle of the paragraph, ‘as you said, Mr. Chairman, I think the County Commission spoke with’ and it should have been finality there. Spoke with finality. And then in the next paragraph, it shouldn’t be ‘the growth wasn’t ream’, it should be ring. And then a little further down, in the middle of it, they again said the growth ring. It should have been rate. Where it says Ag zoning to growth rate. I’m sure glad to get those corrected.” CARRAHER “On that same meeting February 10, for the record, I need to have the name Carraher spelled correctly.” KROUT “Okay. These were done by another secretary.” CARRAHER “That’s fine.” GAROFALO “They did pretty well with my name on the first two, but then on February 10, they wanted to stick in an ‘a’ in there where the first ‘o’ should be. I think that is all the way throughout.” WARREN “I had a number of other corrections, but they didn’t have any significance.” WARNER “On the February 10 meeting, on Page 11, the word ‘deceptive’ should have been divisive, under my name. It’s about halfway down that paragraph.” KROUT “Okay, I found it.” GAROFALO “Are there any other corrections?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, on that same date, February 10, actually on Page 5 and 6, take a look at that. You don’t want me to go through each one of these. Can I just enter my corrections in the record? A lot of it is bad grammar. I know that we have someone new doing it. On Page 23, at the very bottom of the page, I could just point to the pages and have him write it down as ‘write’. That is no big deal. On Page 33, there is a question mark for the Commissioner. I think that was Commissioner Platt. I don’t think I could forget that comment. At the bottom of the page there. I don’t mean to speak for him, but I do remember him talking about the big red heart, agriculture. Then on Page 34, I have several corrections, but at the bottom I don’t think my last word at the bottom of that page should be joking. I don’t know what it was, though. On Page 36 there are two question marks for Commissioners. Obviously I didn’t have anything better to do this week than to read this. I don’t know who spoke, but I would think that maybe they would know. Again on Page 36, again several corrections. On Page 38, several corrections. And then on February 3, on Page 22, I just have a couple of corrections where I don’t think she caught it right. Can I, rather than go through all of that, just give them to you? And on Page 24, the same thing. Unless I have really pointed it out, these are just grammatical errors. I can just hand these over to the secretary.” GAROFALO “That is a good idea. Are there any other corrections on those minutes?” PLATT “On the February 10, Page 8, I have given the secretary some corrections on my comments.” KROUT “Is there anything that is content that you want to talk about, or is it pretty much grammar.” PLATT “No. It’s just getting the right words there.” GAROFALO “Anything else on the minutes of February 10, January 27 and February 3? I had a couple of things on the January 13 and December 16. Let’s take the December 16 minutes first. On Page 111, I think Commissioner Lopez said ‘Is the request for deferral by the applicant’, rather than referral. 2. Approval of December 16, 1999 and January 13, 2000 MAPC minutes. GAROFALO “And then on the January 13 minutes, on Page 31, Commissioner Warren, ‘in reference to my motion’ rather than in preference to my motion. And then on Page 65, where it says 11, under Case No. Cu-557, I think at the end of that sentence it should probably be utility, major expansion. I am not sure.” KROUT “I think that is right. We have a definition for utility, major and utility, minor.” GAROFALO “Oh, okay.” KROUT “Minor is allowed by right and major is by Conditional Use. So that is correct.” GAROFALO “Oh, all right. That’s all I had on that. Did anybody have anything else on the minutes of December 16 or January 13? Okay. Let’s take a motion on the MAPC minutes of December 16, 1999 and January 13, 2000.” MOTION: That the minutes of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for the December 16, 1999 meeting and the January 13, 2000 meeting be approved as amended. MCKAY moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Okay, those minutes are approved as amended, let’s take then, the minutes of the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan for January 27th, February 3rd and February 10. Can we have a motion for approval on those?” MOTION: That the minutes on the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Plan for January 27, February 3rd and February 10, 2000 be approved as amended. WARREN moved CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. (10-0). KROUT “Which ones have not been approved?” GAROFALO “I guess January 19 and January 24. The three hearings haven’t been approved.” KROUT “Do you want to see that in a version with all the corrections that have been submitted from the different parties and review it again, or will you just let us make the changes that have been suggested?” WARREN “I think that would be all right.” GAROFALO “Are we prepared to approve those? I will be honest, I did not have a chance to look at all of that stuff.” PLATT “Is there any way we can approve them as a transcript of the meeting without being more specific? There is no way we can verify what people said.” KROUT “Do you think there are further changes that need to be made? PLATT “I don’t think there are, but just in terms of saying there are probably a lot of errors on them. Just say that we approve these as transcriptions of the meeting.” KROUT “And recognizing that there may be some errors in them.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes of the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan as transcriptions, including all recommended changes, and recognizing that there may be errors in the transcription process. PLATT moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wheeler arrived at the meeting at 1:25 p.m. GAROFALO “Okay, Marvin is going to talk to us about the session he had with the City Council people and the County Commissioners. We did send a letter that I signed to the Mayor and to the County Manager, requesting that we have a meeting with them. They, in turn, got together, and Marvin will tell us about that.” KROUT “Over the last week, the City Council members and County Commissions have been meeting together, discussing what is the best way to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. I have also had discussions with a number of the City Council members and County Commissioners and they have asked me to lay out this proposed process for your consideration. This is the way that they would to proceed on the Comprehensive Plan. Let me read this because I want to make sure that I do get it right. The City Council and County Commission have taken notice of the strong public interest and sometimes diversioned views on the important subject of how the community should grow and develop in the future to reach its highest potentials. They understand that planning is a continuing process and they want to encourage discussion, and they want to encourage discussion on these issues to continue, but in a more positive setting with a genuine interchange of ideas and in a time-frame that allows thorough examination. The governing bodies also appreciate the many hours that the MAPC has put into the process to date in an effort to develop sound recommendations. And they also recognize the need to bring this process to some conclusion in order to comply with federal mandates. Therefore, they have agreed on the following process. 1) The MAPC is requested to complete its deliberations over the next two or three weeks and vote on a recommended set of plan amendments. 2) The City Council and County Commission intends to study the MAPC recommendations along with the extensive set of minutes from the three public hearings in January and other comments on the plan that have been received over the past two months. The two governing bodies do not intend to hold additional hearings on the plan at this time since the MAPC is charged by statute and local policy with that responsibility. 3) The two governing bodies intend to hold an enbanc meeting in late April or early May to consider the MAPC recommendations and vote on plan amendments. An expeditious adoption of plan amendments will maintain compliance with federal mandates. The long-range transportation plan is supposed to be updated every five years and have a time horizon exceeding 20 years. As of January of this year, the community was not in compliance with this criteria. That will ensure that the community remains eligible for federal transportation grants, which average over $30 million per year. 4) The two governing bodies will also be working on the composition of a special task force of 25-30 members, which would be appointed shortly after adoption of planned amendments. The task force will be asked to attempt to reconcile some of the more significant and contentious issues that have merged during the planning process. The task force will be comprised of a cross section of stakeholders, including representatives of the MAPC, of the elected bodies of business and development interests and neighborhood environmental groups. The task force will be led by a neutral professional facilitator with MAPD providing background information as needed. The task force should be able to undertake the more thorough examination of issues if not needing to operate under the time pressure of bringing the plan into compliance with federal mandates. The task force will submit a report with their recommendations to the MAPC and the two governing bodies. There is no deadline established for that report. Those recommendations can then be considered for further plan amendments. That is the process that the governing bodies would like to undertake to reach a conclusion. I know that a number of Planning Commissioners feel that before you put a lot of time into it, and you would like to draw a line somewhere. What they are saying is that planning is a continuing process, but in order to comply with the federal mandates, that maybe this is a good time to bring this to some conclusion, however interim that plan may be. They recognize that there needs to be more discussion, but that discussion should not be under the pressure of time, and that all parties need to be part of that discussion. That is the way they would like for you to proceed. I guess we would like some comments. We would hope that the Planning Commission could set a workshop as early as next Thursday afternoon.” MCKAY “Unless there are a bunch of major changes, which I doubt if there is with this organization, I am ready to move that we send it on to the City Council and County Commission. I would just kind of like to have kind of a test for the commissions and hear from the rest of them about what their feelings are.” WARREN “Is that a motion?” MCKAY “No. It is simply a statement and I would just like to have the consensus of the balance of the Commissioners.” KROUT “Just to clarify, it would include a sort of straw vote on changes we have already made and adding an objective on agricultural activities and changing the rental inspection program language, is that right?” MCKAY “Yes.” KROUT “I think those are the two changes that you have already made by consensus.” LOPEZ “I kind of agree with that. Just a comment. This Planning Commission has been involved with this now for well over 18 months going on 24. We have held a considerable amount of public meetings and have received quite a bit of feedback that has directed us to this point in time. I am in the same camp as Commissioner McKay.” WARREN “I would recommend, I mean we all have comments we could make on this, and I think we have probably already made those comments a number of times, so I would recommend that we just take a straw vote right now to see if we are ready to send this forward.” GAROFALO “I don’t know that we need to do that at this point.” WARREN “Just ask if there are objections to sending it forward, then.” JOHNSON “Well, I think that after hearing what Marvin has said, I think we were kind of thinking that we were going to get back together with the City Council and the County Commissioners before we had to do this. Since we’ve kind of got a different direction now that they want us to take, I guess I am in favor of sending it on to them. Let’s give them a couple of extra weeks to work on it.” PLATT “I am confused as to whether or not the proposal is, if you send it forward, specifying that by doing that, we either approve or disapprove it, or disapprove it, or does sending it forward mean that we approve of it?” MCKAY “We would vote, I would think.” KROUT “I think John says that he is ready to make a motion to approve the plan.” PLATT “I didn’t hear that.” MCKAY “George, I just simply said that I would like to hear the comment of the Commission because if the consensus of the comments are ‘no, we are not ready to move forward’, then I won’t say anything. We will have another meeting. But if the consensus is that they are ready, I will make a motion to approve it and send it on to the two governing bodies.” PLATT “I just wondered if you were ready to make a motion or not.” MCKAY “No, I just wanted conversation before a motion was made. That’s all.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the Comprehensive Plan as amended and forward it on to the City Council and County Commission. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 8 votes in favor (Michaelis, Wheeler, Johnson, Warren, Warner, Carraher, Lopez, and McKay) and 3 in opposition (Platt, Garofalo, Osborne-Howes). Marnell, Barfield and Hentzen were not present. KROUT “It requires 8 votes to approve the Comprehensive Plan, so we will forward this on to the governing body and do the clean-ups that are necessary.” ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations GAROFALO “Since we have pulled so many of these, it might be easier if we just had a motion to approve one at a time. It gets so confusing.” 3/1. S/D 00-08 - Final Plat of WOODLAKE 2ND ADDITION, located on the northeast and northwest corner of Douglas Avenue and Sheridan. A. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any other guarantees or easements. The 20-ft utility easement along the west property line needs to be labeled. The utility easement between Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 needs to be increased from 16 to 20 feet. 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 guarantee is required. D. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. E. The Applicant needs to request a CUP adjustment, as the proposed access controls do not correspond with those imposed by the CUP. A CUP adjustment may also be needed for the parcel boundaries. F. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets. The guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on one side of the streets. G. City Fire Department should comment on the plat’s street names. First Street has been renamed 1st Street in accordance with City Fire Department’s request. H. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-61) and its special conditions for development on this property. 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. KGE has requested additional easements. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. CARRAHER moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried with 10 votes in favor. No opposition. Michaelis abstained. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 3/2 taken out of order 3/3. S/D 00-10 - Final Plat of AUBURN HILLS 13TH ADDITION, located on the west side of 135th Street West, south of Maple. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required. D. If this site develops before Auburn Hills 12th, a temporary turnaround will need to be provided at the terminus of Onewood to the west and referenced in the plattor’s text on the final plat. E. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the interior streets. This guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on one side of Onewood. 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. City Fire Department shall comment on the acceptability of the plat’s street names. The street names are approved. 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. A definite location needs to be denoted for the utility easement in the northeast portion of Reserve A. J. A definite location needs to be denoted for the utility easement northeast of Lot 27, Block A, in Reserve A. K. The centerline of Dogleg Street needs to be located at Onewood Street. L. Bearings needs to be added for the north line of Lot 1, Block B. M. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. N. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. O. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) P. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. Q. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. R. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. S. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. V. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. W. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MCKAY “Mr. Chair, I have a conflict of interest on this one and will step down.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. WARREN moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried with 10 votes in favor. There was no opposition. McKay abstained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/4. SUB 2000-03 - One-Step final plat of WILLOW PLACE ADDITION, located on the south side of 45th Street north, east of Rock Road. A. The Applicant shall guarantee extension of sanitary sewer and City water. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional guarantees or easements. 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 guarantee is required. D. County Engineering requests the submission of a drainage plan for review. E. The plat shall dedicate complete access control along the site’s frontage to 45th St. North. The access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. F. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the paving of the internal streets. 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. City Fire Department needs to comment on the acceptability of the street names. Willowplace should be revised to 44th St. North. I. 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. J. 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. K. 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. L. The building setback lines may be eliminated from the area located within the pipeline easement. M. Block numbers need to be designated. N. The bearing along the north section needs to be corrected. O. Since this plat is not a replat, the surveyor’s text should not include reference to KSA 12-512(b). P. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for improvements to 45th St. North. No improvements are required. The location of Spyglass shall be relocated eastward between Lots 1 and 2, to increase the distance from the railroad. Q. City Engineering requests the addition of radii at the intersections of the internal streets. R. Notice of Protective Overlay document indicating the Protective Overlay has been filed with the MAPD shall be submitted. S The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 32-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. T 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. U 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.) V 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. W 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. X 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. Y 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. Z Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. AA. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City council and/or County Commission. BB. 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. CC. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MICHAELIS “I have a conflict of interest on this one and I won’t be voting.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. LOPEZ moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried with no opposition. Michaelis abstained. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that subdivision agenda items 3/5 and 3/6 be approved. MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 3/5. SUB 2000-01 - One-step final plat of DOUG ECK FIRST ADDITION, located on the east side of 231st Street West, north of 45th 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. Standard soil testing is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. County Engineering requests information on potential terrace on east side of the plat and waterway to the north. A letter from the adjoining property owner should also be obtained regarding removal of the terrace. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening along 231st St. West. The access controls are approved. E. If platted, the building setback may be reduced to 30 feet. F. The utility easement along the north property line should be widened appropriately to protect existing tree rows from damage. The applicant will relocate the utility easement. G. MAPD requests a 35-ft contingent dedication of right-of-way along the south property line to provide for potential street connections to adjoining undeveloped property. H. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. 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 AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/6. D-1785 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Team Players, LLC, and Rew, LLC, for property generally located on the west side of Rock Road, south of 37th Street North. OWNER/APPLICANT: Team Players, LLC, and Rew, LLC., 128 S. Dellrose, Wichita, KS 67218 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Plaza First Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 3, in said Block 1; thence S 89°18’12” W, along the extended north line of said Lot 3, 34.5 feet for a place of beginning; thence N 01°5’20” W, parallel with the east line of said Lot 1, 136.30 feet; thence N 89° 18’12” E, 18.5 feet; thence N 01°05’20” W, 10 feet; thence S 89°18’12” W, 18.5 feet; thence N 01° 05’ 20” W 15 feet; thence S 89°18’12”W, 21.16 feet; thence S 00° 41’48” E, 87.26 feet; thence N 89°18’12” E, 10.26 feet; thence S 01°05’20” E, 74.04 feet; thence N 89°18’12” E, 11.5 feet to the place of beginning. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split (L/S-1038), this Utility Easement is being dedicated to allow construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 3/2. S/D 00-09 - Final Plat of AUBURN HILLS 12TH ADDITION, located west of 135th Street West, South side of Maple. A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required. Drainage easements need to be included on the final plat tracing. D. A temporary turnaround will need to be provided at the western terminus of Onewood. E. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the interior streets, Valley Hi Road and the portion of Decker and Taft which adjoins the lots in this plat. F. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. G. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. H. City Fire Department should comment on the acceptability of the plat’s street names. Decker Drive should be Decker Street. Nineiron Place should be Nineiron Court. I. The Applicant shall dedicate an additional 6 feet of right of way along Valley Hi Road in order to activate the contingent right-of-way dedication along the northern half of the street. J. To provide an additional point of access for the lots located on Onewood Place, City Fire Department requests an emergency access easement to connect Onewood Place with Valley Hi Road or Decker. 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. 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. M. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. N. The plat consists of fifteen lots that contain under 6,000 sq. ft., the minimum lot standard of the SF-6 district. The Cluster Development option in the Subdivision Regulations require that any reduction in lot size is offset by the provision of permanent open space. The Applicant has submitted a table indicating that the amount of open space provided in the Reserves (102,533 sq. ft.) exceeds the cumulative total reduction in lot area (8,513 sq. ft.) in conformance with the Cluster Development provisions. O. In addition to the standard restrictive covenant required per Item G above, the Subdivision regulations require the submittal of a restrictive covenant addressing the Reserves associated with the clustering development. The covenant shall ensure that the open space will not be further subdivided in the future, that the use of open space will continue in perpetuity, and that the common undeveloped open space shall not be turned into a commercial enterprise admitting the general public at a fee. P. The definite location of the gas easement needs to be denoted for Lot 47, Block D. Q. Dimensions need to be added for the following: Between lots 8 and 9, Block A; the north line of Lots 12 and 13, Block A; west line of Lot 14, Block A; and the south line of Lot 7, Block C. R. 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. S. 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.) T. 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. U. 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. V. 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. W. 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. X. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Y. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Z. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. AA. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MCKAY “Mr. Chair, I have a conflict of interest on this and will step down from the bench on this.” GAROFALO “Okay. Commissioner McKay is abstaining.” NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff, “This case is located west of 135th Street West on the south side of Maple. It encompasses 36 acres, 134 lots zoned ‘SF-6’ single-family residential. The southern portion of the plat will connect with Auburn Hills 13th, which is one of the plats you just approved, to the east and will access from 135th Street West, and the northern portion of the plat will access from Maple Street to the north. The plat encompasses an existing private street, Valley Hi Road, located right here (indicating). There are currently two existing single-family homes on the northern portion of that private street, and there is a contingent street dedication for Valley Hi Road. This plat includes a 35-foot dedication of right-of-way of the southern portion of Valley Hi Road and that will trigger the dedication of that contingent right-of-way. The two existing property owners on the northern portion of that street have had discussions with the developer regarding their participation in the paving petition for Valley Hi Road. Nothing has been determined at this point, however, that is a City Council issue and the issue will have to be resolved before the plat is approved by the City Council. All of the other issues have been approved at the Subdivision Committee last week. Are there any questions for staff?” WARREN “Is that street that they had requested extend on up? See that little street that stubs out? Right there. Did that get resolved?” STRAHL “Right. There is going to be an emergency access easement to make a connection between there and the north so the Fire Department will have two points of access.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Neil? Is the applicant here, or whoever wishes to speak on this?” RUSS EWY “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that staff or this Commission has.” GAROFALO “To be honest with you, I am not sure what the problem is.” KROUT “We have some speakers here.” GAROFALO “Okay. We will hear from them.” LOPEZ “I have a question. Neil made the comment that the issue on Valley Hi Road with the property owners is a City Council decision. What does that mean?” EWY “The acceptance of that paving petition is a City Council issue. The petition in question hasn’t been written yet, but on two other occasions, the Subdivision Committee has had it quite clear that the equity issue will be the focus of that petition and as the applicant stated before, they are working with and will work to develop a fair petition on the paving of that street.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, then we will hear from whoever else wants to speak on this. Sir, would you please state your name and address?” TOM FARMER “My wife and I own 14126 Valley Hi Road. We are one of the lot owners that you have been talking about to the north of Valley Hi Road. We request that you not approve this final plat. There was a contingent that was drafted and approved on May 27, 1975. There were two parts that would trigger the contingent dedication. One is the allocation of 35 foot by the adjoining land owner and after several sessions, that has finally been documented on the plat, but there was another condition that also is required to trigger this contingent dedication, and that is that the street, the said right-of-way is going to be needed by the public. There has to be a public need. In our opinion, this road is not a section line road. It is not critical to the public. We believe it is being targeted at the sole discretion of the developers. It is not for public need. It might be for a developer’s interest. The previous plat, of which the plat you are looking at now is a revision; the previous one did not require this road, so we ask that you ask the developers why they revised the plat to take the road? We have dealt with this issue for two years and we are very frustrated. If you do approve this, we ask that you put a condition on it. That is that you separate the Odell White Addition from the improvement district of Auburn Hills. Exclude us. If you take that road, right now it is a private road. We own it. If you convert it to public use, exclude our addition from Auburn Hills development as part of that improvement district. The reason we are asking you to do that is that we will not benefit from that road being paved. We like it the way it is right now. We have been there for 13 years, it is fine; it is a good road, but it probably won’t stand up against the density of traffic that you can see across that road, facing our property. We don’t really think we are going to benefit from this at all. We get out, egress and ingress to our property just fine. We feel though, that our right to a quiet, peaceful enjoyment of our property is being jeopardized. Look across the streets from our lots. Look at those 16 lots facing our lots and ask yourself how you would like to be in that kind of a situation, where you moved out into the country, at that point, and we don’t say development shouldn’t happen, but we didn’t expect a development of this density to happen across the street from us. We feel that our land values are going to go down. We have talked to several realtors who have told us this will happen. We are also very concerned, and we know that you are not going to deal with the assessment on this, but we are looking at assessments for the paving, assessments for the water, and assessments for the sewer. For us, just a one-lot owner, that is going to be over $100,000, our share, if we get taxed on the footage of this thing. That will probably drive us out of our homes. We won’t be able to afford it. We have been told by the developer that we can ‘sell it, subdivide it, don’t worry about it’. We have a lot of sweat equity in our property. We want to stay. We want to separated from the Auburn Hills Improvement District. Don’t include us in this, if you approve this. That is what we ask. Are there any questions?” GAROFALO “I have one question. I am looking at this map here and I can’t tell, is City View a street?” FARMER “Yes, it is.” GAROFALO “Is it currently in there now?” FARMER “Yes. It is a dirt road.” GAROFALO “A dirt road. But it goes up to Maple?” FARMER “Actually, it starts around, and as it goes through Maple Hill, it doesn’t go directly to Maple. There is another side street that adjoins it that it takes off from. “ GAROFALO “Do people use that road?” FARMER “Oh, yeah.” GAROFALO “So, theoretically, this new road would connect with it? Is that correct?” FARMER “Yes. It would connect with City View, and then on the other side of the properties there going east, that Decker Drive, that is a brand-new road that the developer is proposing there, which we are also concerned about because of the potential assessed value against us for that part of that road.” GAROFALO “How do you get in and out of your property?” FARMER “From my driveway, we go onto Valley Hi Road and then head west to City View. From City View we go ahead and head north out into the Maple Hill area, and we either go to Goddard or back to Wichita on Maple.” GAROFALO “So currently, you use the road that is there now?” FARMER “Yeah, it is a private drive.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Nothing? Is there anyone else to speak on this issue? Okay, then I guess we need to give the applicant a couple of minutes of rebuttal.” EWY “I think I would address the gentleman’s concerns by stating that obviously that instrument was placed there anticipating such use. It just happens to be this development at this time that is triggering that contingent street dedication. As far as the petition goes and the exclusion or inclusion of this property to whatever magnitude, like I mentioned, we will follow the statutory guidelines preparing that petition, and with the obvious direction of this body and the Subdivision Committee that we do it in an equitable manner. The benefit to this property may not be seen by these two lots and their current configuration, but it is obvious that that these two lots could further subdivide or lot split in the future, or be replatted into urban sized lots in the future, which would have a direct benefit of a paved Valley Hi Road. So, as I said, this issue is an ongoing situation that we think we will be able to satisfy both parties. I will answer any questions.” GAROFALO “Russ, does the Fire Department say anything about this in particular? Maybe some of the Subdivision Committee people could answer.” MICHAELIS “No, they didn’t have any concern. They were okay once they got that other secondary access.” GAROFALO “Do you mean on Decker?” MICHAELIS “Yeah, from Decker down to that little stub street that you see there.” WHEELER “If I understand this, the temporary street is an emergency access that will tie into the street that the homeowner is addressing.” EWY “The access easement that the Fire Department requested we provide would run up through this stub street and the easement, not a through street but the easement would connect up with Valley Hi Road in this manner (indicating).” WHEELER “Okay.” EWY “The way our road system would operate under this plat is that Decker wanted be able to come through, and down Decker to Valley Hi Road and then back up City View. Basically increasing the circulation ability of that property and access back to those homes as well as the 16 lots that we are proposing.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thanks, Russ. Is there anyone else to speak on this item? If not, we will take it back to the Commission for discussion. What is the pleasure?” WARREN “Well, as a member of that Subdivision Committee, and we have looked at this two different times now, and of course we had the benefit of all City staff and all of their comments, we certainly were very sensitive to the concerns of these folks that are here today and one of the neighbors that is not here today, but the applicant has met every condition of our Subdivision Regulations, whereas we don’t get in to the spreading of specials or the petitions of streets, we couldn’t really consider that as a condition of approval or of not approving this plat. We did hear the developer get up and make some quasi commitments, at least, to give relief to these people in some manner, which would be an agreement, and he did commit himself to what was too much, at least. But based on the fact that they have met every condition of the Subdivision Regulations, I am going to move that the plat be approved.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved subject to staff comments.” WARREN moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried with 10 votes in favor. There was no opposition. McKay abstained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DALE MILLER, Planning staff “These are public hearings, but unless there is someone here to speak to any one of them, staff does not have any comments. On Item 4/5, V-2219 has been withdrawn by the applicant.” WHEELER “I need to abstain from items 4/2 and 4/3 due to the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anyone here to speak on vacation items 4/1 through 4/7? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to the Commission.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the requests be approved. JOHNSON moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Wheeler abstained. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/1. V-2215 - Request to vacate a portion of a 25-foot platted street-side building setback, located Northwest corner of Seneca and Pawnee (2361 S. Seneca). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west 5 feet of the east 25-foot platted setback adjacent to Seneca on Lot 1, Madden Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The applicant is requesting to vacate 5 feet of a platted 25-foot street-side building setback. The applicant wishes to construct a building for his furniture rental business. The remaining setback along Seneca would be 20 feet and within the guidelines set forth by the Unified Zoning Code for the “LC” Limited Commercial District. 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described building setback, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a street side building setback described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------------- 4/2. V-2216 - Request to vacate a 5-foot access easement (Associated with V-2217), located northeast of 135th Street West and Maple Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west 5 feet of Lot 11, Block 4, Maple Dunes Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, EXCEPT the south 35 feet thereof. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 5-foot access easement on vacant property as part of a lot split on the Maple Dunes Plat. A substitute access easement was submitted with the application. 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described access easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the access easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the applicant filing a replacement access easement. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the applicant filing a replacement access easement. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4/3. V-2217 - Request to vacate a 10-foot Utility Easement (Associated with V-2216), located on the northeast of 135th Street West and Maple Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ten feet centered on the common lot line of Lots 15 & 16, Block 4, Maple Dunes Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas The applicant is requesting to vacate a 10-foot utility easement on vacant property as part of a lot split on the Maple Dunes Plat. A substitute utility easement was submitted with the application. 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. C. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the access easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the applicant filing a replacement utility easement. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the applicant filing a replacement utility easement. --------------------------------------------------------------- 4/4. V-2218 - Request to vacate a deed restriction line, located on the west side of Rock Road between 21st street North and 29th Street North (2525 North Rock Road). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Deed restriction line as platted in Lot 11, Block 4 Sycamore Village 3rd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas The applicant is requesting to vacate a platted deed restriction line for the future development of a church. Required building setbacks per the Unified Zoning Code and 10-foot utility easement will remain in place. 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described deed restriction line, 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 deed restriction line described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/6. V-2220 - Request to vacate a portion of a platted utility easement, located north of 31st Street South on the west side of Hillside. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north 15 feet of the 80-foot utility easement on Lot 2, Block A, Hillside Heights Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. The applicant is requesting to vacate 15 feet of an 80-foot platted utility easement. The applicant wishes to develop this site for retail use. 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the utility easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following: a) The applicant shall verify the location of the existing sewer manhole center relative to the north property line and the depth of the existing sewer. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following: a) The applicant shall verify the location of the existing sewer manhole center relative to the north property line and the depth of the existing sewer. 4/7. V-2221 - Request to vacate a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement, located south of Kellogg and west of 111th Street West. Legal Description: A 20 foot sanitary sewer easement lying in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 31, Twp. 27-S, R-1- W of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, with a line 10 feet each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the SW corner of Lot 1, Block A, Blasi Park, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence east along the south line of said Lot 1, 478.02 feet; thence at an angle of 118o52’47” to the left, 22.84 feet for a point of beginning; thence continuing along the last described course, as extended northwesterly, 47.15 feet; thence at an angle of 132o01’48” to the right, 225.44 feet said point being 10 feet north of the south line of said Lot 1; thence easterly parallel with the and 10 feet normally distant north of the south line of said Lot 1, 403.60 feet; thence at an angle of 67o42’42” to the left, 435.10 feet a point 2.04 feet west and 77.05 feet north of the NE corner of said Lot 1, and there ending. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement. This easement was platted to cover an existing private sewer in anticipation of connecting to the city public sewer system. Since that time the applicant has decided to retain that sewer line as a private line. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommended to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understad 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 February 22, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described sanitary sewer easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement as described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 5a. Case No. Z-3340 – William E. Lusk, Jr., (owner); Baughman Company, P.A. c/o Terry Smythe (agent) request zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family to “OW” Office Warehouse; “LC” Limited Commercial; “GO” General Office; “NR” Neighborhood Retail; and “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential; and 5b. Case No. DP-248 – William E. Lusk, Jr., (Owner); Baughman Company, P.A. c/o Terry Smythe (agent) request the creation of the Meadowland C.U.P. on property described as: The SW 1/4 of Sec. 23, Twp. 27-S, R-2-E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, EXCEPT Kansas Turnpike Authority right-of-way (Condemnation Case A-54126), and EXCEPT K-96 Bypass right-of-way (Condemnation Case 91C-806), further designated at Tract R221, Tract R225, Tract R250, and Tract R303, and EXCEPT U.S. Highway 54/K-96 Highway, all being subject to road rights-of-way of record, TOGETHER with the SE 1/4 of said Sec. 23, EXCEPT Kansas Turnpike Authority right-of-way (Condemnation Case A-54126), and EXCEPT K-96 Bypass right- of-way (Condemnation Case 91C-806), further designated as Tract R223 and Tract R302, and EXCEPT U.S. Highway 54/K-96 Highway, and EXCEPT a tract in said SE 1/4 described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said SE 1/4; thence west along the north line of said SE 1/4 to the intersection with the easterly line of said K-96 Bypass right-of-way; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said K-96 Bypass right-of-way, 302.66 feet to a deflection corner in said easterly line; thence southerly along the easterly line of said K-96 Bypass right-of-way and as extended south, 575.00 feet; thence southeasterly, 290.00 feet, more or less, to a point 1090.00 feet normally distant south of the north line of said SE 1/4; thence east parallel with the north line of said SE 1/4, 1850.00 feet, more or less, to a point 360.00 feet normally distant west of the east line of said SE 1/4; thence south parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 350.00 feet, more or less, to a point 1440.00 feet normally distant south of the north line of said SE 1/4; thence east parallel with the north line of said SE 1/4, 360.00 feet to a point on the east line of said SE 1/4; thence north along the east line of said SE 1/4, 1440.00 feet to the point of beginning, all being subject to road rights-of-way of record, TOGETHER with a tract in the NW 1/4 of said Sec. 23, described as commencing at the NW corner of said NW 1/4; thence S00o49’24”E, along the west line of said NW 1/4, 1611.91 feet for a place of beginning; thence N89o10’36”E, 50 feet; thence N00o49’24”W, 181.91 feet to a point on the right-of-way line of the K- 96 Bypass as condemned in Case No. 91C-768; thence N89o10’36”E, along said right-of-way line, 270 feet; thence S45o49’24”E. along said right-of-way line, 42.43 feet; thence S03o22’13”E, along said right-of-way line, 341.48 feet; thence S37o26’53”E, along said right-of-way line, 765.57 feet; thence S21o12’18”E, along said right-of-way line, 255.97 feet to the south line of said NW 1/4; thence S88o44’32”W. along the south line of said NW 1/4, 911.06 feet to the SW corner of said NW 1/4; thence N00o49’24”W, along the west line of said NW 1/4,1050.50 feet to the place of beginning, EXCEPT the west 50 feet thereof for the right-of-way for 127th Street East. Generally located on the north side of Kellogg (US54) from 127th Street East to 143rd Street East. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: Meadowland C.U.P. is a request for a large development spanning the area along the north side of Kellogg from 127th Street East to 143rd Street East. The application area extends northward from Kellogg for a depth of three-fourths mile on the western side of K-96 and one-fourth mile on the eastern side of K-96. Three major transportation corridors travel through the application area and are key factors affecting the types of land uses suitable for the area. These transportation corridors are K-96 and the Kansas Turnpike, both of which have exits along the property, and Kellogg (US 54) along the southern edge of the tract. The proposed layout of Meadowland capitalizes on major transportation corridors and land use features to define the different uses proposed within the development. The land on the western side of K-96 would be developed as an office-warehouse district, with some additional highway-oriented commercial uses based on proximity to the K-96 and Kansas Turnpike exits. East of K-96, there are three distinct areas. The triangular area between K-96, Kellogg, and Spring Branch Reserve Area is designed for auto-related and highway-oriented commercial uses. It is accessed via a Kellogg frontage road from 143rd Street East. The commercial and office activities along 143rd Street East are seen as a potential location for local-serving retail and service uses for the growing residential population within one to two miles of the site. It is separated from 143rd by a 100-foot landscape buffer, has single family residential to the north, and the creek to the west. Finally, an area for multi-family development is located in the interior of the site, with good access to the large reserve areas. Potentially, there could be walking paths connecting the apartments to local-serving retail and enjoying the natural wooded areas to be retained in the reserve area. Further, it would serve as a buffer to the proposed single family development north of the C.U.P., also owned by the applicant. General characteristics proposed by the C.U.P. include architectural control of the parcels, with predominately earth-tones, and coordination of lighting fixtures within each land use grouping. Additionally, lighting fixtures would be limited to 24 feet in height, be shielded to direct lighting in a downward direction, and extensive use of backlit canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings would not be permitted. Signage restrictions would limit all free-standing signs to monument signs no more than 20 feet in height, eliminate flashing and moving signs, except for time and temperature or other public service announcements, prohibit signs on the rear of buildings, limit window displays to no more than 25 percent of the window area, and prohibit portable and off-site signs. Heights vary between 35 feet for parcels along 143rd, to 45 feet for three interior “LC” parcels, and the “MF-29” and “OW” parcels, and 60 feet for Parcel 17 and the parcels between K-96, Kellogg, and the creek. Nearly 20 percent of the total site area is set aside as a reserve for the Spring Branch Tributary #4 and surrounding natural areas. Additionally, a 100-foot strip is provided along 143rd Street East as a landscape/buffer between the proposed local- serving retail/commercial area and single-family development to the east. The surrounding area consists of single-family areas and vacant tracts. East of 143rd is a vacant tract at the intersection with Kellogg and Park East Subdivision. North of the application is owned by the applicant and intended for single-family use. Other uses to the north include Bridgefield Addition (single-family) being developed along Central and K-96, a large estate along Central, a church site along 143rd, and Bridgefield II Addition, which has been platted but not developed. Springdale Lakes Subdivision is located south of Kellogg to the southeast of the proposed development. KDOT has a maintenance facility southwest of the subject tract. The area to the west between Kellogg and Douglas is currently vacant and being offered for commercial development. The area north of Douglas and west of 127th, Gilders Gardens, is developed with large lot residential uses. However, the corner at Central and 127th was recently approved as a small commercial C.U.P. Overall, the area is transitioning from agricultural and older suburban residential areas to urban development. The new subdivisions being developed in the vicinity, such as Bridgefield, are at typical residential densities of two to three dwelling units per acre rather than the large lot residential typical in the past. To date, although there has been a substantial amount of residential development in the vicinity, it has not been accompanied by local serving retail uses such as grocery stores, drug stores, etc. Because the proposed type of development and transportation access issues differ significantly for the application area on either side of K-96, the areas will be discussed separately. 127th Street East The application area west of K-96 is comprised of two development parcels that are separated by a six-acre reserve for the Spring Branch Tributary #4. The area lying north of the reserve is 24.40 acres; the area to the south is 12.25 acres. The applicant has proposed the property be developed as “OW” Office Warehouse district, but with the addition of the following “GC” General Commercial uses: car wash; convenience store; funeral home; hotel/motel, medical offices; recreation, indoor; recreation, outdoor; restaurants; and service station. This mix of commercial uses could be viewed as mostly auto-related commercial uses typically located near major highway interchanges, plus the recreation and funeral home uses. Office warehouse uses would benefit from the large parcels that offer good accessibility to the highway network. Because the applicant has requested to add those “GC” uses listed previously, the property would need to be zoned “GC”, which is listed in the Unified Zoning Code as a more restrictive zoning district that “OW”. However, “OW” offers some different site development standards than “GC” that encourage a development pattern more suited for large office/warehouse types of uses. Therefore, the applicant has requested that the property be zoned “OW” plus those “GC” uses specifically listed previously. Site development standards would be per the “OW” district. 143rd Street East The proposed development east of K-96 differs from that to the west by its scope and the constraints imposed by the transportation network. As originally proposed, the development would have allowed approximately 1,108,000 square feet of commercial floor area and have generated a significant increase in traffic on Kellogg and 143rd. A traffic study was prepared, identifying traffic improvements to accommodate the increased traffic. Subsequent discussions have been held between the applicant, the City, and KDOT to determine a realistic level of development that can be sustained without overloading the transportation network. These discussions have resulted in the applicant agreeing to reduce the intensity of commercial development below that allowed until critical transportation improvements are made to accommodate a full level of commercial development. Staff recommendations will identify the amount of commercial development that can be accommodated in the “Recommendation” section of the Staff Report. As previously discussed, the area along 143rd would most likely be composed of a range of local serving commercial uses on property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial, “GO” General Office, and “NR” Neighborhood Retail. The “NR” tracts allow a much smaller range of uses and restrict the size of any one commercial use to less than 8,000 square feet. The “NR” parcels have been placed nearest the single-family development across 143rd, Park East to reduce the intensity of commercial activity to this neighboring area. Additionally, a 100-foot buffer landscape strip is proposed to further separate the remaining retail from Park East. The “LC” tracts cluster into two groups on either side of the Spring Branch Tributary #4. The “LC” to the east is projected to develop with local-serving retail/office uses. The “LC” to the west is more likely to be auto-related retail where there is a specific destination attracting customers, such as perhaps vehicle sales and furniture stores. Finally, the area along the northern portion of the application area includes two small parcels of “GO” General Office near the “NR Neighborhood Retail, and two larger parcels for “MF-29” Multi-Family. The parcels could generate up to 659 residential units. CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” Single-Family Vacant EAST: “SF-6”; “SF-20” Single-Family Vacant, single-family residences SOUTH: “SF-6”; “SF-20” Single-Family Single-family residences, vacant “GO” General Office WEST: “SF-6”; “SF-20” Single-Family Vacant, large lot single-family residences PUBLIC SERVICES: Transportation access is provided to the site via Kellogg (US 54) and K-96, which are both freeways, as well as access to the Turnpike. For the western parcels, 127th is the arterial that would be expected to handle traffic exiting the site and traveling northbound, either to Central or to the K-96 ramps. Southbound traffic is not allowed because 127th is a dead-end at Kellogg. Douglas serves as a collector to the west, extending from 127th westward to Greenwich Road. This mile- long segment is a black-top two lane road which should be serving local residential development to the north and south, although residents feel it is being used as a cutoff between Central and Kellogg. The traffic study completed for the Kellogg/143rd intersection and subsequent discussions between the applicant and city and county staff have identified two critical traffic points controlling the volume of traffic that can be accommodated before the level of service drops below an acceptable level of service. These points are the northbound left-turn movements from Kellogg to 143rd and the bridge over the Turnpike on 143rd north of the application area. The most critical point is the two-lane bridge over the Turnpike. Until it is widened to four lanes, the capacity of the bridge is 11,000 ADTs. After projecting base traffic plus expected growth in the surrounding area by 2020, the amount of traffic capacity allocated to increased traffic generated by these proposed uses would be reached at 38 percent of total potential development. This is the initial constraint utilized in developing staff recommendations for phasing of the intensity of use for the eastern portion of Meadow Land C.U.P. Once this constraint is eliminated, the level of development for the eastern portion could be allowed to rise to 70 percent of total allowable development. This would be the intensity that could be accommodated unless or until Kellogg is improved to freeway status at some point in the future. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Sedgwick County Development Guide” of the Comprehensive Plan shows the area for “new growth”; and the “Wichita Land Use Guide” identifies the application area as “commercial” for all of the Meadow Land area west of K-96, and most of the area to the east. The northern portion is shown as “low density residential.” RECOMMENDATION: Based on the proposed C.U.P. being in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the use of natural features and major barriers to blend the C.U.P. with surrounding land uses, and the commitment of the developer to provide needed transportation improvements and phasing of development to accommodate additional traffic demand, and information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the application be APPROVED subject to platting within one year and subject to the following conditions: A. APPROVE the zone change (Z-3340) to “OW” Office Warehouse plus specific “GC” uses for Parcels 1-2; "LC” Limited Commercial for Parcels 3-9, 14-7, 20-23; “MF-29” for Parcels 10-11; “GO” General Office for Parcels 12-13; and “NR” Neighborhood Retail for Parcels 18-19. B. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-248), subject to the following conditions: 1. The following transportation improvements shall be provided: A. The applicant shall work with KDOT regarding geometric improvements at the intersection of Kellogg and 143rd Street. Dual left turn lanes with adequate storage lengths shall be constructed for eastbound-left turns and southbound-left turns. A northbound-left lane and a westbound-right lane with adequate storage shall also be installed. All improvement costs at this intersection, including changes to the signal hardware shall be the responsibility of this application. B. 143rd Street shall be widened north from Kellogg to a minimum of four through lanes (two lanes north, two lanes south) plus additional turn lanes along the entire frontage of this property. The north terminus of this widened section shall be tapered back to the existing two-lane configuration. C. Turn lanes on 143rd Street shall be installed as follows: a single left lane at the south street, dual left lanes at the main entrance (across from Cardinal), and a single left lane at the north street. D. The intersection of Cardinal and 143rd Street shall be signalized with the following lane configurations: four through lanes on 143rd with dual northbound left and single southbound left lanes; three lanes on Cardinal to the east and five lanes on the west side of the intersection. E. The applicant shall guarantee one-half the cost for accel/decel lanes and widening of a center turn lane on 127th, if these improvements are warranted at a later time by development of Parcels 1 and 2. 2. Until such time as 143rd Street, including the bridge over the Turnpike is widened to four lanes between Kellogg and Central, development on Parcels 3-9 and 12-23 shall be restricted to no more than 380,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area and traffic generated from Parcels 3-23 shall be limited to no more than 13,500 trips per day generated. 3. After 143rd is widened to four lanes between Kellogg and Central, development on Parcels 3-9 and 12-23 shall be restricted to no more than 700,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area and traffic generated from Parcels 3-23 shall be limited to no more than 25,000 trips per day. 4. General Provision #18 shall be revised to eliminate halfway houses. 5. A general provision shall be added to state that prior to issuing building permits, a plan for a pedestrian walk system shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. This walk system shall link sidewalks along 143rd and between the proposed buildings and apartments within the subject property as determined necessary by the Director of Planning. 6. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be revised to state, “Permitted uses shall be restricted to the following uses: all uses permitted in the “OW” Office Warehouse district; car wash; convenience store; funeral home; hotel/motel, medical offices; recreation, indoor; recreation, outdoor; restaurants; and service station. Site development requirements shall be those stipulated in the “OW” Office Warehouse district.” 7. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 8. The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit Plan does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended. 9. All property included within this C.U.P. and zone case shall be platted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. by the Governing Body, or the cases shall be considered denied and closed. The resolution establishing the zone change shall not be published until the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. 10. Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-248) includes special conditions for development on this property. 11. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The property surrounding the proposed development is vacant or in single-family use. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: While the property could be developed with low-density residential use, the presence of the major traffic corridors makes this a less desirable site for low-density residential use. It is also contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Because of the buffering and the layout of the C.U.P., the development would not be expected to exert a significant effect on the character of the surrounding property. The major impact would be a significant increase in traffic. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The requested change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It supports the commercial strategies of providing auto-related commercial activities along Kellogg, having office warehouse uses along major arterials, and providing local-serving retail/commercial uses nearby residents. It also provides a mixed-use development, with the potential for utilization of natural wooded areas and walking paths to encourage residential living/shopping within walking distance. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will have a significant impact on traffic. This would be mitigated by the improvements contained herein and the phasing of development to be timed with major transportation improvements that are not to be completed by the developer. GOLTRY “This is a large Community Unit Plan, a total of 182.5 acres, although because it is a large development and it is complex and it has several different areas within it, I am going to try to break down some of my comments into different areas of it. This is one segment of the application. It is an application for primarily ‘OW’ Office Warehouse and some other ‘GC’ General Commercial type uses, especially along in this area perhaps (Indicating), to serve the auto related public. There are two parcels here; together they are about 36 acres of developable area. There is a large drainage reserve, part of Spring Branch No. 4 in the middle. Moving along to the second area, we have a ‘LC’ Limited Commercial tract here, which will probably be more like auto related, commercial, retail uses. We have a third area in this area that is over by Kellogg and 143rd Street. These have some nice features incorporated into it in that there is a buffer strip of 100 feet along 143rd Street, which is designated for landscaping, pedestrian access and just general buffering of the use from adjacent properties and then some non-intensive types of commercial uses, identified for this little tract, which is ‘NR’ Neighborhood Retail. The big difference between ‘NR’ and ‘LC’ is that no single user can be larger than 8,000 square feet; therefore it is smaller commercial uses. Douglas Street extends back for a mile to Greenwich to form a collector’s street along the Gilders’ Gardens, which is large acre development as well. We have approved CUP 127th Street Center, it is called, for some small-scale retail uses. We have lots of residential development all around the remaining part. If you notice to the north of the tract, we have a site here that is ‘SF- 6’ single-family at the current time, and it is owned by the applicant. It is our understanding that he intends to develop this as single-family, and if that is incorrect, he can correct me. Beyond that we have a church along here (indicating) some more undeveloped but platted property, and all along in here it is already developing with some single-family houses although they have been built since the aerial was taken. The proposed layout of Meadowland capitalizes on the major transportation corridors which define this tract. I have talked around it, but now let us point them out. They are important. We have Kellogg, which is our major east/west arterial. We have K-96; the ramp on and off K-96 to Kellogg connector. We have it being dissected and divided by the Turnpike, so part of the definition that calls upon this tract for development in this configuration is the fact that it is both blessed with access to those major transportation corridors as well as defined and confined by them. Some of the general characteristics of the C.U.P., they have proposed architectural control within the parcels of predominately earth tones, coordinated with lighting fixtures within each of the different land use groups. They have proposed lighting fixture limitations at the height of no more than 24 feet, and shielded in a downward direction. They have proposed signage restrictions that would limit all three standing signs to monument signs, no more than 20 feet in height. Heights do vary among the parcels, but basically in the area over toward the existing built-up residential areas, the height would be 35 feet, which is the same as is permitted in single-family district. Further in, 45 feet for the ‘MF-29’ and for the ‘OW’. There was 60 feet for a few parcels. I think the ones clear over in here (indicating) where they are along the highways. Nearly 20 per cent of the entire site has been set aside as a reserve for Spring Branch and the surrounding areas, plus the additional 100 foot buffer strip along 143rd to serve as a buffer between the development and the surrounding land uses. In terms of conformance with plans and policies, the Sedgwick County Development Guide has shown this area for new growth and they have shown it for at least 800 feet deep as recommended for commercial development. That is the way it shows on our existing Sedgwick County Development Guide. The area to the north, then, would be shown for low density residential. Based on the proposed C.U.P. being in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the use of natural features and the major barriers, such as the transportation barriers to blend the C.U.P. with surrounding land uses, and the commitment of the developer to provide a needed transportation improvement and phasing of development to accommodate additional traffic demand and information available prior, staff has recommended that this be approved, subject to platting within one year, and subject to a number of conditions. I will go through some of the conditions in detail and other I will just allude to briefly. First of all, there are a number of transportation improvements, and we are fortunate today to have Jamsheed Mehta here to talk with us on transportation issues. I won’t go in detail through all of the transportation issues at this point. I will point out that we have had some discussion with the applicant since the staff has come out, just recently to raise the issue of the possibility of phasing in some of the transportation improvements as they phase in the development rather than installing all of the transportation improvements that are called out for initially. We really haven’t had time to respond to that request yet because we just started dialog on that. So I will defer to others to discuss that. Recommendation No. 2, which is an important one; ‘until such time as 143rd, including the bridge over the Turnpike is widening the four lanes between Kellogg and Central, development on Parcels 3 through 9 and 12 through 23 shall be restricted to no more than 380,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area and traffic generated from Parcels 3 through 23 shall be limited to no more than 13,500 trips per day generated’. After 143rd Street is widened to four lanes between Kellogg and Central, development on Parcels 3 through 9 and 12 through 23 shall be restricted to no more than 700,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area, generated from Parcels 3 through 23 and be limited to no more than 25,000 trips per day. Recommendation No. 5 is to add a pedestrian walk system. This is a fairly standard recommendation. Item 6, Parcel 1 & 2 shall be revised to state ‘Permitted uses shall be restricted to the following uses: All uses permitted in ‘OW’ Office Warehouse, car wash, convenience store, funeral home, hotel/motel, medical offices, recreation indoor/recreation outdoor, restaurants and service stations’. Site development requirements shall be stipulated in the ‘OW’ Office Warehouse district. I was trying to collapse this very lengthy staff report, and maybe I skimmed through the public services section a little bit too quickly and I do want to back up and point out that that there were two driving transportation constraints that helped to define what the recommendations were. The first constraint would be the bridge over the Turnpike on 143rd Street East. It was because of the limitations of that two lane bridge that we have called out for limiting their total development to roughly 38% of what typically they would have been allowed to have had on those parcels that are on the 143rd Street East side of the tract. Then, if you look into the future and think that maybe 10 or 20 years down the line, this bridge problem over the Turnpike is solved, (and that is a problem we feel will have to be solved, regardless of this development); if you look into the future and see that constraint is solved, then you look and the major constraints become how much traffic can you anticipate being handled at 143rd and Kellogg. As long as 143rd and Kellogg remain as a signalized intersection with the addition of dual left-turn lanes, the appropriate level of development there would be capped at 700,000 or roughly 70% of the development capability of the site. I wanted to back up and kind of embellish on that comment. The other recommendations that are given are just more of our standard language for C.U.P.s. One final issue I should point out is that we didn’t really focus on whether or not there would be minor drives on 143rd because when we were looking at the development plan, I kind of glossed over the fact that they had three major points of access on 143rd. The traffic study showed three minor drives as well. We have talked some more with them about that since the staff report went out and the feeling is, and I am not putting in their mouths, they can certainly get up and correct me, that they don’t feel like this is a major issue on their part, but they have been requesting that perhaps they could put in these minor drives on an interim basis until the three major roads are constructed within it in case they were building just one small retail site. I spoke briefly, I only had a chance to speak briefly with Marvin and Jamsheed about this before the meeting, we would not feel that they would want to have these minor drives there permanently because they would conflict with traffic somewhat along 143rd, so we would recommend that however this be handled, it be handled as an interim measure where the minor drives would be closed and would need language that nailed down that they would be closed at that time. Of course, that is something they will want to discuss. They really haven’t had a chance to adequately discuss what I am saying about that yet. I have spoken for too long, so I will now stand for questions.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Donna? I guess I have one. I was just wondering where KDOT is involved in this thing? Are they involved at all?” GOLTRY “Absolutely. We have been in meetings with KDOT on this since December, I think. We have had several meetings with KDOT, City staff, and County staff on the transportation component of it.” GAROFALO “If Jamsheed or someone could speak to that.” GOLTRY “Yes. He can speak better to that than I can.” GAROFALO “The reason why I raised that is because in his E-mail message from Mr. Timmie Nogy that is attached to our packets. It says something about his zone changes were previously denied on the northwest corner of Kellogg and 143rd Street East. He says ‘it is my understanding that KDOT intends to close the entry to 143rd Street in the future’. What does that mean?” JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff “KDOT has been involved in discussions since about eight or nine months now. Back when the applicant was first in here, we posed the question that if in fact, Kellogg could be allowed to be an access point into this development, their answer back was ‘no’. In principle, also we are all signatories to the master plan for the corridor preservation of Kellogg. The next level of discussion went where if all of this traffic was being funneled through 143rd Street, would the facility at 143rd, including the intersection at Kellogg and at Central and their main entrances handle it, and that is where most of the traffic and fact studies were done. In fact, they were done about twice by a consultant hired by the applicant. Specifically to your question, whether in the future will there be any 143rd Street there at the point where Kellogg is, we don’t know. Quite likely, if there is a freeway concept extended like the existing plans for the City of Wichita to extend the Kellogg freeway concept further east, as we come to 143rd, we are posed with a situation of having these K-96 ramps only about half a mile away from 143rd, so by the time you add additional ramps to get off and on 143rd, our best guess is that no, this is not a good location for a ramp interchange, therefore it may not be an interchange at that location. So 143rd Street may continue north/south, but may not necessarily intersect with Kellogg. The way to move traffic from Kellogg to 143rd Street, and I am speculating over here because we don’t have any concrete designs yet, would be half a mile or some distance further east of here, similar to the other concepts of Kellogg, where you have an opportunity to make a U-turn in the mid-mile. So what the future for 143rd Street is going to be is unclear. It will take Butler County, Sedgwick County, the City of Wichita and KDOT to work together in the next few years to decide that. The second condition, which was to allow development of the east side of this plat to only about 70% of its potential has to do with the fact that we don’t want it to go any higher, is beyond which the signalized intersection of 143rd and Kellogg will not work. That is why we are capping it now. If it turns into a freeway, with or without an interchange in the vicinity, then that area can handle that kind of traffic because it will not be a signalized intersection. Either it will be a bridge over and they do not meet, or it is an interchange.” GAROFALO “Is there anything in the works that we are sure will be an access? Will there be an access road along Kellogg normally, if it is a freeway?” MEHTA “Probably 143rd Street, right here (indicating) the north/south, could be connected to access or frontage roads and those frontage roads could be on one or both sides, depending on what the nature of the frontage road is. I really can’t tell right now exactly where this interchange is. If it is not over here, will it be half a mile further east from this point. So assuming traffic is coming from the Wichita side on Kellogg, it cannot get off at this point. It continues half a mile or thereabouts and makes a U-turn onto the frontage road or on Kellogg and be able to come out onto 143rd Street that way. They won’t have the luxury of having a signal light like it is right now.” PLATT “Jamsheed, have you and Traffic Engineering approved the three entrances on 143rd Street?” MEHTA “Those are platted streets, as they are proposing. In addition to those three, they are also requesting three driveways.” PLATT “And you are approving the ones shown on the C.U.P.?” MEHTA “The ones on the C.U.P., yes.” PLATT “And when it comes to Subdivision, you won’t be opposing?” MEHTA “That is accurate.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Jamsheed or Donna?” LOPEZ “I want to ask Donna, what the dates of the slides you took?” GOLTRY “I think two weeks ago.” LOPEZ “So will you go back to the last slide? How many postings were there out there for zoning two weeks ago?” GOLTRY “At that time, I believe there were three postings.” LOPEZ “One on each major artery?” GOLTRY “Yes.” GAROFALO “Donna, this reference in this message to us about zoning changes that were previously denied to the northwest corner of Kellogg and 143rd Street?” GOLTRY “That is the northeast corner. If I said northwest, it is incorrect. It is immediately south of Park East.” GAROFALO “Could you tell us anything about what that was all about? Do you know anything about it?” GOLTRY “I am probably not as qualified to speak on it as some other people here because they were involved with the case, but from my understanding, there was a lot of opposition from the neighbors because they did not want any commercial in their area. I think there were even some statements at the time that they thought that if there was commercial in that area it was more appropriate for it to be on the west side of 143rd rather than the east side.” GAROFALO “You don’t know when that was?” GOLTRY “It was in 1997, I believe.” GAROFALO “Marvin, can you enlighten us on that zoning denial on the northeast corner?” KROUT “There are probably neighbors here that would have a better memory of that than I would, but I know the Planning Commission was split on the issue and the County Commission denied it.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? Okay, then we will hear from the applicant or agent.” TERRY SMYTHE “I am with the Baughman Company, here on behalf of the applicant. With me today is Steve Hofener from the traffic consultants out of Oklahoma. Also with me are the owners of the property, so if you have any questions for them, specifically about traffic studies, feel free to get Steve up here. What we brought to you today is really an overall development plan that is, in my opinion, very comprehensive. Rather than bring this piece of property in at a piecemeal basis, we thought it would be best just to address the whole kit and caboodle one time only, look at it and try to figure how to put it together to make it work in the long run. So what you have in front of you is a large-scale development plan that really addresses the issues from 143rd Street to Kellogg, to Douglas, to 127th Street. It was put together for that intent. We didn’t want to see small pieces of zone changes come in and address it one by one. We thought the best thing to do was to put it on the table and have discussion on it. The plan was developed over a 9 to 12 month period of time back at the first part of the year. We sat down with staff and kind of gave them an indication of where we wanted to go with this thing. We had to come back later, about the first of the year, when it was originally scheduled to be heard to hire a traffic consultant to start running numbers on the traffic. Traffic volumes really are a critical criteria on this piece of property, how we are developing it and how we are trying to phase it. The traffic study really took into account, with Jamsheed’s help and KDOT’s help, the Turnpike Authority’s help and the County’s help, the background traffic, the 2030 is projected out there as well as the additional traffic that we would generate with this kind of commercial development. As the staff report indicated, really, we kind of looked at this property as somewhat unique in that it was able to serve three different areas. One over at 127th Street with the access to the frontage roads and the off ramps to K-96. We think that is a good location for some Office Warehouse with some Limited Commercial uses over there for a short period of time. Over on the major part of the property, 143rd Street to K-96, we think the area that is west of the Spring Creek area is probably going to develop with some uses that quite frankly will probably be forced off of Kellogg to the west, when Kellogg gets improved and on-ramps and off-ramps are taken down there, we think that there are going to be some users that are going to want to come out here and look at this because of the frontage along Kellogg. Also, near the intersection of 143rd and Kellogg, we see that really as operating as a neighborhood type of shopping center, the typical shopping centers that you see on a lot of the major corners that have grocery stores, dry cleaners, the video stores. Pretty much things that we all go to. We all drive a mile to them and shop and use. That is kind of how we worked on the development plan to indicate that. We have tried to be somewhat sensitive, I think, to the owners of the Park East area, and if you look at the plan, rather than ‘LC’ up in that neck of the woods, we put some Neighborhood Retail, and in addition, all along 143rd Street, we have 100-foot wide buffer strips that in combination with those acreages in the Spring Creek acreages that we are setting aside, we have approximately 25% reserve areas for that. The distances along 143rd Street for those buffer areas are 100 feet, so in essence, we are pulling our zoning 100 feet west of 143rd Street. So the distances from the start of our zoning on our site, to say the actual structures of some of the houses in Park East is close to 300 feet in distance. One of the slides indicated that there are really some pretty good buffers on some of the houses along Park East. There is one on the very corner of Cardinal to our east that doesn’t have the tall evergreen hedge trees. The rest of them have the tall, mature evergreen trees. On the south side, when we were kind of looking at what we could do to try to mitigate and buffer some of the homes to the south there, we looked at what distances we are from our zoning across US 54 and across their pond. In that distance you are talking 400 to 500 feet distance separations, but what we are doing on the north side of a highway to their distance. When we started talking with KDOT early on in the process, we realized, and Jamsheed is correct, they are still trying to finalize their plan for this thing, but all indications is that this will be an elevated freeway in this area. Because of the drainage that comes through our property, there is no ability to take US 54 underneath that area and depress it. It is going to have to go on top of it. So what we think is going to happen is that from roughly the K-96 on/off ramps that that will be an elevated freeway. Elevated some 30 to 40 feet above the existing grade today. In all honesty, I think that is kind of a separation that is going to offer some very good separation from what we are going to do on the north side to the homeowners’ to the south. Now, granted they are still going to be along a major highway like they are today. You are still going to hear downshifting of trucks and everything else that is going to occur, but that is kind of what you do when you live along a major highway. Now, when I bought down by Jabara Airport, K-96 wasn’t there. Then it got put in and I hear trucks all of the time, downshifting and everything. I guess that is kind of part of what we all have to accept to make the town better. That is my opinion. What we looked at when we discussed with KDOT, I guess, was our ability, if we could, to use US 54 highway. Quite frankly, with the condemnations of K-96 and all of the on and off ramps, we don’t have access to US 54. We would love to have access to it, but it just isn’t going to work out. We hired the traffic consultants to help us visualize what his projections are and what kind of improvements would be needed along 143rd and Kellogg. Steve will be up here in a minute and answer that. What I think we are going to try to do here and what we are proposing is that we are going to phase in our development, according to the traffic criteria. The Turnpike Authority is a major impediment to our ability to develop this very quickly. We think maybe a 10-15 year build-out would be optimistic in our opinion. Our first phase will be controlled by the improvements that will allow 380,000 square feet of building and 13,500 trips per day. The second phase is determined really, by when the bridges are built. It allows us to build up to 700,00 square feet. Finally, we will have full ability to build when we get to the elevated freeway on Kellogg. What we were asking to do is to phase in some of those improvements. In other words, if we were to build dual left-turn lanes and signals at Cardinal Street and all of the other things right now in the early stages, we think that is overkill. We would like to have the ability to sit down with staff, maybe during the platting process and determine whether this is an appropriate level of improvement as we go. That is kind of where we separate ourselves a little bit from the staff report today. So we don’t run out of time, I will turn this over to Steve, and he can give you some more information on the traffic study itself as well as some of the additional information about improvements to Kellogg and 143rd Street.” STEVE HOFENER “I am with Traffic Engineer Consultants in Oklahoma City. As Terry indicated, we did a full traffic report and have worked with the staff and had several meetings, not only with the City staff, but with KDOT and the County as well to review all of the results of those. There are quite substantial improvements that will be necessary on 143rd Street. They are pretty much outlined in your staff report in regards to what ultimately will have to be built. Essentially, it is to bring 143rd Street to a full four lane roadway with left-turn bays in some cases even being dual left-turn bays at the main entrance into this particular site to accommodate the traffic, and also for the installation of a traffic signal. That main entrance lines up with Cardinal Avenue. That entrance alignment was at my recommendation. Primarily, the residential neighborhood over on the east side, there is no way for anybody to go into that neighborhood and take a shortcut anywhere to get to another major arterial. When you can’t have any reason for commercial traffic to be into the neighborhood, it works better to make an alignment with the roadway like that to provide them good access out to 143rd Street as the traffic continually increases on that. That is the purpose and the reason for aligning it. The staff agreed with us in that regard. At 143rd Street and Kellogg, there are some pretty major revisions that will be need to be made down there, including dual left turns east bound and adding right-turn lanes in that area to accommodate the traffic. With all of those improvements in place, I am assuming that the traffic projections of the 2030 plan of the city, the traffic issues will be mitigated in this area and the street system will be able to handle the traffic substantially.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the applicant’s agents?” PLATT “I have a question of Terry. Do you accept the staff comments with the exception of timing on street improvements?” SMYTHE “Yes, we do.” WARREN “One hundred forty-third Street is being held up, I take it because of that bridge at the Turnpike. Is there any planned improvement between Kellogg and that bridge, or are they all going to be contingent upon the widening of that bridge?” SMYTHE “I am going to have to rely on Marvin here. I know that the bridge is the controlling factor on our first phase of development because of the narrowness of the bridge.” KROUT “We are showing in the long-range plan that it needs to be upgraded to four-lane road, but it is not in the City’s nor the County’s Capital Improvement program right now. The main constraints is that it would need to be widened all the way from Kellogg to Central, but the bridge makes it a more expensive and complicated issue. One of the questions is: do you continue to take 143rd Street over Central because it comes down pretty steeply on the north side near Central. Another approach might be to take the Turnpike over 143rd Street eventually and lower 143rd Street. It might be the best ultimate solution, but that would be more complicated, more expensive and require cooperation from the Turnpike Authority. It needs to be widened eventually, it is not in the Capital Improvement Program yet. It is probably going to be a more expensive than usual job because of that bridge.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? I guess maybe I have a question. I know what you are asking for; my only question is: has there been any thought given to single-family housing in a significant portion of that tract? I am thinking that that would coincide, maybe, with the housing to the east.” SMYTHE “When we looked at some designs for that, primarily we looked at single-family to the north where you see it today. The location of Spring Creek, as it comes down through there, the crossing of Spring Creek to get to the other side, I think dictated, in my opinion, more of a commercial flavor to that as well as the additional frontage roads. You have to realize, to make this function in our inability to get underneath K-96 westward, that we have to have a little more space. With the additional requirement that KDOT is going to put on us to dedicate more right-of-way, we think we need some more ground to allow that to happen. We fully realize that our development plan still has to address detention requirements. Detention requirements within our parcels will have to be addressed as we develop that. So I guess that is our justification. We need some more room to handle the KDOT requirements as well as the detenture requirements that we don’t particularly want to put down in the Spring Creek basin. We want to handle that before it gets to that.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of the applicant’s agents? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application besides the applicant or the applicant’s agents. Seeing none, can I see a show of hands of how many wants to speak in opposition? I count about 11 hands. Okay, we will hear from the first speaker. Let me remind you that we would like to have you give your name and address before you speak and also that you are limited to five minutes each.” KENT WEIXELMAN “I live at 122 Cardinal Lane. I live in Park East. I was designated by our Homeowners’ Association to speak in opposition to this zoning request. I will say that opposition to this request is unanimous among the 44 homeowners’ in Park East. I have been a practicing engineer for 20 years, my primary discussion here is one with regard to traffic. With regard to the traffic report that was submitted, I recommend that you put the most faith in the very first sentence of the report, and I quote ‘TEC was retained by the Baughman Company’. What answer would you expect to get? I also think it is very important to note that the C.U.P. was available long before the traffic report was finalized. Very surprising, the traffic report supported the C.U.P. This report contains very few facts, many assumptions and many errors. For example, this report is based on 394 apartments.” GAROFALO “Sir, could I interrupt you for just a second? We are having a heck of a time understanding you. My hearing isn’t that bad and I am sure others are having the same problem. Use the microphone and try to project a little louder.” WEIXELMAN “Okay, I will try that. Is this better? Okay. This report is based on 394 apartments. The C.U.P. allows 659. That is the first flaw. The report cites a critical intersection at Kellogg and Central. Well, if there was an intersection of Kellogg and Central, it would be critical, I agree. The report recommends 6 lanes on south 143rd Street to carry 60% of the traffic and yet only two lanes on north 143rd Street to carry 40% of the traffic. Anyone who can do math can understand that that makes absolutely no sense at all. An example of other problems with the report, this is taken straight from the report, Figure 2, existing traffic, and peak hours. One hundred twelve cars per hour out south and 104 cars out north per hour. Proposed traffic 188 out south, 841 out north. The average delay is going to increase by less than 5 seconds. What this report is trying to tell you is that traffic will increase by a factor of 10 and the delay per vehicle will be only 5 more seconds. I don’t know about anybody else, but I cannot believe that. It is ludicrous, to say the least.” GAROFALO “Sir, maybe you should take the other mike with you when you are speaking from there. And maybe hold it a little bit farther away from your mouth. Maybe that will work better.” WEIXELMAN “Okay. This is typical Wichita commercial development. This is Towne East. Ninety-six acres. That is approximately half the size of the area requested for zoning. Notice the key here for an exit, this little dot? There are 12 major exits coming out of Towne East. Again, I will repeat that this is about half the size of what they are going to request for Light Commercial. Twelve major exits, four different roads, all roads four to six lanes. Here is Eastgate, 30 acres. Fifteen per cent of the size requested for all rezoning. Again, ten exits, five different roads. We have approximately 150 acres being rezoned. One road is now four lane with three exits. Very critical. This report also recommends a second left-turn lane off of Kellogg. It fails to mention that Kellogg is not wide enough to support this. The report also failed to mention that the long-term plan for Kellogg eliminates direct access to 143rd off of Kellogg. If a second left-turn lane is required now, what happens when direct access is denied. It is very important to think about that. The Towne East and Eastgate developments represent reality. Twelve exits and ten exits respectively onto four different roads. There is not a single commercial development in Wichita of the size proposed with only three exits onto the same road, which if the developer has his way, will remain basically a two-lane road. Given the limited access, this property needs to be developed as General Office or some other lower traffic approach. The plan that is proposed will create a traffic nightmare. The developer is asking to dump 150 acres worth of traffic onto a single road, which is not even four lanes wide. You have two choices here. You can work it through what has been proposed, or you can look at what has been shown to work in the past like Towne East or Eastgate. Can I have two more minutes, please?” MOTION: That the speaker’s time be extended for two minutes. CARRAHER moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. GAROFALO “Okay, you have two more minutes. Will you please go to the podium?” WEIXELMAN “Thank you. What is Mr. Lusk’s motivation? Is he trying to improve the neighborhood? Is he trying to improve Wichita? No. Mr. Lusk’s motivation is simply money. He has no concerns for the problems he would create. With this plan, he will develop the property, sell the various tracts and leave the neighborhood to suffer with the problems. If you believe the developer, traffic will be no problem. What they mean to say is that it will not be their problem. They will make their money and be gone, leaving the problems to the people who live in the neighborhood. When Mr. Lusk proposes this development, if he lived in Park East and had to deal with this mess, the mess it will create for the next 30 years, I can say with conviction that he would not. Would you vote to approve this plan if you lived in Park East or one of the surrounding neighborhoods? Please ask yourself this. Many of the people here in this room and in those neighborhoods will have to live with your decision for the rest of their lives. This is not a paper decision. Is this good for Wichita? In the neighborhoods surrounding 143rd Street and Kellogg, the people in these neighborhoods and the people you see every day, we are Wichita, and we are here to tell you that this plan is not good for Wichita. What is best for all parties? Please ask yourself this question. We know what the developer has put in front of you is best for him. Please listen to the neighborhood as to what is best for us. And I would ask lastly, as we just got access to the traffic report late on Tuesday if we can have two more days to submit an official rebuttal to the traffic report to have it allowed into the official record. That is all I have.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the speaker? I gather that your main concern at this point is the traffic.” WEIXELMAN “Absolutely, sir. If you look around Wichita, which we did, and survey all of the major developments, none of which are near this size, you will find no development that dumps this amount of acreage onto a single two-lane road. We certainly appreciate what they are trying to do buffer wise, that will help, but it will not address the traf