METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2004 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, October 7, 2004, at 12:00 P.M., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita Kansas. The following members were present: Morris K. Dunlap, Chair; Harold Warner Jr. Vice-Chair; Darrell Downing; John W. McKay Jr.(in @ 12:08 & out @ 4:40); Bill Johnson (in @ 12:05); Bud Hentzen; Elizabeth Bishop; M.S. Mitchell; Denise Sherman; Gary K. Gibbs (out @ 6;26) and Frank Garofalo. Bob Hernandez; Ronald Marnell and James Barfield were not present. Staff members present were: John L. Schlegel, Secretary; Dale Miller, Current Plans Supervisor; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Jess McNeely, Associate Planner; Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation Supervisor; David Barber, Land Use Supervisor; and Rose Simmering, Recording Secretary. -------------------------------------------------- ? PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Approval of MAPC September 9, 2004, and September 23, 2004 meeting minutes. MOTION: To approve the MAPC for September 9, 2004 and September 23, 2004 meeting minutes. WARNER moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (9-0). --------------------------------------------------- ? MPO AGENDA ITEMS 2. Transportation Enhancement (TE); Review projects being prepared for submission to KDOT. Presentation by Jamsheed Mehta Transportation Enhancements is a federal program under ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation that provides funding for pedestrian/ bicycle trails, scenic/ environmental projects, and preservation of historic transportation structures. All tax-levying entities are eligible to apply for up to 80 percent of the cost of an "enhancement" project, provided that the project meets at least one of 12 categories. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) administers this program in Kansas and approximately $17 million has been set aside by KDOT for this round of applications. KDOT will review all projects submitted for the TE 2006-07 program, and award the federal share to projects using its selection criteria. Project applications from communities within the Wichita Metropolitan Planning Area must submit their applications through the Wichita-Sedgwick County MPO. The MAPD has received eight applications from communities within the planning area (location maps attached): City of Andover: One-mile pedestrian/bicycle pathway along Andover Road connecting two existing pathways at Central Avenue and 13th Street City of Cheney: One-mile pedestrian/bicycle pathway connecting Cheney's new Community Park to 6th and Main Street. City of Colwich: (i) Environmental mitigation of runoff (drainage detention pond) near N. 167th Street and W. 53rd Streets; (ii) Pedestrian/bicycle pathway linking to and around the drainage pond. City of Goddard: Pedestrian/bicycle pathway over a half-mile section of railbanked corridor. (presented through Prairie Travelers, Inc.) City of Wichita: (i) Preservation of the historic 13th Street (Minisa) Bridge over the Little Arkansas River; (ii) Half-mile pedestrian/bicycle pathway over the abandoned UP Railroad corridor in the Delano District, from Arkansas River Trail to Seneca Street; (iii) 2.26-mile pedestrian/bicycle pathway connecting the I-135 Trail (from Grove Park) to the K-96 Trail (in Grove Park); (iv) 4.95-mile pedestrian/bicycle pathway extending the Arkansas River Trail through Chapin Park, and connecting to the Gypsum Creek (Turnpike) Trail in Planeview Park. As part of this year's application development process, MAPD provided opportunities for public support and review of projects. In addition to holding a special public meeting on the enhancement program, staff has made presentations before several District Advisory Boards, Wichita Park Board, the GreenWays Alliance, and the Technical Advisory Committee to receive input and support for these projects. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review projects and provide any comments on the Transportation Enhancement applications. The MPO will be asked to endorse these projects at the October 21, 2004 meeting. JAMSHEED MEHTA Planning staff presented report. MITCHELL What are the Prairie Travelers, and who are they? MEHTA The Prairie Travelers is a not for profit organization entrusted the responsibility of 8 miles of what used to be the CKR tracks from 167th Street near Goddard to Garden Plain. They are the group identified by the Surface Transportation Board as the operators and the folks who would maintain a trail. As you may recall, CKR tracks were not abandoned, they railbanked. MITCHELL What would be their relationship for this one mile section? CECILA KELLENBARGER, 7211 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226, I am treasurer of the Prairie Travelers Association. We have met with the City of Goddard and the Goddard Planning Commission and they have approved this plan. We have worked with their attorney to verify that if something should happen to the rest of the trail that this would still stay as part of Goddard Park. Prairie Travelers then has gone and got approval from the Goddard City Council to apply for this funding. MITCHELL If something happened and your organization were not able to fund the responsibility for the entire part of the trail where would that leave this section? KELLENBARGER We will have a written agreement that if something happens that Goddard will take over this section, and another trail group will do that and we will have that written up by the attorney's in Goddard. MITCHELL Your group has the authority to legally transfer your rights to the City of Goddard? KELLENBARGER We can do a joint venture or a long-term lease. GAROFALO The $17 million, is that considerably more than what the State has been doing? MEHTA Whenever the State decides to combine two years worth, and this time they are doing 2006 & 2007 combined, we stand a better chance when they are grouping many years together so that we get more projects approved in one go. GAROFALO I am pleased on the south extension, that will be a nice improvement. MEHTA We have been to all the District Advisory's Boards for all of the Wichita projects. There is no action required but if you have comments to submit to us or to the sponsors this would be the time. BISHOP So the City of Wichita has to sign off on it? MEHTA Yes, the City of Wichita is a sponsor for four projects. HENTZEN Of the bike paths or trails that are not constructed at this time, do you have or do we have as MPO, the ownership or the real estate where you are talking about putting these paths? You used the term rail banking does that mean we own it or have control over it? MEHTA There is one project here, the City of Goddard's project which involves a railbanked section so if it is specific to that project the Prairie Travelers do not own it. The Prairie Travelers have been given the rights and the responsibilities to maintain it and build a trial on it. HENTZEN Who gave them that right? MEHTA The Surface Transportation Board, that used to be the ICC and they have reconfigured and now they are the Surface Transportation Board, it is a Washington, DC based organization and a federal government entity. HENTZEN Does any of your new paths that are not yet built are they through an individuals property? MEHTA If there are short sections that is when the Public Works Dept. and the Property Management Department will approach the property owners and ask for the additional easements or an outright acquisition. Usually it might be a very short section. --------------------------------------------------- 3. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); Review of projects submitted by member cities for federal funding, and set a public meeting date to amend the TIP. Presentation by Jamsheed Mehta Several cities have submitted project requests for federal funding. However, federal law requires that each year in the TIP be fiscally constrained. It is therefore necessary to prioritize and program eligible project requests for federal funding. Staff will provide technical and fiscal information on the TIP, including recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), at the October 7, 2004 meeting of the MPO. The MPO will be asked to formally amend the TIP on October 21, 2004. The TIP is a listing of all regionally significant transportation projects - including federally funded projects - within the Wichita metropolitan planning area. The Wichita-Sedgwick County MPO has the responsibility for programming all federally funded projects within the area. Three categories of federal funds are available to the MPO for programming: 1) Surface Transportation Program (STP); 2) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ); and 3) Bridge rehab or replace (BR) funds The Current TIP (See Attachment 1) is fiscally constrained, and includes 75 projects funded using these federal programs. The MAPD has received additional project requests (See Attachments 2 and 3) for 11 new street/bridge improvement projects, four new transit projects, and three requests for increase in federal funds. If all projects are included in the TIP as requested by the sponsoring cities, then the TIP will be significantly over-programmed in the latter three years of the TIP (See Attachment 4). The MAPD and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has applied a Project Selection Criteria (PSC) to all capacity- enhancing street projects to prioritize improvements based on volume/capacity, safety, pavement condition, and cost measures. The TAC reviewed the project ranks (See Attachment 5). The TAC recommends that the MPO amend the TIP (See Attachment 6). In addition to three new street-widening projects, the TAC recommendations include two project cancellations, accelerating the construction year on one project, four new transit programs for three years, additional federal finding for two existing projects, and consolidating two widening projects. Recommendation: Provide comments regarding the federally funded projects, and set a public hearing date to amend the 2004-2008 TIP on October 21, 2004. Attachments: 1. Projects in the Current TIP (STP, CMAQ and BR fund) 2. List of project requests received for TIP Amendment 3. Location map of project requests received for TIP Amendment 4. Listing of all requested projects added to the Current TIP 5. Rankings for new capacity-enhancing projects 6. TIP Amendments recommended by the TAC JAMSHEED METHA Planning staff presented report. MCKAY You said 8 of these 11 TIP Applications on Attachment 2 you think qualify? MEHTA Only 8 out of 11 qualify to be ranked as capacity enhancement projects. The others are overlay and maintenance projects and cannot be ranked in that same category as a typical street widening project. So those did not get ranked they are still on the table for your consideration but not with your typical widening project where you use federal funds. MCKAY You said Item 6, the 159th Street East Bridge at over KTA. MEHTA The bridge rating on this bridge is very good. It has to be at least below 80 on a scale of 100 to qualify for rehab and if it was below 50 it would qualify for a replacement. This bridge has a very good rating so federal highway will not approve of it. DUNLAP I have a question if a small community or any community's Council decides to increase the share that it can move me up in the ranking, so I could get it done sooner? MEHTA Yes, you could at least compete better with the pool of projects that you have at that time. MCKAY On Attachment #5, Item 4, that property line you talk about the maintenance the north side of 53rd is Kechi, and the south side is Bel Aire how do you work out the maintenance on that? MEHTA It would be up to the project sponsor but here what they are saying in the application that if you approve it, they will pave it to whatever standard they are asking permission for and the application is not coming from Kechi, it is coming from Bel Aire, it doesn't matter who the project sponsor is they would have to have some agreement to dig into Kechi's right-of- way, but Bel Aire could be paving a street a few miles away from Bel Aire for that matter. MCKAY The trend has been to annex clear up to the right-of-way and not take the right-of-way. MEHTA In this case I am not sure. GAROFALO On attachment #5, does this mean that these projects are given priority over other projects in those years that are mentioned? In other words are other projects being bumped for these? MEHTA The projects which are simply adding federal funds for existing TIP projects were considered to be okay by the TAC. This short list here are all those projects that had some widening or capacity improvements involved. If it did not involve capacity improvements it was simply repaving. BISHOP If these are amendments I would like to know, I can see what is being changed but from the standpoint of being added, but I can't see what is not included. We have the current in here but I don't have total of… MEHTA That will be on attachment 6, the next slide. WARNER Who is the TAC? MEHTA The TAC is an Advisory Board to you, and they are made up of representatives of KDOT, MAPD, City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, these are the voting members and there are 3 to 4 in each of these groups. Every city and every entity within the MPO Planning jurisdiction is invited and we have some lively discussions every month, every 4th Monday of the month. BISHOP Why was the Mt. Vernon Bridge and Dry Creek taken out? CHRIS CARRIER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR That was done because the overall condition rating of the structure wasn't as bad as bridge inspections once showed it so we determined that it can stay in place for a while. BISHOP That was just on the roadway? CARRIER Road and structural condition of the bridge. MEHTA The othwer project that is proposed to be taken out of the five year program is Bel Aire's Woodlawn Rd. from 37th to 45th. I have given you a letter from the City Administrator of City of Bel Aire dated August 30, 2004. It is very clear "The Woodlawn project that was originally submitted has been rescheduled for improvement in 2013 in accordance with the adopted Bel Aire Transportation Plan." If you had representatives from Bel Aire today, you would have a chance to hear whether they mean to keep this project in or out. DUNLAP If we eliminate a project in 2005 doesn't it again usually appear in 2006? MEHTA I am talking about one that is removed completely out of the program, out of the five years. DUNLAP So it doesn't reappear? MEHTA If it does reappear it will go through the ranking system and have to stand on its on merits. MITCHELL On page 2 of attachment 1 the reference to a bridge 47th Street South at Santa Fe, I thought that was a major bottle neck as far as drainage for the big slue area was concerned and I am worried that $425,000 is not enough money for a complete rebuild of that. CARRIER You could be right, we haven't started anything as far as the design of that facility yet and as we go through future TIP amendments if that in fact turns out not to be an adequate amount of money we will have to make the appropriate adjustments at that time. I cannot tell you right now where that number came from. All of these numbers are subject to change as they get closer to the actual time of construction. BISHOP What is the total cost column indicate? MEHTA The cost of the projects that the MPO is responsible for under STP, CMAQ, and BRIDGE? It is an average of $10-11 million a year. GAROFALO Jamsheed, please go over the Bel Aire concerns. MEHTA In your existing TIP from five years ago Woodlawn has been in from 37th Street up to 45th Street, one mile worth $2.7 million. Initially you approved it for 2005, and over the years they asked for it to be amended for 2006-2007. It is based on your long range plans and it is the MPO long range that this project has to be consistent with, not a local plan. The City of Bel Aire did its new plan 2004-2024 Bel Aire Transportation Plan in which this section which is already in the TIP is identified in Bel Aire's 20 year plan as requiring a overlay for now, which is good for 8-10 year, and then doing a 3 lane on it which is contrary to the 4 lane that is in the MPO's long range plan. Their request is fine as long as you also amend your long range transportation plan and then you can accept the TIP proposal of 3 lanes, but right now you are less then a year away from approving or updating your own long range plan. If Bel Aire request for making it 3 lanes is modeled and we show you it is okay, then you may accept three lanes concept instead of the 4-5 lanes. But they want us to push it out of this 5 year program and swap it. In there letter dated October 8, 2004, they are saying that they want to exchange the project for 45th Street, which is also in your long range plan, except that you are calling for 4 lanes and they a proposing 3 lanes. They want to do a swap. For lack of a better term, that's not quite legal. You can't swap projects. You did not provide Bel Aire with $2.7 million and then ask Bel Aire to figure out where they want to put the money. You authorized these funds for a project. One can't push a good project, get it in the TIP and then substitute it for one which otherwise can't stand on its own merits. Bel Aire doesn't recognize this argument. Another thing Bel Aire is concerned about is 53rd Street and why wasn't it ranking high enough. Well, it ranked 4th and I think it ranked fourth only because of an error on our part. Because at TAC we discussed that the chip and oil product is a temporary solution and you will be spending federal funds for less than the design life. You can do resurfacing with these types of funds if the MPO is okay with it, but this is an unpaved road and it proposed as a temporary fix, not really a resurfacing project. On 45t between Oliver and Woodlawn, not only is it a question of how many lanes, because the MPO plan calls for 4 lanes and Bel Aire wants to build a three lane road, but you need to know that their proposal is to build a roundabout at the Woodlawn intersection. If you approve their concept then, by default, you are approving one lane in each direction. Your plan today requires two lanes in each direction. BISHOP In reality 2-3-4 lane roundabouts are not difficult at all. They work good at higher speeds and do without stop lights. METHA Those roundabouts would have terrific radii to work for higher speeds, they would not fit in the 120 foot right-of- way. We asked Bel Aire to wait until the MPO's Transportation Plan is done but there is haste on their part. If they were present at the TAC meeting two weeks ago that would have helped, and this would have been another opportunity today. It was very clear that they asked for a swap and that swap in our mind is not legal. They are saying if you are going to not approve 45th, then they want Woodlawn back, which is a good idea but that Woodlawn project is approved as a 4-5 lane project. To sum it up, the City of Bel Aire can decide whether it wants its original Woodlawn in or out, and provided you understand that it is conforming to you long range plans and vision. Whether it is 45th or 53rd Street, that is your choice, not Bel Aire's. GAROFALO I think Bel Aire needs to tell us why they need to swap it and what the reasons are, because five years ago they were begging for Woodlawn and we listened to that and I think we agreed and put it in. MEHTA We will address their concerns and I am sure they will be present at the next MAPC meeting. If you look at their October 8th memo on point #7 they feel they have a long range transportation plan and it is consistent with their plan. The submitted projects were completely in sync with Bel Aire's long-range plan and does not believe it is MPO's position to dictate to the City of Bel Aire what roadway improvements within Bel Aire should be made. GAROFALO Even with that they do not say why. MEHTA Their transportation plan does not show Woodlawn as their top priority now. It is showing this Woodlawn Road from the railroad tracks for 2 miles up to 53rd Street and all it means is an overlay that is their third highest priority. Our plan is to answer their letter before the next MAPC meeting. MOTION: Set a public hearing date to amend the 2004-2008 TIP on October 21, 2004. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (9-0). DUNLAP There is a move to revise the membership of the MPO and that will play into this at some point. But right now the MPO is the Metropolitan Planning Commission. --------------------------------------------------- ? PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 4. Case No.: DR04-04 – City of Wichita, c/o Metropolitan Area Planning Department request McAdams Neighborhood-wide Rezoning Proposal – Adoption of Proposed Rezoning of Certain Properties in the McAdams Neighborhood Generally located East Boundary – Hydraulic Street, North Boundary – 17th Street, West Boundary – Washington Street, South Boundary – Murdock/8th Street. BACKGROUND: In June 2003, following two years of development and neighborhood input, the Wichita City Council adopted the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan to serve as a blueprint for the revitalization of this unique neighborhood. The current zoning pattern for the McAdams neighborhood dates back over 50 years, and reflects a different vision for most of the neighborhood than has been identified in the recently adopted McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. One of the priority action items identified in the Plan is the creation of a zoning approach that better reflects existing land use and future redevelopment opportunities. Problems with Existing Zoning The vision of the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan is to revitalize and re-populate the McAdams neighborhood by encouraging new predominately single-family housing on vacant lots in the neighborhood. However, virtually all of the residential areas are zoned "B" Multi-Family District which allows and encourages high-rise apartments and project housing, rather than single-family homes. This zoning also allows perceived undesirable uses such as commercial group homes and correctional placement homes. The "GC" General Commercial District zoning along 9th and 11th Streets also allows uses such as recycling processing centers, boarding kennels, welding shops and night clubs which are deemed by the neighborhood association to be undesirable adjacent to surrounding residential uses. Property owners are reluctant to re- invest in their properties due to inappropriate uses that are allowed under the current zoning. The McAdams Neighborhood Rezoning Committee, consisting of neighborhood and city representatives, has recently been formed to help recommend a new zoning scheme for the McAdams neighborhood. This rezoning scheme will address all properties located within the following area: 17th Street on the north, Hydraulic on the east, Murdock / 8th Street on the south, and Washington on the west. A new zoning approach will be recommended to the Wichita City Council based upon the following principles: 1. No property will be rezoned against the wishes of the property owner. No changes will be proposed that will prevent residents, businesses or landlords from continuing their existing operations or uses. 2. No property will be rezoned to a higher intensity zoning classification. This is necessary in order to streamline the neighborhood rezoning initiative, while at the same time independently preserving full notification requirements normally associated with any property rezoning proposal for higher intensity uses. 3. Neighborhood-wide rezoning will be proposed that accommodates the wishes of property owners while facilitating future anticipated /desired land uses as envisioned in the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. There will be no rezoning fees charged to property owners affected by this rezoning initiative. 4. Neighborhood-wide rezoning will be proposed that reflects the support and endorsement of the McAdams Neighborhood Association and the 21st Century Coalition for Neighborhood Revitalization. Work began on the McAdams neighborhood-wide rezoning initiative in April of this year. An inventory and analysis of existing land uses and zoning was completed in May 2004. The Rezoning Committee subsequently completed a preliminary rezoning scheme that was presented at two neighborhood public meetings held on June 24th and June 26th at the McAdams Recreation Center. Letters were sent to all affected property owners advising of the rezoning initiative and inviting them to attend the neighborhood meetings. Copies of the existing zoning and proposed rezoning were also made available at two business establishments located within the McAdams neighborhood. Based upon public comment received at those meetings, the McAdams Rezoning Committee prepared a revised final proposed rezoning scheme dated July 19, 2004. On August 2, 2004, the final proposed rezoning scheme was presented to members of the District I Advisory Board, who unanimously approved the proposal. On August 5th, the proposed rezoning scheme received the endorsement of the Advanced Plans Committee. On August 19, 2004, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission set a public hearing date of October 7, 2004, to receive comments on the proposed rezoning scheme. Letters accompanied by detailed map sets that outline the nature of the propsed rezoning change have been sent to all property owners advising of the public hearing date, and advising of the opportunity to have their property remain as current zoned. Summary of Proposed McAdams Neighborhood Rezoning: 1. Most residential properties currently zoned "B" Multi-Family District would be rezoned to "SF-5" Single Family District. Those properties containing duplex, four-plex or apartment-type housing would be rezoned to a zone that better fits the existing use ("TF-3" Two-Family District, "MF-18" Multi-Family District, or "MF-29" Multi-Family District). 2. Areas targeted in the McAdams Plan for future single attached / two family home infill development would be rezoned "TF-3" Two Family District. 3. Most of the "GC" General Commercial zoning along 9th Street and 11th Street would be rezoned to "SF-5" Single- Family District in order to reflect current residential use. Note: The attached map dated 7/19/04 showing the proposed Rezoning for McAdams will be subject to further revisions up to and including October 7, 2004, in order to accommodate those property owners who file a written request to MAPD to have their property left as currently zoned. CASE HISTORY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "B" Residential uses north of 17th Street. SOUTH: "LI" Industrial uses adjacent to and south of Murdock. EAST: "B, LC" Predominately residential uses east of Hydraulic. WEST: "LI" Industrial uses adjacent to and west of Washington. PUBLIC SERVICES: N/A CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning for the McAdams neighborhood is consistent with the low density residential use patterns prescribed for this area on the "Wichita Land Use Guide" map. Strategy XI.C4 of the Comprehensive Plan advocates the use of rezoning as tool in older neighborhoods to "prevent the encroachment of inappropriate development of a more intensive nature". McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan: The Rezoning proposed for the McAdams neighborhood is consistent with the recommendations contained in the McAdams Plan, and constitutes appropriate plan implementation action. RECOMMENDATION: The Rezoning proposed for the McAdams neighborhood is a tool to help implement the vision and direction contained in the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Accordingly, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED as submitted, subject to those revisions to the McAdams Revised Rezoning Map dated 7/19/04, necessary to accommodate all written requests from property owners requesting to have their zoning left as is, and received by the MAPD by the end of business on October 7, 2004. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. The Rezoning proposal is consistent and reflective of the present character and uses within the neighborhood. The opt-out provision allows property owners to remain as currently zoned, if they so choose. 2. The suitablility of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The Rezoning proposal is intended to effectively implement the recommendations and direction contained in the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. This proposal provides tools to help encourage the realization of the full development potential and opportunity envisioned for this unique neighborhood in Wichita. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The Rezoning proposal will have no adverse impacts on nearby properties. In fact, it could be argued that it will have a benefical, long term social and financial impact on adjoining neighborhoods and the downtown area of the City of Wichita. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The requested change is consistent with policy direction contained in both the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan and the McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: No new development is proposed in association with, or as a result of, the adoption of the Rezoning proposal. DAVE BARBER Planning staff presented report. DUNLAP Dave, will you explain the notice area and how they got notification? BARBER Every property owner within the target area, as well as, within 250 feet of the perimeter of the target area was sent a written letter of notification explaining the existing and the proposed zoning initiative. There were a series of maps sets attached to each letter showing the existing zoning and the proposed zoning changes. We have heard from a total of four people over the last month since the letter went out requesting that they stay as currently zoned. GAROFALO In the letter of notification to the property owners, was the deadline put down in the letter? BARBER Yes, it is close of business today. DUNLAP This is not the first time we have been presented with a neighborhood rezoning like this, and this one has gotten a lot less fire then the previous one. CARL NEIL, 809 N. Matthewson, Wichita, KS Is your whole plan to come in and uproot all the people that live in that area and run a highway through, or are you just zoning to change what? Is the change good for our community? DUNLAP What we are doing is the previous zoning was industrial and anyone could come in there and build a manufacturing plant, or an asphalt plant, or all those other things and we are doing now is changing zoning that is for individual homes and for redevelopment. In general terms I would answer your question that, yes this is very good for the neighborhood and it will preserve what is there and improve it. MCKAY It is not all industrial but it is predominately "B" Multi-family, and this initiative is to bring it into conformity with neighborhood policy. WILLIAM DRAPER, B & B Real Estate Investors We own a vacant lot at Hydraulic Street just north of 13th Street. My thoughts on this subject are when people give up rights to lucrative zoning, they give up value in their property. If they give it up without compensation or tangible promise of something in return they have given up some of their life savings. If I own property that is zoneable for limited commercial or industrial I have more options. I would caution anybody that hasn't opted out to really consider possibly doing that before the deadline and think about the value that you might be giving up. Things like cottage industry, things like arts, musicians, attorneys, maybe even a dentist that is retired and practices occasionally and takes people on a charity basis that wouldn't disrupt the pattern of residential live. GENE JACKSON I own property at 13th & Ohio and I operate the Jackson Mortuary My main concern about the rezoning is that it does not allow in its present form a commercial venues such as hotels, Burger Kings, attorney's offices or things of that nature where people can get off I-135 at 13th Street. When you have homes being built right on 13th and Indiana as it is right now that negates in a sense commercial entities coming in there and making an inpactt in the community. It is nice to have a residential area but also understand there has to be some employment for those people who live in those residential areas. It doesn't seem fair when you tie up one of the best intersections for I-135 and 13th Street for just residential that will offer nothing the community as a whole. Especially capturing economic value from people who travel I-135 from Oklahoma to McPherson or wherever they are going. BISHOP I would like to say as this proposal for rezoning is based on a neighborhood plan that took a number of months and many meetings and quite a bit of input from the people that live in that community. One of the aspects about zoning that we often overlook is that zoning does not just mean what the use is on the property that I own. It is the zoning around the property that I own that it is often crucial, especially if what I am concerned about is my residential property and that zoning around that property can be a protection. The goal of this plan was to take properties and zone them in such a way as they are currently being used and when the zoning classification is industrial or multi-family … that can create a real problem for that property. This will bring the zoning in conformance with the actual uses. MCKAY Mr. Jackson if you will look at the pink area on the map that is all commercial like you were talking about. There is one piece on Indiana that has been taken out, is there a reason for that Dave? BARBER The property owner has requested that it be rezoned from general commercial to residential because he is in the process of building homes there. MCKAY We haven't changed anything along 13th Street. SHERMAN Dave, I want clarification on Item #1, my question is at 13th and Hydraulic where there is an abandoned gas station or a commercial property that is closed, and it is not being used right now, what happens if someone bought that property and wanted to reopen that business they can or not? BARBER Yes they can because, we are not proposing any zoning change at that site. If it was previously in compliance with the Zoning Code, and it goes out of business and a new business restarts and it is in compliance with the Zoning Code then it is entitled to do so. If it was a lawful non-conforming use then it could not be restarted after a 12 month period. SHERMAN Does it matter if it is the same exact business? BARBER No, it is the use of the land not the owner of the land. SHERMAN I want to be clear about the opportunities for economic development, how does the rezoning affect that? BARBER There has been no diminishment of economic development along 13th Street other than the north side between I- 135 and Ohio, which is park land, and we have rezoned that and taken out the commercial use because it is in public park use. One piece by Indiana where the property owner has requested it be downzoned to reflect the residential development going in there. Other then that, there has been no change in the existing commercial zoning along 13th Street. There has been a little bit of diminishment along 9th Street, in terms of existing general commercial zoning and a substantial diminishment along 11th Street where there is very little existing general commercial zoning. DUNLAP Conditions change over a period of time and should there be a development that would like to occur they can always come back and ask for rezoning or a Conditional Use at that time? BARBER That is correct. MOTION: To Approve the McAdams Neighborhood Rezoning in accordance with staff recommendations. DUNLAP moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 5. Sign Code Amendments, presentation Kurt Schroeder. On May 4, 2004, the City Council passed a six-month "Off-Site Billboard Moratorium" to allow time to conduct a study of billboard sign regulations, to obtain public comment on current or proposed billboard sign regulations, and to develop and adopt any appropriate Sign or Zoning Code amendments relating to off-site billboard signs. The Council set an initial four- month target for completion of the above, with an option to extend an additional two months, if necessary. On August 17, 2004, the Council extended the moratorium until the end of the six-month moratorium period (until 11/4/2004). The extension provided staff additional opportunity to complete review of proposed code changes with the billboard sign industry before final ordinance presentations/hearings before the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) and the City Council. The draft proposals first presented to the billboard sign industry in August included nearly every suggestion made at District Advisory Boards; MAPC; and/or by individual Council members in Council workshops in May and June or in follow-up Council member meetings with staff. Presently, the billboard sign industry, staff and City Council concur on nearly all of the code change "alternative" recommendations and the ordinance amendments as presented. Attached is a spreadsheet comparing current Sign Code regulations to the following: (1) staff's initial August 3, 2004 draft of suggested code changes (including DAB, MAPC and Council suggestions); (2) an August 20, 2004 revised draft of proposed code changes as edited/prepared by the billboard sign industry after it's initial meeting with staff; and (3) a recent summary of proposed code changes, including joint staff and industry "alternatives" developed during September after the August 25, 2004 meeting between staff and industry representatives. At its September 28, 2004 City Council workshop, the Council directed staff to prepare proposed Sign Code ordinance amendments reflecting the joint staff and industry "alternatives" on which both staff and industry have concurred (agreed upon alternatives listed in the 4th column of the attached spreadsheet). The attached "DRAFT" ordinance was finalized for MAPC review after the 9/28/04 City Council Workshop. The billboard sign industry has indicated that they will not oppose the following significant Sign Code changes: ? Revising definitions for off-site billboard signs, including a new classification/definition for smaller billboards ("junior billboards"). This proposed amendment will greatly reduce the maximum allowed size of new or replacement billboards located on "LC"-zoned lots that front arterial roads (300 square foot maximum as opposed to current 672 square foot maximum, or up to 825 square foot maximum with allowed extensions). ? Removing the linear frontage of any parcels/lots located in CUPs, PUDs or Zoning Overlays (that do not allow off- site billboard signs) from the minimum linear measurement calculation within/between mile section line roads. This proposed amendment will significantly reduce the maximum number of billboard signs allowed in most areas of the City, and would significantly reduce the number of billboard signs that are currently allowed on "LC"-zoned lots. In addition, the proposed amendment to Section 24.04.222 would limit the maximum number of off-site billboard signs on "LC" lots within any mile section to no more than two (a maximum of up to three such signs are currently allowed). ? Eliminating the current code exception for increased billboard sign height when any part of the sign is located within three feet of a building roof or parapet of a one-story building (signs could still be cantilevered over such buildings, however). ? Addition of language requiring that any building over which a cantilevered billboard sign is to be erected is constructed PRIOR to issuance of a new off-site billboard sign permit. ? Significantly increasing the minimum distance of new or replacement billboard signs from residential structures (from 150' or 75' to 300' or 150'). There has been continuing discussion between the industry and staff on this issue, specifically relating to how the new distance minimums are to be measured. Some general concurrence/consensus has been reached, however (see further detail on page 4 of the attached spreadsheet). The October 7, 2004 MAPC Agenda item is a public hearing for proposed Sign Code ordinance amendments, and MAPC comments/recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for its hearing on the ordinance amendment adoption. The amended Sign Code ordinance is scheduled for presentation to the City Council (and for first reading) on October 19, 2004, with the second/final reading scheduled for November 2, 2004. This anticipated schedule will provide an amended ordinance by the November 4, 2004 Moratorium expiration date. KURT SCHROEDER Office of Central Inspection Superintendent presented the staff report. GAROFALO On the junior billboards, I just want to make clear that you are talking about a limit of 300 square feet? SCHROEDER That is correct, if it is on an arterial road. The way this is written is that if it was on a highway on a Limited Commercial lot you could still have a bigger billboard on a highway, but in the city on arterials you are generally moving slower, and wouldn't expect to see maybe a big billboard, you would have the 300 square feet maximum as opposed to 676 square feet that are currently allowed. GAROFALO On the distance from the residences you talk about 150 feet or 75 feet, and increasing that to 300-350 feet? SCHROEDER It is basically 300 feet from any lot line that is residentially zoned or has a use that is residential use on it that lot line it has to be 300 foot minimum from where the billboard sign would be located. If, for example, they wanted to put the billboard out in front of a 25 foot tall office building, and the residential lots were 175 foot away behind that office building, and you could stand in that yard and not see that billboard sign then it could be reduced to 150 feet. If they want to go below those distances they will have to go through the Conditional Use type process with the hearings, and that type of thing. GAROFALO Was there agreement with the industry people on that? SCHROEDER I will let them speak to that. I think we have gone through about three to four little drafts of that even since we have been through the City Council workshop, and we were talking today that we are generally in concurrence with this. GAROFALO Was there some disagreement about how that was measured? SCHROEDER There was, and that was the key, if it is to the lot line, or to the structure that is really where the discussion was. I think their concern was what if it is on the "big ditch," that is zoned "SF-5"? What we have done is said this has to be a platted subdivision lot that you could actually erect a house on. HENTZEN We just addressed a large down zoning but how is your new record going to affect that in that area? In other words, someone gets a little business and asks for LC zoning; he gets it and the rest of the neighborhood is residential zoned. What are we going to do? SCHROEDER Under these regulations it will be much more difficult to get that done, and you will have to go through a hearing process to get it done, assuming it is within 300 foot of a residential lot. GREG FERRIS, FERRIS CONSULTING, Box 573, Wichita, KS 67201 I represent Gemini Outdoor Advertising and Bresslor/Kesslor Outdoor Advertising We have spent a lot of time with staff drafting these proposed amendments, and what you see before you is a true compromise. As a general rule what you see before you we are in agreement. JOHN LAY, PRESIDENT GEORGE LAY SIGNS, 1016 N. Waco, Wichita, KS 67203 I have several billboard structures in town. The moratorium, when it came about, and the City Council even acknowledge that a lot of the concerns were focused around newer structures which had been built, one near Webb and 21st and others around 21st and Ridge Road, and those concerns were around those areas. The first draft we saw of the Sign Code amendments would largely put us out of business in 10 years time. So we got very concerned about what that was going to do and to keep us in business with those that said don't build the billboards near my neighborhood. That draft had also provided that every billboard structure would come before MAPC and be approved, instead it now goes to a different Board and on a limited number of cases. Under current Code, I think, there were some people that said find a piece of commercial property and you can put a billboard up which is simply not true. I would tell people under the current Code your changes were slim and none, and with these new restrictions the slim goes to a whole lot extremely skinny from slim. I would encourage the support of these amendments subject to a few minor changes we are still working on. DAVID MOLLHAGEN, CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, 3405 N. Hydraulic, Wichita, KS 67219 We have all made a lot of concessions about what is and about what could be happening. I am a member of DAB II. Keeping the size down to 300 square foot and not so much on the highways were concerns. We want to get people off the road and into Wichita so we still need to see about having billboards along those. We still need to support businesses that are not in Wichita that cannot have the 21st Street address or Rock Road address. Sometimes we have a disagreement with the measurements, the measurements that were in the Code they represent the figures of 150 or 75 feet. The 150-foot was a measurement taken along the street, parallel with the street and the sign itself. The 75 feet was the sign itself to the back of the property to the residential use. What was proposed 300 and 150 feet, but the way it is written right now is it appears it is a 300-foot radius around the sign of which I have a problem with. The great concession that was made was the CUP, and taking the measurement out that the CUP did not allow a billboard sign, because there are CUP's that do allow billboards. So if it was not allowed in the CUP that measurement was taken out. So with these kinds of restrictions it cuts down dramatically what can be built. Kurt Schroeder was asked how many complaints has he had in the last 10 years, his response was only 2 that really generated any complaints in 10 years. We also asked how many signs had been built in those 10 years, and his response somewhere around 6-8 per year. So the industry has tried to work with the city and the neighborhoods. BISHOP What is it about the CUP? MOLLHAGEN The city has tried to put in no billboards or off site signs. Some developers know that along Kellogg or along large four-lane streets that they may want to at some point and time be able to put up a billboard sign out there to advertise businesses that are not on those major roads, pad sites but the pad sites are in behind. We could take the measurement, say 800 feet in that CUP along 13th Street add to this and come up to 1600 feet and put up one sign that did not have that CUP because we were able to use that measurement. Now with the way it is written now with this CUP, that does not allow billboards; we cannot use that 800 feet from it. We can only use the 800 feet that is off to the side that does not have any other billboard restrictions on it. DUNLAP Kurt, the appeal process that you have described seems fuzzy to me. Is that a new sign board that we are establishing? SCHROEDER No, it is this body. But the only time that it will come here is if it is too close to the residential. DUNLAP Are we going to do any amortization or are all existing signs going to stay where they are? SCHROEDER Highly discussed, but there will be no amortization meaning that if a sign became non-conforming by these new regulations then it would have to be gone say in 5-10 years that is gone it is not in this proposal. DUNLAP Is maintenance allowed then? SCHROEDER Yes. MOTION: To Approve the Sign Code ordinance amendments in accordance with staff recommendations. BISHOP moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- ? SUBDIVISION ITEMS 6. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations 6-1. SUB2004-120 – Revised One-Step Final Plat – CAREY ACRES ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of 93rd Street North and Hydraulic. NOTE: This site is located in the County in an area designated as "rural" by the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. This revised plat has adjusted the boundaries of the Floodway Reserve and includes revised access controls. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. B. The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 2. If service is available, feasible and the property is eligible for service, County Code Enforcement recommends connection. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. A drainage plan and a flood study need to be provided to County Engineering. Additional easements may be needed based on the flood study. Applicant shall contact DWR concerning permits and certification for dam. E. County Engineering requests the Applicant demonstrate access to the buildable area of Lot 4. A site plan for Lot 4 is requested. F. County Engineering requests submission of a restrictive covenant limiting development to the portion of Lot 1 west of the floodway reserve and to the portion of Lot 4 south of the floodway reserve. G. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes a joint access between Lots 1 and 2, and a joint access between Lots 3 and 4. The access controls are approved. H. Per Sedgwick County Fire Department, access drives to any structure in excess of 150 feet from the edge of the roadway will need to be installed prior to final framing inspection, preferably before the start of any above grade construction work. Such drive to be installed according to fire department specifications: (1) Twenty feet of drivable surface is provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather with provisions for turning fire apparatus around. (2) To meet fire department specifications, the surface will need to be an all-weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4 inches in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed). I. The Applicant is advised of the need to revise the CUP in accordance with the plat. J. In accordance with Access Management regulations, a major street intersection is needed along with an additional 25- ft x 25-ft corner clip at the intersection corner. K. Lot 4 does not conform with the 200-ft lot width standard which is measured at the building setback line. An increase in the distance of the building setback from the road would meet the standard. L. "Lots, a block and streets" shall be referenced in the plattor's text. 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 that are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) P. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. Q. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. R. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. S. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within 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. SBC has requested additional easements. W. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 6-2. SUB2003-37 – Final Plat – STOCKYARD INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION, located on the north side of 21st Street North and east of Broadway. NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. The site was approved in 1997 for a Conditional Use (CU-431) for an Auto Salvage Yard. STAFF COMMENTS: A. City Environmental Health Department has advised that this site is located in the North Industrial Corridor which may require access to the property for continued pollution site monitoring. The owner shall permit access to the property for any environmental study. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. Fees in lieu of assessment regarding sewer main connections are required. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. A cross-lot drainage agreement is needed. A minimum pad elevation table should be shown on the face of plat. E. MAPC approved the existing westernmost access opening on Lot 2. A cross-lot access easement is needed for the benefit of Lot 3. The existing opening located approximately 80 feet from the east property line is approved for right turns in/out only. The easternmost opening on the property shall be closed. Proposed access controls conform with the above request. F. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. G. The Applicant shall meet with Deputy County Surveyor to discuss depiction of plat boundary. H. A cross-lot circulation agreement is needed to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. I. MAPC has approved a 30-ft contingent dedication of right-of-way along the frontage of the property with the exception of the existing structure to the west. This contingent dedication has been denoted on the final plat. J. City Engineering requests a dedication of 35 feet of half-street right-of-way along 25th Street North. This dedication has been denoted on the final plat. K. The call at the southwest corner of plat needs to be changed from "SE Cor." to SW Cor.". L. The sewer easement needs to be shown with sufficient location ties. M. The applicant shall guarantee the future paving of the south half of 25th Street North. N. 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. Any relocation, lowering or encasement of the pipeline, required by this development, will not be at the expense of the City. O. 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. P. 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. Q. 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. R. 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.) S. 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. T. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. U. 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. V. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. 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. Z. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To defer Item 6-2. WARNER moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 6-3. SUB2004-102– Final Plat – PENNSWOOD PARK ADDITION, located east of 167th Street and on the north side of Central. NOTE: This is unplatted property located in the County within three miles of the City of Wichita. It is in an area designated as "2030 Urban Service Area" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. It is located in the Goddard Area of Influence. Since this plat is located in an area where public services are planned to be available for higher density development, "lot bundling" has been provided so the eight building sites (Tracts A through H) may be readily converted to urban-scale lots without replatting. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval of the proposed individual alternative sewer system from County Code Enforcement along with a maintenance agreement. B. City Water and Sewer Department requests a petition for future extension of sanitary sewer and City water services. C. The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 4. If service is available, feasible and the property is eligible for service, County Code Enforcement recommends connection. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan has been provided. A 4-corner lot grading plan is needed. Additional drainage easements may be needed based on the drainage plan. F. The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. G. County Engineering requests an off-site contingent dedication of 162nd St. West and Pine. H. In accordance with Access Management Regulations, complete access control is required for arterials intersecting with local streets. Complete access control of 75 feet is needed along Pennswood from Central. The requested access control has been platted. I. Per Sedgwick County Fire Department, access drives to any structure in excess of 150 feet from the edge of the roadway will need to be installed prior to final framing inspection, preferably before the start of any above grade construction work. Such drive to be installed according to fire department specifications: (1) Twenty feet of drivable surface is provided the entire length of the access drive designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus in inclement weather with provisions for turning fire apparatus around. (2) To meet fire department specifications, the surface will need to be an all-weather material consisting of rock or gravel, ground asphalt, laid asphalt or concrete. It is to be applied a minimum of 4 inches in depth consistently over the entire width and length of the driving surface (gravel is prone to problems during extended periods of rain or snow and should be used with caution unless a good solid compacted base has been installed). J. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed street to the 36' rock standard. K. The Applicant shall submit a restrictive covenant tying the lots together within each tract. Each building site shall be limited to one dwelling unit until the property is annexed by the City of Wichita and municipal water and sanitary sewer services become available. The covenant shall also restrict the location of structures on this plat to avoid interference with the possible future streets, easements and setbacks. L. In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA-NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination completed." M. The applicant is reminded that this site is located within three miles of the City Limits of Wichita and will be heard by City Council. Therefore, the City Council signature block needs to be included on the final plat. N. The Applicant has platted 25-ft building setbacks which represents an adjustment of the Zoning Code standard of 30 feet for the RR, Rural Residential District. The Subdivision Regulations permit the setback provisions to be modified by the plat upon the approval of the Planning Commission. The setback modification has been approved. O. Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations for Lots 1 and 2, Block A. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width. The modification has been approved. P. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names are approved. Q. The MAPC signature block needs to reference "Morris K. Dunlap, Chair". 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 that 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: 316-946-4556) 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 note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. X. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Y. Recording of the plat within 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. AA. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 6-4. SUB2004-114– One-Step Final Plat – OAK CREEK ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 21st Street North and Greenwich Road. NOTE: This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2003-42) from SF-20, Single-Family Residential to LC, Limited Commercial and GO, General Office. The Oak Creek Community Unit Plan (CUP 2003-43, DP-274) was also approved for this site. The site is located within the 100-year floodplain. STAFF COMMENTS: 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 other guarantees or easements. B. Prior to this plat being forwarded to the City Council, the applicant shall apply for annexation to Wichita. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A guarantee is required. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for any improvements to perimeter streets. In accordance with the CUP, the applicant shall provide a guarantee for a continuous accel/decel lane on 21st St. North. Traffic Engineering also has requested the applicant guarantee a proportionate share of the cost of a future traffic signal at 19th and Greenwich. F. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. In accordance with the CUP approval, the plat proposes five openings along 21st St. North with three openings limited to right turns only. The plat proposes six openings along Greenwich with two openings limited to right turns only. Regarding the access controls proposed for Lot 1, Block 1 along 21st North, the plat should include a note that the access controls shall be in accordance with City of Wichita access management standards. G. In accordance with the CUP approval, a cross-lot circulation agreement is needed to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. H. In lieu of increasing the width of 19th Street North and Regency Lakes, a restrictive covenant will be provided restricting the streets to "No Parking". I. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. J. In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA- NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination completed." K. 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. L. 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. M. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. N. GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names Regency Lakes will be revised. O. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. P. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) Q. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. R. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. S. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. T. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. U. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. V. Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. W. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. X. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 6-5. SUB2004-122– One-Step Final Plat – DOROTHY ADDITION, located south of 31st Street South and on the east side of West Street. NOTE: The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2002-03) from SF-5, Single-Family Residential to LC, Limited Commercial (Lot 1) and GO, General Office (Lot 2). The Dorothy Community Unit Plan (CUP 2002-02, DP-258) was also approved for this site. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. Fees in lieu of assessment regarding main connections are required. An off-site sewer easement is needed. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. Minimum pads need to be platted. D. In accordance with the CUP, the following transportation improvements are required: 1. The applicant shall guarantee: construction of a decel lane from West Street to the first entrance on Calvert, reconfiguration of the intersection geometry for Calvert at West Street to reduce the turning radius to 90ฐ and allow a center left-turn lane from Calvert to West, paving of the unpaved segment of Calvert, and widening of Calvert to 36-foot back-to-back on Calvert from the first drive entrance to the second drive entrance. 2. A guarantee for traffic signalization at West shall be provided, but this signal shall not be permitted unless warranted by traffic volumes and coordinated with the I-235/West interchange ramp. E. The segment of Calvert located east of the All Hallows intersection is not open and should be vacated. The Applicant should contact the School district to attempt to have this right-of-way vacated. F. Access controls have been platted in accordance with the CUP approval. The plat proposes two access openings along Calvert. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text in accordance with the face of the plat. Complete access control needs to be shown along I-235. Traffic Engineering has approved the relocation of the westernmost access opening to a mid-block location between Illinios and McComas. G. The plattor's text shall include reference to "reserves" in the owner's certificate. H. In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA-NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination completed." I. The plattor's text on the final plat shall reference the bicycle path easement as being dedicated to the public and state that fences, barriers or other man-made obstructions are not permitted within the easement. The plat will be revised to indicate a dedication of contingent street right-of-way for the bike path. The plattor's text should be revised accordingly. J. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners' association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. K. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. L. A note shall be placed on the final plat, indicating that this Addition is subject to the conditions of the Dorothy Community Unit Plan (CUP 2002-02, DP-258). M. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers' office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers' office. N. The City Council certification needs to be revised to reference Carlos Mayans, Mayor. O. The signature line for the City Clerk needs to be revised to reference "Karen Sublett". P. The MAPC signature block needs to reference "Morris K. Dunlap, Chair". Q. In accordance with the CUP approval, a cross-lot circulation agreement is needed to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. R. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP and its special conditions for development on this property. S. 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. 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 that 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: 316-946-4556) 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 note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. Z. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. AA. Recording of the plat within 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. Westar Energy has requested additional easements. CC. The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 6-6. DED2004-22 – Dedication of Access Control, for property located west of Webb Road and on the north side of Harry. DED 2004-22: Dedication of Access Control from Raymond E. and Shelly E. Lowen, for property located west of Webb Road, on the north side of Harry. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 200 feet of the south 220 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Park Meadow Estates, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This dedication is associated with a lot split case (SUB 2004-112) for complete access control along Harry and Todd Streets. AGENT/SURVEYOR: Mark Savoy, Savoy Company, P.A., 525 S. Emporia, Ste. 104, Wichita, KS 67202 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Dedication. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff recommendations MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING — VACATION ITEMS 7-1. VAC2004-44 – Request to Vacate a Portion of a Platted Front Setback. OWNER/APPLICANT: Restoration & Waterproofing c/o Todd Chapman AGENT: Dale Hermes LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Vacate 5-feet of the platted 35-foot setback that runs parallel to the Hoover Road ROW on the west side of Lot 1, the Snodgrass Addition, as recorded, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. LOCATION: Generally located midway between Harry Street and Pawnee Boulevard on the east side of Hoover Road. REASON FOR REQUEST: Expansion of building and remove existing encroachment CURRENT ZONING: Subject property and southern, northern and western abutting and adjacent properties are zoned "LI" Limited Industrial. The Wichita- Valley Center Floodway abuts the east side of the subject site and is not zoned. The applicant is requesting vacation of 5-feet of the platted 35-foot setback, as described, on Lot 1, the Snodgrass Addition. The setbacks run parallel to the Hoover Street ROWs. The Unified Zoning Code's (UZC's) standard for a front yard setback for the "LI" zoning district is 20-feet. The applicant proposes expansion of the existing building. The Snodgrass Addition was recorded September 11, 1973. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives, and other interested parties Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the platted 35-foot setback as described in a legal description, with conditions: 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 Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time September 16, 2004 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 portion of the platted setbacks and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3) In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the platted setback described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 1. Vacate the platted 35-foot setback and replace it with the UZC's setback for the "LI" Limited Industrial zoning district; 20-feet. 2. Per the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, contingent dedication of 10-foot of ROW, per the Subdivision Regulations for arterials and section line roads, Article 7, Part 2, 7-201, item H, page 7-14. 3. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 4. All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 5. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Vacate the platted 35-foot setback and replace it with the UZC's setback for the "LI" Limited Industrial zoning district of 20-feet. (2) Per the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, contingent dedication of 10-foot of ROW, per the Subdivision Regulations for arterials and section line roads, Article 7, Part 2, 7-201, item H, page 7-14. (3) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (4) All improvements shall be according to City Standards. (5) All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 7-2. VAC2004-45- Request to Vacate a Platted Front and Street Side Setbacks, and Contingent Street Dedication. OWNER/APPLICANT: Wichita Independent Business Association AGENT: Baughman Company PA c/o Terry Smythe LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The platted 35-foot setback that runs parallel to the Central Avenue and Waco Avenue ROWs on a northern portion and an eastern portion of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition as recorded, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas (see attached legal descriptions) LOCATION: Generally located on the southwest corner of the Central Avenue and Waco Street Intersection. REASON FOR REQUEST: Building site CURRENT ZONING: The east portion of the subject property is zoned "GC" General Commercial and the western portion is zoned "B" Multi-family Residential. Property south of the site is "GC" and B". Properties west and north (across Central Avenue) of the site are zoned "B". Property east of the site (across Waco Avenue) is zoned "GC". The applicant is requesting vacation of the platted 35-foot setback, as described, on a portion of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition. The applicant is also requesting vacation of a contingent dedication of Street Row along the northeast portion of the site. The Unified Zoning Code's (UZC's) standard for a front yard setback for the "GC" zoning district is 20-feet, with no minimum street side setback. The UZC's standard for a front yard setback for the "B" zoning district is 20-feet, with a minimum 5-foot street side setback. The applicant has filed for a Lot Split (SUB2004-84), which divides Lot 2 into Parcels A & B. Parcel A (1.1-acres) is the subject site. Per Art III, Sec. III-E, #6 of the UZC, the front setback on a corner lot is located along the shorter street frontage, which in this case would be the Central Avenue frontage, with the street side setback being along the Waco Avenue frontage. Per the Emerson Addition plat's text, the contingent dedication was for public street ROW, to be used when the City needed it. The Emerson Addition was recorded May 5, 1980. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives, and other interested parties Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the 35--foot platted setbacks as described in a legal description and the contingent street ROW dedication with conditions: 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 Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time September 16, 2004 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 portion of the platted setbacks and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the platted setbacks described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 1. Vacate the platted 35-foot platted setbacks, per the legal description, along the north and east sides of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition. Replace with the UZC's minimum front yard setback for the "GC" & "B" (both are 20- foot) zoning district along the subject property's Central Avenue frontage and with the UZC's minimum street side setback (no minimum) along the subject property's Waco Avenue frontage. 2. Vacate the contingent dedication for public street ROW, per the legal description. 3. After the approval of the vacation buy the Wichita City Council, complete and record the Lot Split of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 6. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Vacate the platted 35-foot platted setbacks, per the legal description, along the north and east sides of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition. Replace with the UZC's minimum front yard setback for the "GC" & "B" (both are 20-foot) zoning district along the subject property's Central Avenue frontage and with the UZC's minimum street side setback (no minimum) along the subject property's Waco Avenue frontage. 2. Vacate the contingent dedication for public street ROW, per the legal description. 3. After the approval of the vacation buy the Wichita City Council, complete and record the Lot Split of Lot 2, the Emerson Addition. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 6. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. MOTION: Approve, subject to staff recommendations MCKAY moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried (9-0-2). JOHNSON AND DUNLAP ABSTAIN. --------------------------------------------------- 7-3. VAC2004-46 – Request to Vacate a Floodway Easement. OWNER/APPLICANT: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. West Bay Properties c/o Tim Tucker AGENT: KE Miller Engineering, PA c/o Kirke Miller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The platted 10-foot waterline easement on Lot 6, Block A, Replat of Part of the Kinkaid Park Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. (see attached legal) LOCATION: Generally located midway between Pawnee Avenue and the Arkansas River on the east side of Broadway Avenue. REASON FOR REQUEST: Redevelopment of site & relocation of waterline. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property and abutting and adjacent properties are zoned "GC" General Commercial. The applicant is requesting consideration for the vacation of a 0.43-acre platted floodway easement located in the north side of Lot 3, Block 1, Waterfront Addition. Per the plat's text, restrictions within the floodway include "no structure shall be constructed on or within the said floodway, nor shall any fill, change of grade, creation of a channel or any other work on be carried out without the permission of the City Engineer." The floodway easement abuts Reserve "C" and a larger floodway easement and is also adjacent to Reserve "B" all in the Waterfront Addition. Per the plat's text the uses allowed in Reserves "C" & "B" include drainage and floodway. There are no sewer or water lines in the floodway reserve. The applicant proposes to use the vacated floodway for additional area for a building site on Lot 3, Block 1, Waterfront Addition. The Waterfront Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds January 24, 2003. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the floodway easement ands amend the plat text to allow additional use of a building site as described in the legal description with the following conditions. 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 Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time September 16, 2004, 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 floodway reserve and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the floodway reserve described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 1. Vacate only that portion of the platted floodway easement as approved by City Public Works/Strom Water. Provide Staff, if needed, with plans for review and approval by City Public Works/Strom Water. All to be provided prior to the vacation case proceeding to WCC. 2. Amend the plat text to allow the use of a building site on that portion of the approved vacated portion of the floodway easement. 3. Provide public and franchised utilities with any required easements dedicated by separate instrument made necessary by the proposed vacation. All to be provided prior to the vacation case proceeding to WCC. 4. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 6. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: (1) Vacate only that portion of the platted floodway easement as approved by City Public Works/Strom Water. Provide Staff, if needed, with plans for review and approval by City Public Works/Strom Water. All to be provided prior to the vacation case proceeding to WCC. (2) Amend the plat text to allow the use of a building site on that portion of the approved vacated portion of the floodway easement. (3) Provide public and franchised utilities with any required easements dedicated by separate instrument made necessary by the proposed vacation. All to be provided prior to the vacation case proceeding to WCC. (4) .Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (5) All improvements shall be according to City Standards. (6) All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. MOTION: To approve, subject to staff comments and citing the findings in their report. MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- ? PUBLIC HEARING — ZONING ITEMS 8. Case No.: CUP2004-34 DP106-#1 – Super Market Developers, owner-applicant (Peter Bohling, agent); Wesley Medical Center, Lessee-applicant (Sam Serrill, agent); Tegra Health Care Properties, purchaser-applicant (Matt Jensen, agent) Request Amendment to The Northwest Village Community Unit Plan on property described as; Those parts of Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, in Northwest Village to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 4, where found a 3/4" iron pipe; thence South 88 degrees 01'53" East along the North line of said Lot 4, a distance of 540.04 feet where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence South 1 degrees 57'59" West 82.00 feet, where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 88 degrees 02'01" West 50.00 feet where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence South 01 degrees 57'59" West 282.00 feet where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence South 88 degrees 02'01" East 87.00 feet where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence South 1 degrees 57'59" West 275.12 feet to the South line of said Lot 4 where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 88 degrees 02'01" West along the South line of said Lot 4, a distance of 265.58 feet to a point where set a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 79 degrees 43'40" West, along the Southerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 35.39 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1 where found a 3/4" iron pipe; thence North 79 degrees 31'21" West along the Southerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 65.73 feet to a point where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 88 degrees 00'58" West along the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 40.50 feet where set a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 1 degrees 58'12" East along a line parallel with and 105.50 feet West of the East line of said Lot 1, a distance of 214.97 feet to the North line of said Lot 1 where found a 1/2" iron pipe; thence North 88 degrees 00'34" West along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 147.97 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 1 where set a chiseled "V"; thence North 8 degrees 32'46" West along the Westerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 60.33 feet to a point where set a chiseled "V"; thence North 0 degrees 00'55" East, along the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 350 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH Easements created under: Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded in Film 663, page 1134 and assigned in Film 1152, page 1524 and Assignment and Assumption of Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded in Film 2433, page 1733. Agreement recorded in Film 663, page 839; Joint Access Agreement recorded in Film 598, page 995. Generally located on the northeast corner of 13th Street North and Tyler Road. DEFERRED SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 BACKGROUND: The Northwest Village Community Unit Plan (CUP) is located at the northeast corner of Tyler Road and 13th Street North, and is divided into five development parcels, with each parcel containing specific development standards. The application area is located in Parcel 4, and has a base zoning of LC, Limited Commercial, subject to the CUP development restrictions. Super Market Developers own the western 6.8 acres of the 16.75-acre Parcel 4, and are seeking an amendment to allow "emergency medical and diagnostic services, and education services" to occur on the applicants' portion of Parcel 4. If the request is approved, Tegra Healthcare Properties intends to purchase the site and lease some or all-of-the site to Wesley Health Care who intends to provide medical services, including emergency medical services (EMS). The applicants' portion of Parcel 4 is developed with a commercial building containing approximately 66,000 square feet that was, until two to three years ago, a grocery store. The building is now vacant and has been since the grocery store closed. This facility would provide emergency services for minor injuries up to and including low-level trauma events. 10,000 square feet of the building's 66,000 square feet would be committed to the EMS service. The EMS facility would be open seven days a week, 24-hours a day. Wesley estimates there would be an average of one to two emergency runs a day. Another 5,000 feet would be dedicated to diagnostic services, including laboratory work, and diagnostic imaging capabilities such as CT, x-ray, mammography and ultrasound. The remaining 51,000 square feet would be used for medical offices; educational services and other permitted uses (see Tegra Healthcare letter of August 3, 2004, attached.) The entrance to the EMS room would be from the west side of the building. The applicant anticipates 190 to 290 weekly patient visits for all medial uses. Access to the site is via both Tyler and 13th streets. The eastern portion of Parcel 4 is owned by another entity, Northwest Centre, L.L.C., and is developed with 79,550 square feet of retail and office uses. The other four parcels within the CUP are developed with a bank, additional retail, office and service uses and residences. Currently, Parcel 4 permits: shopping center; tire battery and accessory; financial, office, personal service convenience and service oriented retail uses. Land to the north is part of the CUP and developed with residences; to the south is Northwest High School; and to the west are commercial and residential uses. A masonry wall exists along the northern boundary of Parcel 4 that separates the commercial uses from the residential uses, located to the north. There is also a mature hedgerow of trees located north of the wall. City Fire Station 16 is located approximately 932 feet north of the application area (16th Street and Tyler), and responds to an average of 139 emergency calls a month with siren and lights. The applicants held a neighborhood meeting with area residents on August 26, 2004. CASE HISTORY: Both the Northwest Village Community Unit Plan and its associated zoning, and the Northwest Village plat were approved and recorded in 1980. The application area is part of Lot 4, Northwest Village Addition. On August 3, 2004, the applicants sought an administrative interpretation from the Superintendent of Central Inspection to allow the proposed use by-right under the permitted uses section of the existing CUP (see attached letter from Tegra Healthcare Properties). However, on August 15, 2004, the Superintendent determined that the emergency medical service use is not permitted by- right, and required an amendment to the CUP (see attached letter dated August 15, 2004). Northwest Centre, L.L.C. and a citizen residing in one of the homes located north of the site submitted letters of opposition dated August 11, 2004, and August 10, 2004 (see attached letters from Gary Oborny and Amy James). The opposition cite incompatibility of uses; increased traffic congestion; emergency vehicle traffic will generate additional light and noise; patrons of the EMS room can be security risks for the neighborhood; negative impact on the shopping experience; lack of commitment by Wesley to provide security for the EMS facility. They also estimate that the number of runs is more likely to be seven to eight trips per day. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: MF-29, Multi-family Residential; duplex residences SOUTH: SF-5, Single-family Residential; high school EAST: LC, Limited Commercial; retail, office and service commercial WEST: LC, Limited Commercial and MF-18 Multi-family Residential; retail commercial and residences. PUBLIC SERVICES: All normal public services are available. Tyler and 13th streets are paved four-lane arterials with right and left turn lanes at the intersections. Average daily traffic through the Tyler and 13th streets intersection ranges from 15,830 to 22,517 vehicles. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide map depicts this site as appropriate for commercial uses. The City's comprehensive land use plan contains location guidelines for commercial and office uses. In general these guidelines recommend that such uses should: be located adjacent to arterial streets; employ site design features that limit noise and lighting; be located in planned centers; and that local, service-oriented offices be incorporated within or adjacent to neighborhood and community scale, commercial developments. The Plan also contains a public safety goal of providing residents with the highest quality and most efficient public safety services available, and a public safety objective of providing responsive public safety services to meet the needs of existing residents and future new growth. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following condition: "Emergency medical and diagnostic services, and education services" are permitted uses in Parcel 4." This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There is a mix of zoning and uses in the general area. Properties are zoned SF-5 Single-family Residential, MF-29 Multi-family Residential and LC Limited Commercial. Uses range from low-density residential, a high school and retail commercial uses. The application area is adjacent to a multi-lane arterial intersection carrying over 22,000 average daily trips. The residential uses to the north are buffered from the proposed use by a masonry wall and a mature hedgerow. Further to the north, less than 1,000 feet, there is a city fire station that responds to over 130 emergency calls in a typical month. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: Potentially the site could be utilized as developed and zoned, however the existing structure has been vacant for two to three years indicating that there is something amiss with the existing development restrictions, the existing building or possibly the return expected from the rent or sale of the property. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of the request will not introduce any elements to the general neighborhood that are not already present except possibly a facility that is open 24 hours a day. The fire station already runs with lights and sirens in the area, and the masonry wall and hedgerow provide a buffer to the north. The entrance to the facility is to be from the west side so that the rest of the building acts as a buffer for the retail uses located to the east. 4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Denial of the request could cause an economic hardship for the current property owner since he would lose out on this particular business opportunity. The community could also lose out in that there are not any hospital related EMS rooms in west Wichita. No one would argue that it is not in the community's interest to improve response times for emergency medical services. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: Improving the delivery emergency medical services is consistent with comprehensive plan goals and objectives. This site is a retail center that is located consistent with guidelines contained in adopted plans. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: No negative impacts are identified. DALE MILLER, Planning staff presented the staff report and summarized all materials handed out to the Planning Commission today. DOWNING What was this building used for before, and did it have 24-hour operations? MILLER My understanding is that this was an old Albertson's grocery store, and I don't know if it was 24 hours or not. (Audience members indicate that it did have 24 hour per day operations for a least part of the time.) DUNLAP Before we proceed several MAPC Commissioners have been approached outside of this commission hearing, and I would like you to identify yourself and state if that has affected your thinking or decision you will make today. GAROFALO I was contacted and the discussion would have no bearing on what my final decision is today. MITCHELL I was contacted and the discussion would have no bearing on what my final decision is today. SHERMAN I was contacted and the discussion would have no bearing on what my final decision is today. WARNER I was contacted and the discussion would have no bearing on what my final decision is today. BISHOP I was left a voice mail and that message will have no bearding on what my final decision is today. SAM SERRILL, Chief Operating Officer, Wesley Medical Center We are looking at a multi-use operation on the west side of our community. Because of the major population growth there we feel medical services are in need. Particularly since the Riverside Hospital Emergency Department closed this past August 23rd. We are looking at a one-stop shop for convenience for medical services including, physician offices, diagnostic services, as well as a 24-7 emergency department. There are four major components of our project. An emergency department that will occupy a portion of the building, and we will have the capacity to treat 10 emergency service patients at one time in the facility. We are looking at a facility that will service adults and children. This is not a trauma center. We will only be caring for those people who are to be appropriately cared for in this facility. Patients who have major traumatic injuries, such as a multi-vehicle accident or gun shot wounds or others, will have to go to designated trauma centers in our community. We will, of course, address everyone who comes into our facility regardless of how they get to us, and evaluate, treat or transfer them to an appropriate hospital. There will also be imagining services, servicing not only the emergency service component, but also our doctors' offices, and we will be servicing anybody that walks in that requires diagnostic services of that nature. This is a vacated supermarket. It is about 51,000 square feet. Our site selection process was quite detailed. Obviously for a facility of this nature, multiple use, medical office and related services, we want visibility, accessibility to get to this facility from other locations. That is why we want to be at a major intersection. We did look at about four different sites, and this is the only one that meets our criteria. This has been vacant for about 2-3 years, and we have had an option on this property since October of last year, however it is still available and can be marketed. It is an eyesore in that neighborhood, as you have seen from some of the photos already, and we have a vacant parking lot. I know there as been some problem with trailer parking there and some vandalism in the area. What we are finding across the country is that medical use is becoming more of a secondary use in shopping centers, in this nature. In terms of impact on the property nearby, we feel there can be substantial improvement in that we can increase the traffic in the area. We can generate over 400 visits per day to this area, plus we will be having employees who will be there 24-7. It will have less traffic count then a supermarket will have. There have been concerns about safety and security that we want to address. It has been brought up about potentially undesirable patrons in the area, but we don't think this will be an issue, and based upon the neighborhood that we will be located in, obviously the crime is much less than it is in the center city. There is already a masonry wall that separates the residential area from the commercial area, and we have talked at the community meetings that we are willing to do more with that wall if that is really necessary. Currently, the uses that are currently in this shopping center, there are a number of non-retail tenants in addition to the retail tenants that are there right now. The first nine are medical in nature because over the past couple of years they have moved in. We hope that we can benefit all of these tenants. We think this is consistent with the land use guide and the comprehensive plan. We have about $9.5 million in development cost for this project along with $3.2 million in medical equipment that would be servicing this. We have expended $200,000 already in terms of development costs. This will shorten the EMS commute time and compliment the police and fire protection that is already in the western part of our community. We met with the neighborhood on August 26th and there were over 125 people there, and we tried to address those concerns, and we will continue to do that whether it relates to security or the barrier between the residential area immediately to the north of us. We did met with the District Advisory Board Monday, and did receive support from them. GAROFALO The opposition is suggesting that you ought to use the property you have near the rehab hospital, could you elaborate why that is not appropriate? SERRILL The hospital does own approximately 12 acres immediately east of the existing rehab hospital on 13th Street, and that was one of the sites that we did evaluate but it did not meet our criteria that I talked about earlier. In terms of the accessibility and visibility it will be bordered by residential areas, and there would possibly be similar concerns there. We would also like to be in an area that is visible, accessible, and is already know to the community. DUNLAP Are you seeking any high level trauma here? SERRILL No sir, there is very strict criteria regarding the types of patients that you can take care of. We are not a trauma center at this location because we don't have the capabilities. We will treat the people that will come to us. DUNLAP So, you will not be receiving any air evacuations? SERRILL No. DUNLAP Will you be basing ambulances at this location? SERRILL No, the ambulances will be provided by Sedgwick County EMS as they are now throughout the community. DUNLAP There will not be any outbound siren activity here? SERRILL Yes, somebody could come into us and could go out because they get another call. That is really within the pervue of the EMS system. I know there have been questions about siren noise coming in and out. I have spoken with EMS and they are conscience about siren noise. I can tell you at the hospital at our 550 Hillside location the sirens are turned off when they get into our neighborhood. GAROFALO You have discussed this with EMS? Is EMS aware of what kind of patients they can bring to you; like someone who is having a heart attack? SERRILL They have specific criteria of who they can bring to us. GAROFALO The question is that there is a certain limit on what kind of patient you can handle there. Would EMS be aware of this that they would not transport someone that has been badly hurt in an accident for example? They would go to Wesley? FRANCIE EKENGREN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER AND MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF WESLEY EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT Yes, EMS is very aware of what the resources are in the city and how the facilities meet their triage criteria. So Via Christi St. Francis, and Wesley Medical Center can handle highest level trauma and no one else can. St. Joseph is in that same situation that we would be on the west side, those high levels do not go to that facility nor would they come to this new west side facility. On the other hand if you had a acute myocardial infarction, a heart attack, you could come to us and we could stabilize you and get you the appropriate care quicker and then transport you onto another site if needed. GAROFALO That would be the same with someone with a stroke? EKENGREN Yes, we would be able to treat that immediately and then transport on. GAROFALO So you could have ambulances running out of your site with red lights and sirens going to another hospital? EKENGREN Yes and no, what they typically do, once they stabilize they don't leave the facility red lights and sirens, but once they get into the traffic pattern they would probably have to pick that back up. They have very specific rules about when they run red lights and sirens because it is dangerous to not only their staff but, the patient in the truck, if they are stable they don't always run red lights and sirens. JOHN S DECKER, 1831 N. JANSEN, WICHITA KS 67212 I attended the community meeting in August and found that it was probably 95-98% in favor of the facility. I speak in favor of it. I hear sirens quite often and I am grateful to have a center so close. I go to this center and see a doctor there and I am in favor of this proposal. An empty store is not attractive to look at either. I understand the concerns of the businesses, but they should be concerned about the health and welfare of the persons who would be their customers. PETER BOHLING, ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY, KANSAS CITY We own this facility and we are in support of this transaction. I want to address the issue of the 2 1/2 year vacancy and what we have tried to do to get rid of the building in that time. We have had the facility with J.P. Wiegand, and this property has been under contract since November, but the original contract was for about six months and it has been extended on a monthly basis for various reasons. I have instructed Wiegand during that period of time to continue to actively market the building. We are tenants in 100's of centers and I am constantly talking to other retail tenants and we are always talking about this building and trying to get someone to locate in it and we have not had a good proposal to other than this one to occupy this center. This has been the best proposal for this building in the 2 1/2 years it has been vacant and we have constantly during that time actively marketed the building even though it was under contract. HAROLD ERNEST, 1252 N. WESTLINK, WICHITA KS 67212 I attended the meeting in August and I support the application. One thing I can add that hasn't been said, I felt they had addressed all of the objection very well of neighboring people, the security, the noise. There is a large building at Ridge and Central an Osco building that has been there many months vacant. I don't think that this building is going to be used from what the seller just said in the immediate future and I think this facility would aid that shopping center, certainly more than a vacant building. DIANE LEVENS, 8406 MEADOWPASS, WICHITA KS 67205 In addition to agreeing with most of what has been said here in support of this application. I used to live across the firehouse down on Caddy which is now the EMS center, and I was awakened several times in the middle of the night by sirens. But it was well worth the inconvenience of being awakened because I knew that if I needed them they were there. Our closest ER is St. Francis, and I have not counted the stop lights and the railroad tracks but there are quite a few of them. My husband and I are both heart patients and we would like to be able to stabilized before we have to get stopped by a train or some stop light as we are trying to get to St. Francis for any care. There are a lot of athletic fields there and there are injuries that happen, compound factures, minor fractures, a 24- hour facility would be nice for these parents who are having children that are out there being active. KURT HARPER, SHERWOOD AND HARPER, 833 N. WACO, WICHITA KS 67203 I would like to address the eight or nine factors that you are to consider in evaluating the request to change the CUP. The request is not only to amend the CUP which currently allows a variety of retail and retail service oriented uses such as medical uses and shops, to add a possibility of using this property for an institutional use and they have also asked for reason that are entirely unclear for an amendment to add educational uses such as universities. The factors that you are called upon to consider is our first zoning uses and character of the existing neighborhood. The property is a retail center that is bounded very closes by residential property and that is the same character of all the other corners basically at 13th and Tyler. Introduction of the clinical setting and an ER would represent a dramatic change from all of the existing uses and a dramatic burden on the residential properties in the area. There is a substantial difference between an emergent patient and an outpatient in a physicians office. Secondly, the suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it is currently restricted. Right now it zoned for use in a retail or a variety of other light commercial applications. What is currently the situation for the property is not under an option it is under a contract contingent only upon this Boards actions regarding the zoning. But it is under contract to a party that owns 12 acres currently zoned for emergency use 1,000 feet away. The property without that restriction in the con