7.1 Underground Utilities
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 P oM.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BY: ::DA
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
1
BY: -'-' AA
'--' v 'f......
Item
Application #SR01-1, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to
Section 36-78 of the Subdivision Regulations to require that all utilities in new residential subdivisions
be placed underground.
BackQround Information
Currently there is no requirement that all utilities be placed underground in new residential subdivisions
in the City's Subdivision Regulations. The method of installing electric power lines and cable TV cable
is left to the discretion of the developer and the respective utility companies. Southwestern Bell already
has a company policy of installing their lines underground.
The issue of whether to require that all utilities in residential subdivisions be placed underground has
been discussed in the past few years by both the Planning Commission and City Commission and
came up most recently when KPL proposed the installation of a transmission line along the Huntington
Road ditch between Golden Eagle Estates and the Mayfair Addition. That proposal has been
withdrawn at this time. In their previous discussions on this issue, the Planning Commission had not
taken the step of recommending that any changes be made to the City's Subdivision Regulations. The
placement of electric lines underground in certain locations has been a condition of plat approval in
some cases but has never been a uniform policy or an adopted standard. One of the Planning
Commission's 2001 goals was to bring this issue back for further study and discussion by the
Commission.
Mariposa is a residential subdivision in Salina which through restrictive covenants requires all utilities
to be buried underground. The Flor De Sol and Briargate at Cloud and Markley are also subject to this
restrictive covenant. Twin Oaks Subdivision, Golden Eagle Estates, Highland Meadows Hamlet, Valley
View Estates and the Cedar Creek Manufactured Home Park southwest of Schilling and 1-135 all have
underground utilities. Most of the newer subdivisions east of Ohio Street (Austin, Laurie, Eastgate and
GICO) have overhead electrical service as does Woodland Hills Estates in east Salina and the
Eastview Estates Addition on the south side of Magnolia Road east of Ohio. There is quite a visual
contrast between Golden Eagle Estates and River Trail on the north with underground electric service
and Eastview Estates on the south with poles and overhead wires.
Two subdivisions have a mix of underground and overhead. Country Club Estates Additions No.1, 2
& 3 south of Country Club Road have underground lines while the newest addition to the east, No.4
has above ground power lines. In River Trail, a portion of the subdivision abutting Golden Eagle
Estates and the oxbow was required to have underground service as a condition of plat approval but
the lots abutting the levee will have overhead power.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 PoMo
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NOo
Page 2
BY:
BY:
The Planning staff has also researched the subdivision requirements in other Kansas communities and
has found that Wichita, Hutchinson, McPherson, Abilene, Junction City, Manhattan, Lawrence and
Overland Park all require that utilities in newly developed subdivisions be placed underground. In
Lawrence, this requirement was enacted in a separate city ordinance but their subdivision regulations
were recently amended to include that requirement as were Manhattan's. Hays and Topeka's
subdivision regulations are silent on this matter meaning that the choice is left to the residential
developer and the utility providers.
Policies and Practices of Utility Providers
Staff has met with representatives of KPL, Salina Cable TV and Southwestern Bell to discuss the
impact such a requirement would have on their local operations. The utilities were generally positive
about underground utilities and indicated that KPL and Salina Cable TV could share trenches for
service lines in most cases. There are separation requirements, both vertical and horizontal, for
electric, phone and cable TV lines. Generally, phone lines are buried 18" - 24" deep and electrical lines
are buried at least 36" deep. The City's standard 20' utility easement is wide enough to accommodate
all these buried lines even with the separation requirements.
Below is a summary of local utility companies and their current policies and practices:
KPLlKansas Gas Service - No company policy or preference. Standard practice is to place electric
wires above ground on poles in rear utility easement at no cost. Wires will
be buried if developer agrees to do the trenching and laying of conduit and
to pay the difference in cost. Gas lines have been installed in rear
easements in some older parts of the city. Kansas Gas Service has moved
toward placement in front yard between the street and property line in new
subdivisions to aid in leak detection.
Salina Cable TV -
Follows the lead KPL. If above ground, they lease space on KPL's poles.
If KPL goes underground, Cable TV also buries their lines, often times in
same trench.
Southwestern Bell -
Company policy is to place all phone lines underground in rear utility
easements.
City of Salina -
Sanitary sewer lines were installed in rear easements in pre 1980's
subdivisions but the policy now is to place sewer lines in the street right-of-
way in front of the house. Water lines are almost always located
underneath or adjacent to public streets and not in rear easements.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NOo
Page 3
BY:
BY:
KPL PricinQ POliCY
KPL electric service - KPL pays for the cost of installing poles and overhead lines. For underground
lines, the developer is required to pay the difference between the cost of overhead service and the cost
of underground installation. KPL estimates this cost to be on average approximately $480 per lot
depending on the lot configuration and the size of the lots. This is due to higher capital costs for
underground wiring, transformers and switching equipment. A pad mounted transformer in the rear
easement can serve about four (4) lots. If the subdivision layout allows more lots to be served by an
individual transformer, the cost per lot can be reduced.
Developer's Costs for UnderQround Service
Primary Service
Primary service lines are the internal electric distribution lines that serve residential subdivisions.
Under KPL's team and conditions filed with the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), poles and
overhead wires are installed at no charge to the developer. The only exception to this is where slope,
topography or the shape of the lots being served require an excessive number of poles to be installed.
Under those same terms and conditions, KPL is required to charge developers for the difference
between the cost of going underground vs. the cost of going overhead. KPL's internal cost differential
formula or rate is on file with the KCC.
The developer's cost for underground primary service is calculated as follows:
Primary Service = The cost differential between underground and overhead (including the cost of
transformers) + the cost of trenching, laying conduit and backfilling.
Once the conduit is installed KPL pulls the wire and sets the transformers. Developers can reduce their
out of pocket costs by doing the trenching, backfilling and conduit themselves. KPL refers to this as an
in-kind contribution. All trenching and installation of conduit must meet KPL's specifications, meaning
that if it's not done right it may have to be done over.
KPL has fumished three examples of lot layouts and cost estimates which are attached as Background
Material. As the Commission can see, the additional cost of going underground varies, just as the cost
of water, sewer and streets varies according to how efficient the lot layout is. In KPL's local experience
they have seen the additional cost for underground yary from $183/lot to $1 ,200/lot depending on the
lot layout and terrain but report that systemwide the average cost differential is $480/lot for primary
underground service.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 PoMo
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NOo
Page 4
BY:
BY:
Individual Service
Individual service lines are the lines that run from the neighborhood distribution lines to individual
homes.
KPL reports that developers rarely if ever pay for the cost of individual service. It is usually paid by the
homebuilder or the future homeowner.
The homeowner's cost for underground service to the home is calculated as follows:
Individual service = The cost differential between underground and overhead ($47) + the cost of
trenching, laying conduit and backfilling ($400).
The average cost per lot is $447.
There are many situations in Salina where homeowners have overhead primary service in their
subdivision but have paid to put their individual service underground.
Experience of Other Kansas Cities
Because KPL's cost differential formula or rate schedule is on file with the KCC it does not vary from
city to city, so the only cost variable is the layout and physical conditions in a particular subdivisions.
For example, Manhattan and Junction City both have underground electric policies but their residential
growth areas are in very rocky areas where the trenching costs are much higher than they would be
in Salina. Both communities report that their underground policies have been accepted by the
development community despite these costs.
Potential AdvantaQes of UnderQround Utility Lines
-
Reduces service interruptions and damage due to wind and ice storms.
-
Avoids loss of tree canopy as well as periodic expense of tree-trimming.
-
Contributes to the aesthetic appearance of residential neighborhoods and the community.
Disadvantaaes of Underaround Utility Lines
-
Increases initial cost of infrastructure thereby increasing site development costs.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NOo
Pge5
BY:
BY:
-
Adds to the possibility that some lines could be cut by future excavation in rear easements.
-
Greater heat build up, lower voltage capacity due to greater resistance in the ground vs. air.
Underground lines are not maintenance free after installation.
Plannina Commission Action
On October 16, 2001 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a possible amendment
to the city's Subdivision Regulations that would require electric service lines to be buried underground
in new residential subdivisions. The Planning Commission heard comments from staff, two developers
and representatives from KPL. At the close of the October 16 hearing the Planning Commission asked
staff to provide additional information about the cost differential between overhead and underground
service and how those costs are determined, to do additional research on the experience of other cities
that require underground placement and to provide additional information about the City's streetlight
policy.
On November 6, 2001 the public hearing was reopened and the Commission received additional
information from staff and representatives of KPL on the comparative costs of installing underground
primary and individual service and the cost of installing and maintaining streetlights. At the conclusion
of the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to direct staff to prepare a draft amendment
to Section 36-78 of the Salina Subdivision Regulations for discussion and consideration at the
December 4 Planning Commission meeting.
On December 4, 2001 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft amendment
to the Subdivision Regulations prepared by staff. The Planning Commission heard comments on the
proposed amendment from staff, two developers and representatives of KPL. At the conclusion of the
public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance change as
drafted.
In addition to the minutes of the Planning Commission hearings, staff has attempted to summarize the
comments made by the residential developers who appeared at the hearings. Staff has also sent
copies of the proposed change to the Salina Homebuilder's Association and Salina Board of Realtors
but neither of those organizations has made a formal response or taken an official position on this
issue. The Deputy City Manager and Planning Director also explained the proposed change at a
Homebuilder's Association meeting.
Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment requires that all franchise utilities, not just electric lines, be placed
underground in new residential subdivisions. There are exceptions provided for certain aboveground
structures and distribution and transmission lines. A provision has been added which allows the
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE TIME
5/13/02 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTION:
NOo
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
DEAN ANDREW
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
ITEM
NO.
Page 6
BY:
BY:
developer to request a waiver from the underground requirement where there is a demonstrated
physical or financial hardship. The proposed amendment would apply only to new subdivisions
approved after the effective date of the amendment.
City Commission Alternatives
1.
Approve the proposed subdivision text amendment as written.
2.
Approve the proposed subdivision text amendment with any changes or additions to the
language recommended by KPL, members of the public or City Commissioners.
3.
Return the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for consideration of suggested
modifications to the ordinance language.
4.
Table this matter for further study or to allow staff to provide additional information.
5.
Take no action. In this case the current regulations would remain unchanged.
One policy decision the City Commission needs to make is whether this standard should apply to all
new platted subdivisions within the city or just new residential subdivisions.
If the City Commission concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the attached
ordinance should be adopted on the 1 st reading.
Ene!: Application
Background information from KPL
Summary of developers' comments
Excerpts of 10/16, 11/6, 12/4 PC minutes
Ordinance #02 -
P.C. Meeting Date August 7.2001 Application No. SROI-I
Date Filed July 6, 2001 Filing Fee N/A
Reviewed by DA Receipt No.
..................................................................
Application for an
Amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
Salina City Planning Commission
'.
The undersigned being residents of the City of Salina, Kansas, do hereby apply to
the Salina City Planning Commission for
Amendment of Art;,.l" TTT R"QI1",r"m"nr-.. fnr TmprmTPmpn.." ReRervat;onR #lnd n"""'gn hy
#lm"nd;ng S",,"",nn ':¡¡:.-7R- Utilit;eR to r"qll;r" #Ill 1lt-;1"".""", in n"tJ rp"iilpn..i"l
subdivisions to be located underground.
Applicant's Name (Print)
Salina City Planning Commission
Address
3ÖÒ W. Ash
Phone
309-5720
Signature ~~ ~
Attach additional signature sheets if necessary. Be sure to include name, address, phone and sig-
nature of each applicant on the additional sheets.
If the applicant is to be represented by legal counselor an authorized agent, please complete the
following so that correspondence and communication pertaining to this application may be for-
warded to the authorized individual.
Name of Representative:
Address:
Zip Code:
Telephone (business):
Facsimile:
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
FURNISHED BY KPL
~KPL
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1 2001
October 30,2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Dean Andrew
Planning and Community Development
City of Salina
300 W. Ash St.
PO Box 736
Salina, KS 67402-0736
Dear Dean:
To help clarify the cost per lot for underground primary, I have the following infonnation.
KPL is required to follow the procedures filed with the KCC in conjunction with the tenns and
conditions for electrical service.
Urban distribution extensions for residential h~mes ~e done at no cost for overhead as long as
conditions' of service ,are met: The ;exte~iön)êngth. p)ust be 300' 'or less per new residence.
Anything ovèi300'per lotwoui(ÙeqUÎre' cùstofuðr contribution equal to that portion of the line
extensioii'exceedmgthe iímìis:o,u, ',,;' ,""j
, ," " ':' '-:' ::' ,
Underground pririiaiy extensions for residential subdivisions requires a customer contribution
equal to the estimated cost' differential between the proposed underground and the conventional
overhead system.
Other conditions for primary extensions include but are not limited to:
*Provide clear and pinned easements and lot lines
*Easements legally recorded
*Easements must be to final grade
* Customer in kind must be completed
Underground primary extension costs vary considerably. Some factors involved are:
*Size oflots
*Shape and layout oflots in subdivision
*Matching or mismatched lot lines
*Number of lots in subdivision'
*Digging and conditions for trench and back fill
, . * Contractor cost for trenching and bac~ fill, '",
.Phases of construction,for complete' s:ul?4ivision , "
"'Boring of existing streets' or existing facilities in the ,?ubdivision,
1001 Edison Place I Salina, Kansas 67401
2
I have enclosed 3 separate examples of underground primary extensions. These subdivisions .
exist within our division. I used our subdivision pricing procedures and contractor estimates to
calculate total primary cost per lot. _/
As you can see by these three examples, the cost per lot can vary considerably. In these
examples the difference is all attributed to the design of the subdivision and the number and size
oflots. These factors are controlled by the terrain and the developer's design.
I did not include the cost of the service lines as the service is taken care of by the builder or the
homeowner at the time of completing the house.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (785) 822-3560.
ëd~~
~ Jac~
Engineering Mgr., KPL
gj/am
Enc.
THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS
Index No...............................-
THE l(ANSAS ~.<?~~...1\~.~!::~.~-~.!....~9~~~....
(Name 01 luu."C UuloLy)
SCHEDULE........ ..?!.~.~~ ~~.::.~:.~.:._-
. . GT&C-Elec 39
ReplAcing Schedule... """"""'" ......... Sheel................
Entire Terri tory """"0""0""'_""""""""""""'"
... .. """""o""'o""";:¡,~~;:;~~';:;o;;'O;;¡;'~¡;~~i~'~ 'a""I_blel
Various
which W&3 filed........................................................................0'
~o """,,-, or ."........ WId...LaDdJøc
shall aoodlly the Lan ( u .IaOWD b..-ft.
63 90
Sheet..............o.oC.....o..........Sheeta
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
7.03.02
7.03.03
7.03.04
Underground Electric Service Lines: If
customer desires that existing overhead
service lines be replaced by underground
service lines such service lines may be
installed by Company according to standards of
Company and at customer's sole eost and
expense. If customer desires an underground
service line where an overhead service line is
not in use or is inadequate, such may be
installed by Company according to standards of
Company. Customer will contribute to Company,
upon request, an amount equal to the estimated
cost differential between the cost of the
underground service line and the cost of a
standard overhead service line.
Special Eauipment: Company may, at its
option, install special equipment and/or
facilities, such as nonstandard transformers,
facilities and equipment for two-way feed
service, automatic throwover devices, etc.,
when such device and equipment are requested
by customer and where installation must be
made on Company'~ lines. In such instances,
Company may require a monthly rental charge
based upon the cost of owning and maintaining
such devices and equipment.
Ownership of Equipment: All meters, service
lines, and other equipment installed by
Company shall remain the property of Company.
Maintenance and Replacement: Company will maintain and
replace. when necessary all service lines and
appurtenances furnished by Company ~o serve customer.
7.04
...
15S796"U
".°.
Commission FIle Number..............................
hsued ........,. .. ..._o._~~o~X...................o..o.................~.~............~.~.~.~..................
:~~~ ~~:~~~;~i~.~ ~~ ~~~~~¡ ~~~.
....0""""""""""""'" Fll.ED ._~Y.b:..l.z.J9~
THE STATE CORPO.RATION COMb(. ': I
OF KANSAS
By -~~.........s,t:r'
. FORM 402-1 507313
.
- ...
,
I
I
I
I
..!-
II¿
I
..
u~.xT"\ -6..~
\ -
. 51-\0)( ,q'l ~
3» '1.. 5e fW'A -;
(R;set- =
~~'L Ce,,~r-, 1l9 ~Q ,@Ð
I ~ l&t.s
5~3J~f)
78 ~,6C)
3~~.Eii>Q
I
I
:"'-
rt..~c.h ~ ~'(...f"~H
SL./(}"l,,~ rO~O ~
:3 to""fu.~ is J I 5 G .f£!
~ 1/~~Si!i-
I
I~i~\ r~~~ ~Lðt
~ ~ '-"-\ ~
I
rJ.
a.£.I
I
I
I
I
n
-,
I
- dd --- --
I
I
-_on ----
.. _. --
---- h______.---.
_.
-- --
. J..¡ S' fi'.-A~-~'" ) a-\: --- -- -------~ ~
\t foÌ'~ ì-'c..v 'i:5w.. yo q¿¡
--
. .-.. ..
4
3
2
REV.
DWN. BY:
DESCRIPTION
CHK BY:
APPD. BY: DATE BY TITLE: LA ~ b: ff. C tJ sf
DWG. NO.
SHEET NO.
REV.
DATE:
SCALE:[- 100
W.O. NO.
OF
. FORM 402-1 507313
-- --
- --- -----
I
--- -- --------
I
- r~--------
---- - - --------------
-----------
I
.
lAG ;:>r~~V"j 4 L~ts
~oS I ~ Q q 7 ::. 5 B~ ~ ßS T rt\l\<"~ -f "B ~«..ç; )
d." ~I'tv" = 5 cr ~ (sP5 ì< Q~ -: la..1 €>
) "R:sc-r = 3~ ~ ~~(.~ -::. It/)
~ ~to/' (.pweir-~ 5']0 I ~ 5 ~ I j ) 0
L Teto- \ \=>r~"'c.-~ l>f.~ h+ ~ tt '7 ~~. ~Cl
J ~ \ J pr1tOC-",::\ ~-r 1(:74 } :J..tots - f4r )(.&~'4"'
- --------- --
4
3
2
REV.
DESCRIPTION
CHK BY:
DATE BY TITLE: U G C oS t 'b -, ff".
APPD. BY: T
DWG. NO.
OWN. BY:
DATE:
SCALE:,:: roo
W.O. NO.
SHEET NO.
I OF \
REV.
. FORM 402-1 597313
OAK S-t~
---------------------- --
\=' I V- 'rt\ S-r
4
3
2
REV.
DWN. BY:
DESCRIPTION
CHK BY,
DATE,
SCALf' I
.... OÐ
- -r
V'!
r6
APPD. BY,
W.O. NO.
_.
1
\).. Q", r Y' ; Y'" t>.V-~
8 Lo+.s
7 ac' ~ .. q~ -: ~98/fo
4- -à5l<\J~ - } I <64,c>ö
-
J
, 3'ì~.oe
{ 'I'" \ s~r ":.
. "-
I c..\;\s.Ì"~Mt\' <'e,,-t~ ~ ~ a ~'l4t
( !
I
Tt"'E. 1\(., ~ ~ "Bo.r.. ~f; JI
. 1:1..0';t ~.~ =- J*YO
I
Lf ~O11\~-\s. Y..,sþ' ::. ')..eÐ -""-
~/&"lfð
J
Toto.t Þr~~~ pe.ra 10"
}Þ. if~Cfft30
f
---------------.- _.- - -
- -- - . ---
0----'- .---
qQ' ?6~~ ~ /<sf
d. \ 'o-\- s per )(. ~ fY\-""
I
I
DWG. NO.
SHEET NO.
REV.
OF
Summary of Comments from Developers
Received at the Planning Commission Hearings
Tim Howison - Golden Eagle Estates Addition
. In support of underground utilities.
. Concerned about the inability of developers to recoup their costs if they run
underground wire through undeveloped property to get to developing property.
. Asked for clarification of the City's policy on wooden vs. decorative street light poles.
Stan Byquist - Eastview Estates Addition
. Concerned about KPL's pricing policies and stated that KPL's cost estimates were
low compared to his personal experience with underground power lines.
. Also concerned about the inability of developers to recoup their costs if they have to
run underground wire through undeveloped property to reach property they are
developing.
. Generally in support of underground utilities, asked that there be a waiver provision
for hardship situations.
Frank Norton - Highland Meadows Hamlet Addition
. Spoke about his experience working with KPL on installing underground lines and
ornamental streetlights in Highland Meadows Hamlet.
. Support an underground utility requirement because of the permanency of
improvements installed in residential areas. Decisions made today have long term
implications (see attached letter).
, .
.,REc:elVED
DEC 0,3 2001
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
FRANK C. NORTON
2524 E. Magnolia Rd.
Salina, KS 67401
785-825-2165
December 3, 2001
Salina City Planning Commission
300 W. Ash
Salina, KS 67401
RE: Amendment of Article III requirements for improvements,
reservations and design by amending Section 36- 78-Utilities to require all
utilities in new residential subdivisions to be located underground.
Gentlemen:
I am ~orry that I cannot attend your meeting on December 4, 2001.
I respectfully urge you to favorably act on the referenced matter, Case No.
SRO 1-1, as proposed in the staff report. I realize that this will involve some additional
costs in the development process, however, I feel that the benefits derive from the
aesthetics and function of an underground system far out weigh the costs. Residential
developments represent a long term depiction of the respect which a community has
for where and how its citizens live. The applicable standards must be set by the City
since there is a wide range of differences among the developers Qf commercial
properties.
I feel that the future of Salina will be significantly benefitted by a favorable
decision on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration, I am
æo~
Frank C. Norton
FCN/kms
Mro Webb asked but no semi parking?
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 11
Mr. Thompson stated no. Paved truck parking, that was our origin
that was our original approval.
Mr. Andrew stated if that is the direction that you are incline to go, if you look
at altematives four and five, those are some choices in t s of if you want to
see that north 10ft. paved to get that truck parking are n there then the other
alternatives are to allow essentially the south 10 to remain as is with or
without some additional plantings or number five the more extreme which
would have that all essentially altered and so ou would have the 10 ft. of
paving and the 10 fto of river rock replaced w' some sort of live ground cover,
but the difference between alternative ~ r and alternative five would be
alternative four would direct the applica at the north 10ft. must be paved to
allow for truck parking but that the re ining 10ft. could remain with river rock
or alternative five is more definitive nd says that it all has to be removed and
stored to a natural conditiono that if you are inclined to think that the truck
pa ing needs to be there an rovided then you kind of narrowed it down to
four d five with the further tion of requiring additional plantings from what is
there t Yo
we discuss that issue when we approved this?
r. Andrew stated I think there is ¡ttle bit of extra space in there above the
minimums in terms of the parking sta epths and the driving aisles, but I think
it would be a stretch to say that this ping lot is designed to accommodate
oversized vehicles or Ryder trucks or thin of that nature without them taking
up two spaces at a time and I think the othe 'ssue on this is that we are just
right at the one parking space per room ratio, th is not a lot of extra over and
above the minimum number of spaces in this arking lot, so the site is
somewhat tight, the parking lot is somewhat tight an I do recall that the truck
parking and the lack of a place for it and the fact tha . might end up on the
street was an issue at the original heairng.
MOTION: . Mr. Thompson moved to deny the applicant's request.
SECOND:
VOTE:
Mr. Hedges seconded the motiono
Motion carried 4-1 (McDowell).
Mr. Hedges asked does that give you enough direction then of where to go wi
this?
Mro Andrew stated yes we will just work with the applicant to get that area
modified.
#4.
Preliminary discussion and consideration of a possible amendment to Section
36-78 of the Salina City Subdivision Regulations to require that all utilities in
new residential subdivision be placed underground.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report as contained in the case file.
Mro Salmon asked Dean when we discussed this a few months ago, I got the
impression that is was pretty difficult to spread the cost of underground lines in
a development, is that correct?
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 12
Mr. Andrew stated essentially it is an up front cost for the developer which they
can then pass onto the Iqt buyer or through some other means. There are ways
to recoup the cost. It is being done today, the only question is should that be
our standard for new subdivisions, or should that be something that remains
strictly a choice?
Mro Salmon asked and we are just now discussing new developments?
Mr. Andrew stated new developments that would come in from this day forwardo
Mr. McDowell asked it would apply to all of them?
Mr. Andrew stated right it would be a subdivision regulation that would say
regardless of your location, on the north, on the east or the southeast or
wherever your subdivision comes in that in addition tq having paved streets and
a drainage system and water and sewer that underground wiring is an
improvement that would be required instead of a choice.
Mr. Webb asked so when the developer passes that along it is not done through
specials it is done through the cost of the lot?
~~
Mr. Andrew stated you would have to do it through some other mechanism. I
think that Mr. Howison is doing it a little differently yet, almost like a private
assessment to each lot, but it would not be something that you could roll into
the City's special assessments because it is not a city or a public improvement
from that standpoint.
Mro McDowell stated I have a procedural question. We would have a public
hearing on this and approve it or not approve it if we asked you to go forwardo
Then we are actually making a recommendation to the City Commission?
Mr. Andrew stated correct.
Mr. McDowell asked this is not something we can do on our own?
Mr. Andrew stated. correct this is something that you would make a
recommendation on and it would be put into an ordinance that they would adopt
or not adopt.
Mr. McDowell asked but is that the only way that it can get to the City
Commission is by our initiation and deciding yea or nay on a proposal?
Mr. Andrew stated yes essentially the only way that an existing zoning or
subdivision regulation can be amended is if the City Commission initiates a
change like they did with the downtown, the C-4 drinking establishment
changes, those were initiated by the City Commission, you can initiate a change
such as this or the amendment that we had with the preschools, or if someone
who is a property owner who is affected by a regulation wants to apply to
amend the ordinance, they can do so. But the staff cannot just initiate a
change, it has to be either the City Commission or the Planning Commission
that decides to initiate it.
Mro Thompson asked is there anyway that the buyer of the lot could receive
specific information from KPL as to how much it would cost to put that
underground system in on that lot? Can you break it down that way or not?
Tom Sydow of KPL stated we can generally break it down per subdivisiono
Mr. Thompson stated I guess my only concern is that and I think that all of our
developers are very reasonable and certainly are trying to cut the best deal that
they can for their particular buyers but I just wanted to make sure that the buyer
isn't having to pay more for the underground system that they have than it
actually costs. And is there any way that that can be determined?
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 13
Greg Jackson of KPL stated it would be very difficult to actually put it as a per
lot. We could do it per foot for the whole subdivision and then they can figure
out how many feet they have in their actual lot.
Mro Andrew stated you can go ahead up to the microphone and introduce
yourselveso
Tom Sydow of KPL. All of our rates are set by the KCC but we follow the
general terms and conditions set by the KCC too. And what it comes down to
on this is for overhead service we pretty much pay for that but if anybody asks
us to go underground they must pay the differential between overhead and
undergroundo We are neutral on the subject. We just need to follow the
general terms and conditions set forth by the KCC. In your packet it shows that
a majority of our larger towns that we serve have an underground subdivision
policy. Most of them, almost all of them are exactly alike in that they look at just
the subdivision residential feeders, not the main lines or transmission or
subtransmission lines. The cost differential between the subdivisions
systemwide is around $450 to $500 between overhead and underground. But if
you look at main feeders or subtransmission or especially transmission, those
cost differentials are gigantico Nobody has taken that step. It would be a major
burden to developers or the future owners.
Mr. Webb asked in regard to maintenance consideration, do you have enough
history with underground to be able to compare maintenance costs in a
subdivision with overhead versus underground?
Mr. Sydow stated Dean pretty well laid that out. Obviously every lot is different,
it depends on who plants trees in locations with underground generally you
have costs up front with people digging and we recoup some of that stuff but
some of them they cut and run. And then the long term, replacing underground
long term is going to be more expensive than the overhead but there are pros
and cons both ways. Dean has pretty well got it laid out in your packet thereo
Mr. Webb stated I saw that but I was looking to hear from you if you had dollar
numbers as to the cost.
Mr. Sydow stated it is really different and it depends on where the storms hit to
be honest with you.
Mr. O'Leary stated I kind of relate a little bit to that question of cost simply
because we face it on every subdivision for water and sewer systems and we
get that request a lot, "well can't you just give me the cost, what does it cost?"
Well unfortunately every subdivision is different as you know because you
review those and surveying those subdivisions is going to be different in every
case and I know that you can track 20 or 30 subdivision projects in Salina over
the last 10 years and the cost to serve that subdivision with water systems is
going to be different in every case. Now there will be some range of similarities
just like they are showing the $450 range as some reasonable number to
expect, but I guarantee you that just as it is for us that the cost to serve Golden
Eagle Estates is going to be different than the cost to serve Eastview Estates
which is going to be different than Barlow Estates and different than the
Fairdale Addition and so on and so forth because of the nature of the way those
subdivisions are laid out and the utility might need to run a straight line in the
front yard or it might need to come through the back yard to get to another cul-
de-sac and so on. So that is really the dilemma that I think we face in this
discussion, we don't have this discussion with water and sewer utilities because
they are all financed through special assessments and developers don't really
have to deal with those they are just passed along to the owners so I know that
that is one of the issues that we have wrestled with on staff review and I know
that KPL deals with it regularly and unfortunately the best you are going to get
is an estimate and then with some experience we will learn I think that the
range will be reduced and hopefully the developers will think about these things
as they are laying out their plans. It can't just be a layout that looks pretty, it
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 14
has to be a layout that is efficient as well in terms of serving the site with
streets, utilities and so on.
Mro Webb asked you mentioned that the cable will follow the KPL whatever they
do but is there a cost?
Mr. Andrew stated I don't believe so, I think they recoup their cost at the time
that a customer hooks up but you might ask Mr. Byquist or Mr. Howison
whether the cable company has a charge for serving a subdivision but I believe
that they recoup that at the time of individual service or hook up.
Mr. Webb asked Mr. Howison would you and Mr. Byquist like to address the
Commission.
Tim Howison, 724 Neal. I have a few questions and comments on this because
I think it is more complicated than what appears on the surface. The first thing
that I want to say is that we are in support of underground utilities, you know but
with some fair play being administered on all ends. You have basically a three
ring circus going on hereo You have the City, you have KPL and in most cases
the developer. Sometimes it is a builder opening up maybe 20 lotso So there is
a lot of different situationso We are talking about new developments here which
that is pretty easy to administer in that situation because you get estimates on
subcontracting out burying your electric lines. You get a bid from KPL based on
how many transformer boxes you are going to needo You combine these and
see if the estimate with you doing part of it privately and their part on the
connections works out less than if you have KPL do the whole enchilada. And
in the past where we have done this three times, our figures have run between
$800 and $850 when we took the total cost divided by the number of users that
benefitted on thiso Now as Shawn O'Leary said it is very difficult a lot of times
what you get into is you open up a developed area and right next to it you have
an undeveloped area so you don't know necessarily how many people, how
much usage will be obtained out of those transformer boxes through additional
connections, so generally speaking we tried to stick with just what we have got
on the number of connections versus whole cost, because it gets awfully
complicated to figure out what is going to happen in the future on the other
parcels of ground because sometimes you have changes and those lots right
next to that wind up being fewer lots or maybe more lots. And so you pretty
well have to work off what you have got. Now the main reason I came here was
you have some different situations. You are talking about new construction on
this. Sometimes you will have new construction and then you will have a gap in
between where undeveloped ground may lie and then you have another area
that wants to be developedo So one of the questions or statements that I would
have is where is this cost, if everything is forced to be buried, which we already
have that as a covenant in our area as far as connections and stuffo But if it is
forced to be buried and say there is a quarter mile going in between there,
between the area we own and say another area that we own, that other area in
between is going to pick up a power main, potentially free of cost if there is no
way to incorporate this into the policy to recoup this. Just like KPL has a policy
on their gas mains to recoup your cost on the mains if you extend the main
beyond an unincorporated area or undeveloped area, you can pick that back up
as they develop that and that would be one of my concerns. Another concern
would be if adequate power source is already in place on a development for the
existing development. Say a change needs to come about across the road, half
a mile down the road, so now all the sudden it is being asked that this go
underground and you already have overhead on the perimeter but underground
within the development, I think it needs to be looked at that all the benefactors
on this. There is alot of times on this, there are alot of times, alot more people
benefitting on this than just the existing development. Sometimes it is
somebody down the road, it could be another developer, it could be a business
that needs a larger power source, it could be a public school, it could be a lot of
things. There are a lot of things that incorporate into this. And these issues
have come about in the last year or so on a couple of different instances and I
know sometimes that the City has had to address this on the distribution of cost
in a benefit area, they have had to do it up on Marymount Road, they have had
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 15
to do it on different areas where the City saw a need to maybe expand a road,
move utilities and they proportion out certain amounts of benefit and this is a
concern on us that there would be fair play involved on this, that it would be
distributed you know according to the benefit or as best as they can come up
with because it wouldn't be fair to force all of this on one party or the othero It
wouldn't be fair to have the City pay for all of it or us to pay for all of it if there is
more than one party benefittingo Maybe in some cases and I know KPL
wouldn't want me to say this, but maybe KPL benefits because maybe they built
too small of a power structure, or things change and they needed a bigger one
so they come across our development area and this is one thing that enters into
it so I think that fair play and the benefit area, the true benefit area of who is
benefitting on this plays into this. I would have a question to KPL in reference
to the underground on the three phase distribution lines within a development,
will this still be an option or will there be any changes on the policy on this on us
being able to subcontract this out?
Mro Sydow asked Tim are you asking me if you will still be able to do in kind
cost work?
Mr. Howison stated yes will we still be able to bid on our own?
Mr. Sydow stated yes you can. That is part of the policy but the main thing is
the differential between the overhead and the underground and you can reduce
that differential by providing in kind costs and that will continue. One of the
things that you said Tim too, make sure that I don't get in trouble on is KPL
doesn't have gas that is KGS that is not ours.
Mr. Howison stated ok, small mistake, that part there covers that. The only
other question that would come up is if and I think that I covered this a little bit,
but on an established area where you had adequate power and this changes
because let's say a road is widened, all the utilities get shuffledo If you don't
incorporate something, some kind of statement or something on this, and then
the developer or the consumer or whoever pays for this has to rely on basically
what the City does or what KPL does, there is no protection out there for the
consumer on some kind of reasonable fair play. You can't put it down in black
and white but I guess the benefit area on who benefits on this needs to be
somewhat talked out on these issues. When something changes, we don't
want to get stuck with burying a big overhead power line and I think that they
remarked that that wouldn't be the issue because it would be cost prohibitive.
But you just need to be careful on that area because it could get clear out of
hand. I guess that question going back to the gap in infrastructure on the power
lines, on a distribution line if there is a quarter mile or half a mile that is void in
there, somebody else owns the land and say there is another developer
towards the north end that wants his piece developed up there and needs
power, does KPL have any kind of procedure or policy of reimbursing the party
that paid for the power to come in there to begin with. Because if you are
covering a quarter of a mile or a half mile in between then all the rest of them
just go ahead and hook up because it is paid for now, so we are going to go
ahead and move on it. Kind of like N. Ohio Street out here. You know that
could be a situation where you have a few people pay for it and if there wasn't
policies and procedures and benefit areas and then the others just come on
board but fortunately I think they are looking at a benefit area on that and so
that is a question back to KPL, is there a reimbursement policy if there is a gap
in there and they see it as a developable area so they go ahead and extend it
and we pay for it, is there a reimbursement policy on that distribution line that is
paid for in between?
Mr. Jackson stated there again I think what we are talking about is new
subdivisions and what he is talking about is a major feeder line going across or
through to feed several subdivisions so there again it is not a question that it is
going to mandated. If the customer that owns that property wants it
underground, does not want it overhead, he would be paying for that
differential. If he says go ahead overhead there would be no cost involved.
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 16
Mr. Andrew stated what we are talking about is just the internal electric service
lines for a subdivision, not something like you would see running up Magnolia
Road or something that would serve a larger area. Those would still be
overhead lines, we are just talking about the internal feeder lines in a
subdivision that would feed street lights and individual houses.
Mro Thompson asked strictly residential?
Mr. Andrew stated yeso
Mr. Howison stated I guess my remark on that would be though, if he says that
they want overhead and then they turn around and we bury it underground, so
all of the sudden they go underground on all of theirs, there should be a clause
on the policy that they pick up the cost of that distribution lineo
Mr. Thompson stated I think they are saying that.
Mr. Howison stated but I mean you would have to go back and recapture it
because they turn around and change in the middle of the stream I want to
make sure that we are covered because if they tell staff one thing, then they
turn around and start deciding that they want to bury it well then we need to be
reimbursedo
Mr. Webb stated that is covered with the KCCo Your charges and everything,
what you can charge and what you cannot charge for is covered by the KCC?
Mro Jackson stated sure.
Mr. Howison stated ok and the other thing, and I know KPL, KG&E and these
guys are covered by KCC on a lot of policies but there should be something I
guess if you incorporate a policy that the policy is incorporated with these basic
premises, blah, blah, blah etco, etc., because if you have a major change in KPL
policy and to give you an example and I am not saying it is going to happen
because they have been fair to work with and we work with them all the time,
but if they said well now we are going to charge x amount of dollars for this and
we are going to have to incorporate all the lines ourselves in the future on the
interior instead of you guys doing it, that would change the looks of how this
policy is because then we would be caught over a barrel because it is
incorporated in with the City policy but now we have no optionso In other words
if you don't base it on certain premises on this ordinance or policy that you are
drawing, we need a little bit of something to hang our hat on you know to fall
back on. I know that you can't get very specific but benefit area, who the
benefactors are, just something along those lines, but we are in support of
underground electric lines, don't get me wrong it is in our covenants that you
have to go underground and I think I covered it before but we figured out the
total cost of what it costs to go in there. Now the lots, the bigger the lots the
higher the cost because it is figured on a linear footage basis. If you have
bigger lots you will need more transfonner boxes generally speaking especially
if the street is winding you are going to have a lot of odd angles. If you lay a
street out rectangular it gets down to a minimum. Because then you can double
up two lots on each side you know for one box on the back side, but sometimes
you wind up with three on the odd lots that we have laid out with curves and cul-
de-sacs and like Shawn had mentioned you have got to run a service line
sometimes over to feed a cul-de-sac. One other thing and I don't know if it is
really part of this, what you are trying to do but I understand that there is a
policy or something in reference to the lights, the City lights, that if there is an
overhead light with a creosote pole that there is no cost but yet if we go with a
fancier pole then nothing is covered 0 If I am correct and I don't know all the
details of this but it would be kind of nice to see a difference there figured if we
try to go with better power poles that possibly the difference between the
creosote pole and the fancier pole that there would be some kind of a credit
system there. You probably know what I am talking about don't you? And I
don't have all the specifics but if the city is truly looking at trying to beautify
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 17
these areas this would be something that might be incorporated into this
ordinance or policyo Let me see if there is anything else.
Mr. Webb asked what you are talking about there is just the difference between
a creosote pole and a fancier pole?
Mr. Howison stated like Frank Norton's area up there. If you go with a fancier
pole everything is on you, the whole enchilada.
Mr. McDowell asked but you are saying that you would like if we go forward on
an ordinance on underground utilities you would like a clause in there or have
that ordinance to include allowing fancier light poles at no extra cost?
Mr. Howison stated no just covering the difference, in other words, right now
there is no encouragement to put in nicer light poleso If the creosote pole is put
in I understand that there is no cost back to the developer.
M~o McDowell asked the cost not being part of it, are you suggesting that we
ought to put a policy requiring some type of light specific kind of pole in our
ordinance? Because if you are not saying that then the situation would be just
like it is right now.
Mro Thompson stated not really Hamp, what he is saying is that if you change
from the creosote to a special pole whoever was providing for the cost for the
electricity and everything and the pole was being covered by someone the utility
company or the city.
Mr. Howison stated the fancier pole is covered by the developer.
Mr. Thompson asked but if you change to another pole they don't even cover
the electricity or anything?
Mr. McDowell stated that is the way it is nowo
Mr. Thompson stated no it is not, that is what he saying it is not, I don't know if it
is or it isn't but he said that if you change to another pole the developer pays.
Mr. McDowell asked there are street lights being put in right? So that decision
is being made now under the existing policy.
Mr. Thompson asked but who pays for it is what he is asking?
Mr. McDowell stated well whoever pays for it now. Somebody is paying for it.
Mro Jackson stated yes the City pays for it. They basically lease the wood pole
and the light from KPL on a monthly basis and they offer that wood pole and
mercury vapor or high pressure sodium light as a basic standard. If the
developer wants to go with anything else he has to install that and take care of
it himself.
Mro Thompson asked including the vapor light and including the electricity and
everything?
Mr. Jackson stated yes.
Mro Thompson stated that is what Mr. Howison is pointing out.
Mr. McDowell asked so what are you recommending that we look at then is
different from the way it is now?
Mr. Howison stated well I would recommend that there would be just like your
difference between the overhead power and your underground that there is a
cost credit here established for the nicer pole.
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 18
Mr. McDowell asked there is a what?
Mro Howison stated well a credit back. In other words we are paying for all the
cost of the poles going in on the fancier poles, it seems like the difference we
ought to be paying is for the difference on the fancier pole going in and still be
able to incorporate the cost back to the City which they would have already paid
had we put up a creosote pole.
Mr. Salmon asked you just want the difference between the poles?
Mro Howison stated in other words it cost us $200 more to put up the pole, we
will pay the $200.
Mr. McDowell asked but aren't you doing that now?
Mro Howison stated no, creosote poles are being put up and the City pays for all
that.
Mro Webb stated in automotive language you want to pay for the upgrade.
Mro Howison stated pay for the upgrade but the cost difference, you know in
other words we pay for the upgrade difference but it still falls underneath a
creosote pole and the City pays for the light and electricity.
Mr. Thompson stated if it costs $150 to put a creosote pole up with a light on
there and that includes the electricity and the light and you want to put in a
metal pole you shouldn't have to pay for the electricity and light all you have to
pay for is the pole, that is what you are saying.
Mro Howison stated right we shouldn't keep going on paying the services and
everything elseo
Mr. McDowell asked how is it done now if you want to put a fancy pole in?
Mro Howison stated we pay for the juice going over to the pole and they go
ahead and install their poleo
Mro McDowell asked a fancy pole?
Mro Howison stated a fancy pole we pay for all of it.
Mro McDowell stated ok, so that already is what they are doing.
Mr. Thompson stated Hamp what he is saying is that under the present system
and I don't know if it is true or not, but he is saying that if you let the City go
ahead and put in a creosote pole with a light, the City takes care of all the cost.
Mr. Howison stated yes.
Mr. Thompson stated now if I want to put in a fancy pole.
Mr. McDowell asked now, currently today?
Mr. Thompson stated I take care of all the cost, including the electricity and the
light. What he is saying is why shouldn't he just be charged for the pole?
Mr. McDowell stated ok so what you are asking is that this ordinance take on a
new policy that deals with the upgrade of street lights. Because we don't have
a policy like that.
Mr. Thompson stated he doesn't care if you upgrade your street lights but if he
chooses to what he is saying is pay the difference.
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 19
Mro McDowell stated but he wants that in the ordinance is what he is saying,
that is my point.
Mr. Thompson stated yes.
Mr. McDowell stated because if the City staff is going to go research this, he is
asking us to look at something different than maybe is in other ordinances
around the state.
Mro Jackson stated correct. The one thing that you have to keep in mind is
there has to be a standard for that pole, it can't just be every developer pick his
own pole, because then the City and KPL both have the problem of
maintenance and taking care of those poles in the future.
Mr. Thompson stated sure.
Mr. Howison stated I agreeo Are there any questions?
;;¡;~~,
¡'Ìi:l:¡
Stan Byquist, 233 Highland, Assaria, KS. I am the developer of Eastview
Estates, one of the new developments off the comer of Ohio and Magnolia. I
have had some experience with underground. We have put in 15 lots
underground. Very simple, straight- forward, it was a straight run down the
south side of Magnolia. The lots averaged approximately 90 ft. in width each
and my costs are considerably higher than what KPL is stating. But first let me
back up. I am in favor of underground utilities but I think what is starting to
happen here is that the cost is being put on the homeowner, the developer will
pay and he is going to pass it onto the homeowner and I don't think that is fairo
Anyway let me back up now to my costs. My experience is and I would be
happy to provide City staff with my receipts when I dig these out, a 90 ft. lot
runs about $1,200 total to run the undergroundo It runs about $750 to run the
underground, the 90 ft. width of the lot and then on top of that you have some
survey charges because you have to do an elevation survey to set each one of
the pedestals. And then another cost that I think is considerable and for the
homeowner in the overhead situation, KPL will run the power from the pole in
their back yard to their house at no cost. If you go underground, 135 ft. is $450
so if you take the $750 to bury the line across the lot, add $450 to run it from
the transformer from the pedestal to the house you have about $1,200. You
spread that out on a 90 ft. lot and it is about $13 per foot. So I just take
exception to their figures and I would be glad to supply the City with my
receipts. I think that one thing that we are missing here and I am really, really
surprised at KPL, I think that when you look at the whole situation and I am for
it, don't get me wrong, because it beautifies the city, it will make the backyards
more aesthetically pleasing. I am sure on KPL's standpoint, even though I am a
layman at this that your long term maintenance costs are considerably less
going underground than having poles that you have to replace every so often,
ice storms, wind storms, limbs coming down, squirrels hitting transformers, all of
these are expenses on overheado With underground I think you eliminate a lot
of these expenses. And I think what is starting to happen here is KPL is the big
winner. And the homeowner is the loser, the homeowner is going to pay the bill
and KPL is going to corne out way ahead in long term maintenance and I am
surprised that they don't have some sort of figures on long term maintenance.
And that is really all I have to say. I think that there are some other issues and
Tim touched on some of them. What happens when you have got a
development next to an existing development with poles, you have got poles in
your backyard and now you are requiring to go underground what happens
there. You just drop off the pole, go underground to each house?
Mr. Thompson stated that is what has happened up on is it Bradley and
Estates, there is one area there that is underground and then the next block is
not, so I assume that happened there.
Mr. Andrew stated yes that is one that we noted in our report where you have
Country Club Estates Number One, Number Two and Number Three are all
undergroundo When they did Phase Four they went overhead and they had a
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 20
transition point where they had overhead and underground both backing up to
each other.
Mr. Byquist stated ok and I may be a little unclear on this but I will be
developing a piece of ground on So Ohio. It is presently adjacent to what we
commonly call Bonnie Ridge. There will be some sort of power line running
south down Ohio through what will be my new subdivision. But ultimately it is
going to have to serve the ground south of me which is owned by Mro Caywood
and my question would be that if you are running a power source through one
subdivision to another subdivision it would seem to me that that power source
would have to be upgraded in size to service both subdivisions and if you do
this there has to be some sort of policy that the first subdivision that the line
runs through doesn't get stuck with providing oversized cable, conduit, etc. to
serve the guy next door. I hope I am somewhat clear on that. Anyway to sum it
up I am totally in favor of underground in the future subdivisions. I hope to go
underground but I think the Planning Commission and the City Commission
really needs to see who is benefiting here and where the cost gets shoved and
who is paying for the improvements. Thank youo
Mr. Howison stated I had one more clarification, Clay had mentioned the cost
figures on how does the public know that what is being assessed to the lot is
fairo How we have done it in the past is prior to the sale of any lot we go ahead
and establish that amount not to exceed a certain amount. And usually we
have hit within $50 of that in our costs, KPL costs and the cost of the
subcontractor. There is absolutely no other costs that have been assessed 0 I
can see how this thing could get out of hand let's say if you had a greedy
developer that says well I am going to tack on a $200 cost of administering this
all the way through but the disclosure is made prior to the sale of any lot and if
they want to see the copies of the sheets and KPL's bids that is fine with me. I
have made several copies up and given them to several builders. Any other
questions on that?
Mr. Webb stated thank you.
Mr. Jackson stated just a clarification on Mr. Byquist's cost, his lots are set up to
where there are only two lots per transformer being fed and so that almost
doubled the cost per lot per foot because we had fewer houses on those lots or
on those transformers, the other thing as far as the elevation survey, we require
that the lots be to a certain elevation, the finished elevation, before we set the
transformers and typically that is done in your natural work of your subdivision.
The other thing that we mentioned, the $455 per lot is an average, that is the
differential cost onlyo That does not include what the developer has to put into
that as far as trench, backfill and conduit and that type of thing so yes the cost
does go up because they furnish that part so he was including that in his costs
so that is part of the difference of what his costs were and what our costs are.
Mr. Thompson asked but they are all necessary to get to the house?
Mr. Jackson stated yes they are all necessaryo But what the $455 is just the
differential cost of what we are telling you.
Mr. Webb stated well thank you all. Does staff having anything to add from this
point?
Mr. Andrew stated no I think we always understood that the burden of going
underground was in some way going to get passed onto the developer or in
some way maybe ultimately passed on to the consumer so it is a cost versus
aesthetics, a cost versus maintenance issue. I think that what is difficult to pin
down as Shawn mentioned is to give a typical cost or a typical increased cost
because it is going to be variable based on each situation whether you have a
double row of lots, whether you have lots that match up to each other, how
many transformer boxes that you need it is going to be variable. But I think it
would be very difficult to come up with a number and say this is average or
typical or it won't exceed this, but it is more or less a pure policy kind of
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 21
question for the Planning Commission to weigh the aesthetic and the
appearance issues and the long term maintenance issues versus the cost just
as we would with a paving standard for width of street or paving thickness or
any of those things. You can make streets cheaper to build in the first place but
they may not last as long or they may need higher maintenance so in a sense
you are being asked what the standard for Salina residential subdivisions
should be and should the standard be optional or should it be an adopted
standard to go underground?
Mr. Thompson asked have we looked at any other cities?
Mr. Andrew asked in terms of cost experience?
Mr. Thompson stated they mentioned that well over half of the major
communities are underground, it seemed to me that it might be beneficial for us
to look at their procedures or outlines or guidelines or whatever.
Mro Andrew stated well certainly we have copies from Lawrence, Manhattan
and McPherson and what their subdivision regulations say. In terms of the cost
experience of individual users it may differ because in McPherson they have a
municipal utility so the way that they cost things out and recover their costs is
different than KPL. But certainly Lawrence or Manhattan and their experience
might be something that we could benefit fromo
Mro McDowell stated it might help to have to a question and answer thing based
upon some of their experiences especially these questions or issues the
developers have brought up because we are certainly not experts at it. Also
nobody has really said much about the safety issue here of not having above
ground power lines besides the safety I mean just for humans and I guess with
that said I guess we don't need to worry about the squirrelso Isn't it safer to
have them underground? Or can you answer that?
Mr. Jackson stated that is a real good questiono We have very few contact
problems with our overhead but at the same time it is possible but at the same
time it is possible on the underground system also. We do have a lot of pad
mount transformers run over by cars and those types of things get hit in
different instances so it is 50/50 as far as the maintenance, in long term
maintenance the underground is very expensive to come back in and maintain if
you have a problem. For instance up on the hill, up on Applewood, if we have
to go back into those backyards it can cost us $5,000 or $6,000 just to bore
from one lot to the next so that 90 ft. lot becomes a very major expense to KPL
in the future so the maintenance item is really a moot point, it is half a dozen of
one and six of the other.
Mro Thompson asked and are those costs borne by the landowner or KPL?
Once it is in the ground it is your problem?
Mro Jackson stated yes.
Mr. McDowell stated and then it is passed onto the rest of uSo
Mr. Webb stated in an electrical rateo
Mr. Salmon asked Dean what kind of directive would you need from the
Planning Commission to do a study to make this mandatory on new
subdivisions?
Mr. Andrew stated well what we would ask is if based on what you have heard
today from KPL and the others whether you want to proceed with considering
some language change that addresses underground wiring and a street light
policy and things of that nature, if based on what you heard today you think that
the cost structure is such that it is not something that ought to be made a
requirement or a standard for development then you would just drop it as of
today.
Salina Planning Commission
October 16, 2001
Page 22
\
Mr. Salmon stated well I would like to see it mandatory for all new subdivisions
myself, it seems to me that this would be quite a study because you are going
to have to incorporate a lot of different areas into this such as the developers
have mentioned and also KPL into a study.
Mr. Thompson stated I would like to see the study proceed. I don't know that I
am ready to say that it should be mandatory at this point and time, but I would
like to see a study proceed to see what the cost would be and what all the other
ramifications wereo I mean these gentlemen have given us a lot of information
which is really valuable, but golly I am a little bit more confused than I was when
we started so I think that it really would be helpful to get more information
before we just flat say this is the way it is going to be.
MOTION:
Mr. McDowell moved that the Commission authorize staff to prepare a
proposed text amendment for consideration at the next Planning Commission
meeting on November 6, 2001 if that is enough time and to include an
investigation of the issues that we have discussed today, especially that. of
street lights.
SECOND:
Mr. Salmon seconded the motion.
Mr. Thompson asked is that enough time Dean?
Mr. Andrew stated it kind of depends on the level of information, I think that
would be pretty tight to gather that information and get any kind of real study of
cost comparisons and to do both of those by November 6.
Mr. McDowell stated as the maker of the motion I would like to, if my second
would go along with it to say as soon as practical.
Mro Salmon stated I would agree with that.
Mr. Andrew stated what we would do is try to present you with a little more
information and then if you reach a comfort level after receiving that we would
proceed with an amendment, but I will take that as a directive to do additional
research and study to get that back to the Commission and we will try to keep
these folks informed of when this will come back again for discussiono
~..;/~YOTE:
#5.
Motion carried 5-00
/~.
/~~'
,///'
Mr. Andrew stated we have no other items today, the amend~.dlÍt on
preschools was passed on first reading by the City Commission !.'..l/night, they
also gave final approval to the annexation of the 160 som'>aéres on N. Ohio.
For November 6 if it would work for you we would likp.~' J/sét a study session at
3:00 p.m. to go over and discuss landscaping rw:....cítlons and to look at a slide
show that we have put together to discu!'l.""~dnd' get some guidance on some
ossible amendments and then we ~'"íáve a couple of items, a rezoning and
a k at the Comprehensive PI~..~(riat we tabled in September, so those would
be ite ming back t9.,;üú November 6. We actually have three weeks
between me . s th.i<-'Llme so it won't be an agenda like tonight for the 6th but
:.~ wHi send ;' ,!,~i.~~r .~nd we would like to do a study session at 3:00 ."
rther business the meeting ad)t.'.rned at 6:10 p.m.
~
Other Matters.
ATTEST:
~
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 5
SECOND:
VOTE:
#3.
Mr. Webb asked are there any other questions of staff? Dean p. of the
requirements of 1-2 and I suppose this ordinance is written so that i her areas
that were traditional industrial or 1-2 locations, but it says that th can be up to
4 sq. fto of sign area per linear foot of property and in this se if my math is
right that would be a signage of about 800 sq. ft. on this perty which seems
to be abnormally huge as we say for a dead end road probably would never
be used but nevertheless I wondered if that could part of our restrictions if
that would go along in this area? I know that thi . probably a nontraditional 1-2
zoning area, but nevertheless that is part of t requirements.
Mro Andrew stated well this has com p before in previous cases and it is
robably something that we need to k at with the Commission but one of our
g that we have in the ordinan IS that for commercial districts we have what
we planned commercia IStrictS which allows the Commission to put
stipulatl s or conditions pproval and to restrict certain uses. But the 1-2 it
is basically up or do on the 1-2 if you grant 1-2 you get what comes with it.
I would agree at 0 . very unlikely that all that signage would be utilized but
those are all fa s that go into the 1-2 that you don't have to have paved
parking, that ca ave a rather large sign and there is no limitation on the
number of . ns, but a e present without a planned 1-2 or planned industrial
district re is not real ny latitude to put restrictions or conditions on
appr I of 1-2 at this point.
s amongst the Commission here?
Mr. Thompson asked we are going to be . cussing that in the next area aren't
we?
Mro McDowell moved that the Planning Commissi approve the 1-2 zoning as
requested in that the Comprehensive Plan calls for Os area to be industrial,
that the existing structure on the property is, well it wou e very difficult for it
to be put to productive residential use and that the trend 0 e area is toward
industrial/commercial uses.
Mr. Hass seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Andrew stated this item comes as a recommendation from you and will go
to the City Commission on the 26th of November which is the Monday after
" Thanksgiving.
Preliminary discussion and consideration of a possible amendment to Section
36-78 of the Salina City Subdivision Regulations to require that all utilities in
new residential subdivision be placed underground. Continued from October
16,2001.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that is contained in the case file.
Mr. McDowell stated I really appreciate your research especially the graphics
made sense to me, obviously I was confused at the last meeting.
Mr. Andrew stated we will have to give KPL credit for that because we couldn't
have come up with those numbers by ourselves.
Mro Webb asked I have a question for KPL, this is your cost as an example it is
720 ft. at 97 cents and I would assume that is for wiring, it is between Oak and
Plum on 21 st Street, I think it is the 3rd diagram.
Greg Jackson and Tom Sydow with KPL.
Mr. Webb asked Greg these are your total cost to install underground wire,
underground cable?
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 6
Mr. Jackson stated yes that is total cost for the primary.
Mr. Webb stated but I don't see any place in there what your cost is if you put
those in overhead.
Mro Jackson stated ok, excuse me, this is differential cost.
Mr. Webb stated oh it is differential cost, I didn't understand that.
Mr. Jackson stated the total cost to the customer for primary but it is a
differential figure. It does not include what we take out for the overhead.
Mr. Webb asked the wire that you put in the ground is 97 cents more expensive
than the wire that you put up on the pole?
Mro Jackson stated correcto
Mr. Webb asked you mean the transformers and everything are more
expensive than what you have on the pole?
Mr. Jackson stated correct.
:~,
Mr. Webb asked is that because of the installation cost primarily?
Mro Jackson stated no that is the actual cost of the transformero
Mro Webb asked it is not the transformer because the utilities are underground?
Mr. Jackson stated there are differences in the installation cost too, but this
deals with the material.
Mr. Webb stated ok, that answers my question as long as it is differential, I
thought this was just your cost to put it in the ground.
Mro Jackson stated yes these actual costs are filed with the Kansas Corporation
Commission in our terms and conditions.
Mr. Webb asked and these costs are for Salina or for the whole KPL service
area?
Mr. Jackson stated for the whole area.
Mro Webb asked it is an average?
Mro Jackson stated yes.
Mr. Webb asked so one could be higher than the other depending on the
location?
Mr. Jackson asked the underground primary, the cost of the wire, the cost of the
transformer and the cost of the riser is the same company wideo Where you run
into the difference is where the trench, backfill and conduit comes in in the
different rocky areas or landscaping area, that type of thing.
Mr. Webb stated so you are saying in Salina Kansas it is going to be $2.00 a
foot for backfill.
Mr. Jackson stated yes that is an average cost I got from the local diggers or
providers of trenching.
Mr. McDowell asked what is a riser?
/
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Jackson stated that is what goes up the pole, the conduit going up the pole
that has the head on it with the switches and the resistors and everything to
bring the current from overhead to go underground.
Mr. Sydow stated Hampton at the last meeting you kept hitting at what is the
ultimate cost per lot on average and Dean pretty well spelled it out but simply
put the developer is going to pay $450 to $500 per lot and the homebuilder or
the owner is probably going to pay $450 for the service, so roughly $900 to
$1,000 per lot.
Mr. Webb asked and the more you can have properties back up to each other
so that they can be used more efficiently, the better it is going to be for
everyone concerned if that is possible.
Mr. Sydow stated and the other thing that Dean brought up is the timing of
when lots go in, good or bad depending on timing but people that go in first pay
the cost and the people that go in and develop on down the road usually are the
benefactors of that. It is not all good but that is the way it is. Any questions on
street lights?
Mr. McDowell asked Dean's question about who pays for the electricity or is
there an electrical charge differential?-
Mro Jackson stated in the City of Salina right now typically all the street lights
that are put up for especially residential areas are a wood pole with the 175 watt
mercury vapor light and that cost is picked up by the Cityo It is a monthly cost,
we basically rent that pole and light to the City. The steel poles for instance out
on S. 9th Street, the same difference. We have a steel pole rate that is a
monthly rate for that light and that pole that is paid by the City when they ask for
a steel street light pole. In the case of subdivisions if they want to go to with
something other than a wood pole, we have offered in Hutchinson and different
areas that I have worked with we have offered what we call a "buy down" and
the developer actually pays the initial cost difference between a wood pole with
an arm and a light and the steel pole with an arm and a light and then the City is
billed a monthly rate the same rate as what the wood pole with the light iso So
that helps those cities because they pay the same monthly amount but yet the
developer gets what he wants but he pays the difference up front.
Mr. Thompson asked Dean would you explain then what you mean then in your
paragraph there where it says because monthly costs are higher for steel
.' poles?
Mro Andrew stated well on South 9th Street that is an arterial street and that is a
City project. We are willing to pay as part of that streetscape we are willing to
pay the higher monthly rate. What I am referring to is not a KPL policy but a
City policy, without that buy down since they have a higher monthly rate for
steel poles than they do for wooden poles the City of Salina's policy is that they
are not willing to pay that difference so unless the developer pays the buy
down, then the City would simply refuse to pay the monthly rate and tell the
developer that they would have to pay it.
Mr. Thompson asked but if the developer paid the buy down?
Mr. Andrew stated and we were charged the same monthly rate as we would for
a wooden pole then we would pay for that.
Mr. Webb asked and that is how it is now?
Mr. McDowell asked and they are saying that is what they do?
Mro Andrew stated yes and the confusion is that we really haven't had any
requests for the steel poles in a residential area, but going back and reading our
policy the question was raised to me that they couldn't believe that we would
make the developer pay for electricity for a steel pole, but the reasoning for that
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 8
is that their monthly rate is higher and we will only pay the rate for the wooden
poles, so they can buy it down and we will pay the wooden pole rate on a
monthly basis. But that is where the confusion lies is that if a developer wants a
steel pole and they are not willing to pay the buy down the City's policy would
be to say then we are not paying for the light or the electricity.
Mr. Thompson stated let's take it one step farther then and Mro Norton is here
and maybe he would want to respond to that too, but are the lights different? I
mean is it a different type of mercury vapor or what? If Mr. Norton were to pay
the up front cost for example, would the City not pick up the remainder as you
do on other poles? I don't understand why that is different.
Mr. Andrew stated they would have to explain the difference, the cost, they
perceive a cost difference between the steel and the wooden pole and I don't
know if the light fixtures themselves are any different.
Mr. Thompson stated I understand that. I am just trying to figure out why, if I
understood you correctly, that if another developer in another area in Salina
were to pay the buy down and the same light fixtures were used on that steel
pole that are used on the wood poles that the City would pick up the cost after
that. Is that correct?
Mro Andrew stated yes.
Mr. Thompson asked then how is Mr. Norton's different?
Mr. Andrew stated partly because he has private streets and partly because he
is using nonstandard light fixtures, but that is one of the reasons Mr. Norton is
here is that he can explain to you what arrangement he has out there in
Highland Meadows Hamlet.
Mro Jackson stated we just offer the one type of steel pole and it is like you see
out on S. 9th Street. We do offer it in two different heights for different
applications but it is that same type of pole and that is not always what the
developers like to go with.
Mr. Thompson stated yes.
Mr. Webb stated one other item, maybe I misunderstood Dean, you said the
electric rate is different for a steel pole than a wood pole?
Mr. Andrew stated well when we (the City) are paying that monthly rate part of
that monthly rate goes for the cost of the pole and since our policy is that we
are only going to pay the wooden pole rate, if the rate is higher a partial reason
for the higher rate is that the pole is more expensive. We don't pay that. We
will only pay the monthly wooden pole rate.
Mr. Webb stated no, I am just talking about the electricityo
Mr. Jackson stated no the electricity is the same.
Mr. Webb stated I was going to say it is the same whether it is wood or
whatever, but I understood him to say the electric rate varied.
Mr. Andrew stated I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, the reason the
monthly rate is higher is because of the cost of the pole.
Mr. Jackson stated it is like renting a Cadillac or a renting a Chevy. The gas is
the same price but the Cadillac is a little higher than the Chevyo
Mr. Webb stated I understand that, I thought I heard from Dean that the
electricity was a different rate.
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 9
Mr. Andrew stated the monthly rate is higher mostly to reflect the increased cost
of the pole.
Mro McDowell stated the bill is higher.
Mr. Webb stated the bill is higher but the electricity rate is the same.
Mr. Sydow stated Greg has got the cost difference spelled out, the difference is
significant which is probably why you don't see a bunch of it is $2,600 versus
$1,000 and that is if you have an auger in baseo If you have a concrete base
the difference is about $1,000 but then again you have more labor and material
too so it is not cheap.
Mr. Webb stated thank you. Let's hear from Mr. Nortono
Frank Norton, 2524 E. Magnolia Road. Regarding my experience with respect
to the street lightso At that time the cost from KPL as Greg has explained is set
by the Kansas Corporation Commission, therefore, it is a fixed monthly amount
or was at that timeo Greg was really helpful to us in analyzing the situation and
the situation with us was that we wanted to get something other than the wood
poles first of all and secondly we wanted to consider something other than
mercury vapor. Mercury vapor is mor.e expensive to operate than high pressure
sodium. The light is a harsher light than the yellower or tan light of high
pressure sodium so we wanted to look at all possibilities. One thing as Greg
has explained the standard KPL steel post is 30 fto high and that projects quite a
bit of light into the home. We wanted to go with a shorter pole if we could
because it was just to highlight the street surface and that is what we were
after. We wanted to get a fixture that would direct the light more to the street
surface so we ended up putting up a 20 ft. pole, it is a little easier to service
than the 30 fto pole, our cost, our net cost was about 27% after we purchased
the poles, installed them, paid the electricity then to pay the monthly charge that
KPL has with the approval of the Corporation Commission on their steel poles,
so we felt that it had a number of advantages, a better light, a better height, a
lot more efficient in terms of our cost and we are very well satisfied. Of course
we have a homeowner's association situation there and that means that we are
in control of the streets and the lights and so we have the responsibility to
maintain them. That has not been a problem for us, they are pretty simple in
terms of the operation and we have had very good luck, so that is just an option
that is available to a developer. On that question or that proposition do you
have any questions?
Mr. Andrew asked does the Homeowner's Association then pay the monthly
electricity bill for the lights?
Mr. Norton stated yes and replace bulbs, replace the electric eyes.
Occasionally there will be something else that will come up. The poles as I say
are shorter, the wind factor as far as their endurance is concerned is as good as
the KPL pole so it is a workable arrangement as far as we are concerned.
Mr. McDowell asked who installed them?
Mro Norton stated KPL told us how to install them, we hired an electrical
contractor to install them, we put in the bases and we put in our own conduit
and pulled the wire for them and we have to have a separate easement for the
wire to the poles and that is covered by our easements on the development.
Mr. Hass asked so you own the street lights, you are not renting them from
KPL, just the electricity?
Mro Norton stated that is correct. And remember KPL has to go systemwide on
this and they have to factor in every cost that might exist in their service area
and they have to average that out and it has to be fair to the property owner and
fair to them and they have to consider a lot of expenses that we don't have to
consider in terms of our kind of operation. On the underground electricity, if I
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 10
may comment just briefly on that. I have been working for clients and myself in
the development process for a long time and the thing that has struck me in
terms of my recent experience in residential development is the permanency of
your decision. In commercial you tend to change things if things don't work just
right because the resources there to make that changeo In residential
development it is pretty well locked in from the beginning and it lasts an awful
long time and I am personally convinced that to the extent that I am able and it
is reasonable I want to do everything to make the residential environment most
acceptable. And to me the underground electrical service is a big factor in that
connection. And it is interesting if you ever go back to developments that have
been there for a while and they have had different things the best thing to do in
my judgement is to put on your walking shoes and walk through them and I
recently had a chance to walk through Mission Hills next to the Kansas City
Country Club, and when that was originally developed apparently everything
was overhead and since then they have done the best they could to put things
underground and even within that area a block from George Brett's house, a
block from the Kaufman's house, the entrance of the Kansas City Country Club,
there are still a few poles here and there and you can tell that they are doing
everything they can to eliminate those. I realize it is an additional cost, but it is
an important factor because it is everybody's home and I think that we have an
obligation to make it as desirable as possible. Any questions?
Mro Webb asked are there others that wish to speak?
Stan Byquist, 233 Highland, Assaria, Kansas. I am local developer, my most
recent development is Eastview Estates in southeast Salina which is what we
would like to call an affordable new neighborhood in Salina. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak here in front of you and I would like to make a couple of
pointso I will be brief. Overall I am in favor of the underground services. I think
that if you take the figures that KPL has given us from $900 to $1,000 a lot and
assuming those are correct which they are fairly close, they might be a little
high but they are close. If you have a $10,000 lot and you add $1,000 to it that
is a 10% increase to the homeownero If you have a $20,000 lot and you add
$1,000 to it it is a 5% increase to the homeowner, so I just want you to consider
that and be aware of that. I think it is real important that some of the other cities
have given some waivers or hardship or whatever they like to call it. I think it is
important that as Salina goes through this process that that be included in the
overall plan because I am already working on a couple of projects that are, well
one of them is about 2 years out, another one is probably about 7 years out.
The one is 7 years out because it is such a tricky piece of ground and it has had
-' such a history, to bury the entire electrical system on that particular piece of
ground would be an extreme hardship and I can go into particulars if you like I
would be glad to. But that is my particular reason that I think that although I am
in favor of it all the way we need to just have an out in case there is a certain
area of a development that it is just impossible to go underground and I am
aware of where one will happen it is impossible to go underground thereo The
other thing and I don't know if anybody can do anything about this and KPL
addressed the problem. I will be facing this in southeast Salina in the spring of
2003 so it is fairly closeo If you look at your drawing on Plum Street and you
have got your lots and the transformers are on one side of the lot, as they said,
the original developer, actually the original homeowner, because of the way
Plum Street is set up there, you have only got one transformer for two houses.
But the ultimate is one transformer for four houses, it increases the cost on that.
Now if you were to go just to the right of Plum Street and that developer comes
in, these homeowners have already paid for these transformers and the
developer to the right is going to be able to come in, tag on at no expense other
than laying the cable from the transformer to the house. So like they said, the
original developer is the one that pays the bulk of the expenses and it actually
goes to the homeowner and I don't know whether there is anything that can be
done about that, if there is anyway that those costs can be recovered, I don't
know, I don't have an answer to this. It is something that as you go forward and
I hope you do go forward with this that you do consider maybe there is a way to
recoup some of these costs to the original homeowners. That is all I have to
say and would be happy to answer any questions if you have anyo
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 11
Mr. Webb asked maybe a couple of questions Stan. It appears to me that that
would behoove the developer to make the best economical use of the ground
when he buys ground as an example if there happens to be a 22nd Street over
here if he would buy another three acres of land, he could develop the back
side of 21 st Street and make that more economical for his development when
he sells those lotso
Mr. Byquist stated I agree with youo
Mr. Webb stated that maybe part of that process that needs to be done at the
timeo
Mr. Byquist stated I do agree with you but there are some situations and I am
already involved in one that it won't happen, the guy next door won't sell, he is
going to develop at a later date and tag on.
Mro Thompson asked Dean is there anyway as we look at curbs and guttering
and sewer lines and that kind of thing is there anyway that that could become a
special in that those costs could then be distributed to the development as it
progressed?
Mr. Andrew stated that might be a better question for Shawn, but I don't think
that this would meet a definition from the statute anyway of a public
improvement and I will let Shawn respond to that.
Mr. O'Leary stated I believe that is right. The state statutes are very clear in
terms of using special assessment financing only for public improvements,
publicly owned and maintained. There are some cities that provide public
electricity through sort of a private configuration and that may be possible in
those locations. We don't do that here in Salina.
Mr. Hertzenberg asked would the City be willing to entertain doing that?
Mro O'Leary stated it is not a City option it is a state regulated'statuteo We are
at the mercy of the State of Kansas in terms of special assessment financing
but I would agree with the Chairman that certainly one of the issues that we
could deal with regularly is the dealing with developments early ono I think that
the answer that Stan is looking for is a well engineered plat is the answer to that
question. There is always going to be a boundary, there is always going to be
/ an edge and that next owner is going to have an edge and it goes on and on
but I think that the answer to efficiency in streets and water and sewer and
electricity and gas and telephone and so on is in engineering that plan from the
beginning. Not doing a plat that is pretty and nice and so on, but doing a plat
that is efficient and pretty and nice and we are getting better about that here in
Salina, but we do have some work to do in that area and I think that electricity is
one of those things unfortunately that I think is an afterthought for most of the
developers in Salina that we do business with. It is the last thing that we think
of when in fact it should be one of the first thingso
Mro Thompson asked is there any way to get around specials to have some
other kind of assessment which is not defined as a special that the City could
control?
Mr. O'Leary stated good question, I don't know of too many creative financing
tools that the City has outside of the ones that we use, particularly special
assessments in residential areas. The only thing that I can think of is that
obviously we mentioned it here that the City is very much in the business of
street light systems and payments and so on and so forth 0 There maybe
something there that could be done to offset some of the cost in that as it
relates to the street light system particularly the decorative poles and systems
that serve lights and so on but I am not sure that there is much there in the way
of primary power service to properties that could be offset with a City financing
mechanismo
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 12
Mr. Babb asked Stan I have just one question, you talked about 10% on a
$10,000 lot and a 5% on a $20,000 lot for what you refer to as affordable
housing?
Mr. Byquist stated yes.
Mro Babb asked do you think that as a developer that would discourage you in
any way from developing affordable housing with the underground
requirement?
Mr. Byquist stated that is a real tough question and I have mulled it over time
and time again. I think the only thing that I can relate back to is Eastview. If
maybe we had Eastview to do over again possibly we would have gone
undergroundo Would it be as affordable? No it surely wouldn't be. Is it
successful? Yes it is very successful and I think one of the reasons is the
affordability factor and that is sort of my thinking in that as life goes on things
change and we don't know what is going to change out there, and that is why
the one little voice over here says I hate to see us get totally locked into
something without some type of mechanism that maybe will help us with
problems down the road and that is why I guess I look at the hardship wording
in here. Nothing is forever and I hate to see us get totally locked in without any
type of escape mechanism if there are particular circumstances or economic
conditions if things change or who knowso I just think that somewhere in the
program there should be a little leeway if things change and we need to work
around them.
Mr. McDowell asked you use the term affordable homes, what lot price, house
price, what is your definition in a range of affordable?
Mr. Byquist stated we started Eastview three years ago the lots came on the
market and the first streets were finished actually a couple of months previous
to that. We started those on the market through the realtors at $10,500 for a lot
that was 140 fto deep lot x 85 to 87 fto frontage.
Mro McDowell asked so like 1,200 sq. ft.?
Mr. Byquist stated yes whatever it figures. We went in there with a design plan,
straight streets because they are less expensive. The overhead power
because it was less expensiveo We have done everything we can to make that
neighborhood very, very affordable. At the time that we came online at $10,500
I, don't quote me on this, but I am fairly confident that you couldn't buy a lot in
that part of Salina for under $15,000. Now since then it has caused some of the
competitors to drop their prices and it actually has been a better deal for all
homeowners in that part of town.
Mro McDowell asked so what do you think a home costs?
Mr. Byquist stated our homes, I have one builder building brand new ones now
about 1,200 sq. ft. and he is coming on Iilie with an unfinished basement but
pre-plumbed for a third bath, he is building like two bedroom, three bedroom,
two bath, double car garage and he is coming online at about $115,0000
Mr. McDowell asked plus the lot?
Mro Byquist stated no including the lot. And that is about the final finished price
sold through a realtor.
Mr. O'Leary asked not including the special assessments right?
Mr. Byquist stated not including the special assessments.
Mr. O'Leary stated add about $15,000 to that.
Mr. Byquist actually less.
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 13
Mr. Thompson stated not on that.
Mro Byquist stated our first block was about $13,000 and now our specials run
between $10,000 and $11,000 per lot.
Mr. McDowell asked so $125,000 then?
Mr. Byquist stated correct.
Mr. McDowell asked including the lot and specials two bedroom, two bath 1,200
to 1 ,400 sqo ft.
Mr. Byquist stated two or three bedroom, double car garage and they go up to
oh you know there are some in there that are $160,000 to $170,000 they are
bigger homes, finished basements.
Mr. McDowell asked that would really meet your definition of affordable right?
Mro Byquist stated the lower end of a market that I think was not addressed in
Salina where maybe a younger couple can go out there and purchase a newer
home, have warranties, good schools, good streets, don't have to worry about
anything for 20 or 30 years.
Mro Webb asked now your upcharge for the customer that buys the home, the
upcharge on underground utilities would be about 3/4 of a % or less total cost
delivered?
Mr. Byquist stated in the total cost.
Mr. Webb stated total cost delivered it is less than 1 % of the total cost of the
house.
Mro Byquist stated you are correct.
Mr. Webb stated because nobody buys a lot to just hold it, they usually want to
put a house on it.
Mr. Byquist stated right.
Mr. McDowell stated amoritized over 30 yearso
Mr. Thompson stated I would just like to say to staff and I hate to keep riding
this horse, but I would like to see the staff pursue this thing of seeing whether or
not we can help avoid the freeload hookups with some sort of an assessment
and that assessment can be called whatever you want to. I mean I understand
what you are saying in terms of statutes, but there are more ways to skin a cat
than that one and I just think that we need to look at is there something else
that we can do to make sure that future people that buy land or hook on are
going to share in those costs too rather than making the original people handle
all that.
Mro Byquist asked if I might add? Particularly in my situations that I am going to
be facingo These tag ons are you know on the perimeter lineso Everything that
I can do internally will be for houses off of one transformer, but it is the
perimeters that you don't have a whole lot of control on.
Mr. Webb stated but part of this problem I think too Clay is the fact that we are
dealing with KPL rather than the City as far as establishing the regulations and
the criteria for this. KPL as a business wants to be paid when they put the
equipment in at this particular point and they don't know that there is going to be
another development 10 years down the road or 5 years down the road or ever.
Mr. Thompson stated I don't disagree with that but what do we do when we put
in streets and storm drains and sewers?
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 14
Mr. Andrew stated we do and I am sure Shawn can site numerous examples, I
can think of one right off the top of my head where we have this issue come up
many times where the first developer in pays and the other people get to tag on
for free. The one case that comes to mind is Valley View Estates which is
closer to Markley than the older Valley View was before, but the people in
Valley View Estates extended a water line to the west from Markley Road to a
point and the people in Valley View then tied into that and ran a line into their
subdivision. They didn't pay for the piece that brought it from Markleyo Another
one that comes to mind is Flor De Sol where Mro Gile put in a sewer line and
ran it from Markley to the west edge of his subdivision and he was looking for a
way that whoever developed that land to the west would have to help pay for
the cost of that sewer line, but there is no such mechanism in place because it
is a public line and once it is in service the party that develops that property to
the west of Flor De Sol is going to be able to hook up to that sewer line at no
cost for the original installation. They will have to pay for whatever extension is
done but they will not have to pay for that piece that ran from Markley to that
point and I think that Shawn may have some other examples. But electricity
certainly would not be the only example of where the first person in or first
developer or first homebuyer in is paying for something that somebody is going
to benefit from later.
Mr. O'Leary stated I cannot think of too many cases where this doesn't happen
quite honestlyo There is always another manhole, there is always another water
valve there is always another gas meter that is the end of that area. I guess the
consolation that I have always seen is that the next developer has the same
thing, he is paying for that next perimeter and the next one and so on and so
forth, so I think it comes out in the wash quite honestly, but every utility would
apply, it is not just power and certainly the more expensive version would be
sewer, I think that sewer would be considerably more expensive than power in
most cases.
Mr. McDowell asked and each developer makes an economic decision to do the
development based upon that cost and that has been going on since when was
the town founded?
Mr. Andrew stated it might be useful to hear from Mr. Hertzenberg as to how
that cost of underground was distributed iR Golden Eagle Estates.
Mr. Hertzenberg stated my understanding is that it was included in the cost of
the lot and assessed to the private homeowners.
Mr. Andrew stated that was a one time cost, it is not like you are paying for the
underground service over a 10 or 15 year payout, it is an upfront cost. I would
imagine that Mro Norton probably rolled the cost of underground into the cost of
his lots out in Highland Meadows Hamlet.
Mro Norton stated correct and if I had the situation regarding this transformer
serving something that could possibly be on the neighbors, the electrical service
is not a public utility in terms of the right to connecto I would just put the
transformer away from the property line and not grant an easement until I got
paid to connect to it because you have that right and that is what I would do.
Mro O'Leary stated a well engineered piano
Mro Byquist stated thank you Frank that thought had crossed my mind but I
didn't know if it was acceptable or not. Anyway I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to you and I would like to leave one thing with you, somehow leave a little
safety valve in this thing for when somebody hits a road block which just can't
be overcome.
Mr. Webb asked are there others to speak to speak to this issue? If not we will
bring it back to the Commission for possible action.
Salina Planning Commission
November 6, 2001
Page 15
MOTION:
Mr. Hertzenberg moved to accept the staff recommendation to bring this back to
the. Planning Commission at the December 4 meeting taking into account the
additional comments and information from KPL representatives and input from
interested citizens as to whether the placement of electrical lines underground
in new subdivisions should be an adopted city standard or remain optional. If
the Planning Commission wishes to consider such an amendment to the Salina
Subdivision Regulations, and I would propose that, the Commission should
authorize staff to prepare a proposed text amendment for consideration at the
next Planning Commission meeting, so I would move that we would instruct the
staff to move forward with that text amendment.
SECOND:
Mro McDowell seconded the motion.
Mr. Webb asked would you like to recommend that part of that, part of that text
be that someway that we qualify an overbearing hardship or something?
Mr. Hertzenberg stated yes I would be open to that. I would have some caution
though, I don't want to see a hardship provision that ends up being the standard
as in Abilene.
Mro 8abb stated maybe it should state some kind of out if there is a rocky terrain
or it is just not doable as opposed to and I asked Stan that question of
prohibitive cost to actually develop the propertyo
Mro Andrew stated there are a number of examples that we have looked at that
do have specifics and we will just try to get some hardship language that is not
just vague and general but specifically states what might be grounds for
hardship.
Mr. Webb stated if you double or triple the costs it is not going to be
economically feasible to begin with probably as well, something along those
lines.
Mro McDowell asked do these hardship waiver discussions put the burden on
the developer to prove their case or how does that work?
Mr. Andrew stated for the examples that we have seen, they would have to get
with KPL and they would have to provide some sort of written documentation of
what the additional costs are and what causes that additional cost.
.' Mr. McDowell stated Mr. Chairman the second accepts the modification to Mr.
Hertzenberg's motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 7-0.
#40
Annual Review of Salina Comprehensive Plan Part I.
Continued from September 18, 20010
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report as sent to the Planning Com'
MOTION:
Mro Thompson stated I just have to say that I am ve uch opposed to the
project and in favor of item number five, and my re ns for that are many. If I
were a developer in either River Trail or the oth ne on the south side, I think I
would be more than upset with the proje at is being proposed and I know
having been on the Planning Commisso as long as I have that the people who
reside in Golden Eagle had expr 8d their concern about covenants being
. ated and their expectation ot being met and it is unfortunate when you
100 that map that we only go 200 ft. beyond to ask people about what
they fee out it. Re he only people involved in that are the people the two
or three of t own land and two or three builders who have purchased
land and it w ost be to our advantage if the developers on this particular
project w to take e adjacent lots because it would give us a little bit more
dista of 200 ft. to re t property owners in that area what they thought
t it. People out in that a ave built some really nice homes. All the way
rom $150,000 to $250,000 hom and their expectations are that they are
going to be surrounded by a resi ial area and we have made some
amendments to the plan to accommodate Iden Eagle in the past that would
give them some additional space in terms of t -2 but this just goes beyond
belief to me. I think that we do need retirement ho we need those kinds of
things for citizens, but we certainly need to make sure t we put them in the
appropriate place and I don't think this is the appropriate p and so I would
move to deny the application.
Salina Planning Commission
December 4, 2001
Page 22
SECOND:
VOTE:
Mro Hedges seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
#6.
Application #SR01-1, filed by the Salina City Planning Commission, requesting
an amendment to Section 36-78 of the Subdivision Regulations to require that
all utilities in new residential subdivisions be placed underground. Continued
from November 6, 2001.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report that was sent to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Webb asked are there any questions of staff?
Mro Hass asked are the cable TV cables typically underground?
Mr. Andrew stated my understanding is the cable TV goes where KPL goes,
and if KPL goes underground they share the trench and if they are on poles
they rent space on the poles but I will let the KPL people answer that.
Mro Salmon stated Dean I know we talked one time about this waiver that in
some places it is so loose that it is meaningless but I don't know how in the
world you would tie it down to specifics.
Mro Andrew stated I think that it would be difficult to get more specific other than
to look at terrain issues which we have cited as physical conditions of the land.
For example, if you had severe slopes or backyards that went up hill or
something with drainage concems. there is one provision in there where we
said if what you are going to have for underground wiring would be in an area of
standing water or a major drainage area or something, KPL is really not going
to want to put their wire underground and have it exposed to standing water, so
there could be a waiver granted in that case because of the physical conditions.
But primarily this is just an opportunity for KPL to give you some input about
whether they can live with this, if they think it would put them in a bind on any of
the provisionso and also for you to ask any questions you have of them.
Greg Jackson, KPL.
Tom Sydow. KPL, it looks fine.
Mr. Jackson stated yes as Dean has put it out here, it is very well written; it
takes into consideration several different communities. I can see that it was a
combination of the best of different communities within Kansas, so good job
Dean.
Salina Planning Commission
December4,2001
Page 23
Mr. Webb asked I am concemed I have some relatives that live in Lawrence,
Kansas and they tell me that the developers don't pay an upfront charge for
underground utilities in Lawrence, is that correct or not correct?
Mro Jackson stated that is not the case, they are within our territory and they are
under the same terms and conditions that we areo
Mro Webb stated ok. The other question that I have is there is underground
cable that is just a little bit east of Overhill on Country Club Road and it went
underground and went through Crestview, under Crestview and around Overhill
or someplace in there. What was the emphasis for that?
Mr. Sydow stated we have a standard for the amount of outages anybody can
incur before we have to do something self-imposed. But if we didn't do it you
guys would be after us to do it anywayo That cable was in such bad condition,
going back in there and putting it back spread out with a non-spacer cable was
going to be more expensive than going underground. .
Mr. Webb asked so sometimes it is cheaper to go underground?
Mr. Jackson stated yes due to the tree situation and the closeness of the
easements, it was beneficial to go underground compared to overheado
Mr. Webb asked and that was at no Cost to any of those property owners in that
area? .
Mr. Jackson stated only in the case where they wanted to go to underground
service. We have remaining poles in. thereo If they wanted to go with an
underground service they had to provide the trench, backfill and conduit and
redo their mast on the house. One thing that I did want to mention was in
number 9. Dean, can you clarify that a little bit? It says the provisions of this
section shall not apply to number nine. I think I need a little clarification on that
one.
Mro Andrew stated the only difference between that and this would apply to an
area that perhaps abutted an area that was not subdivided, not platted but had
existing overhead power which might be outside the subdivision but might still
serve that.
Mro Jackson asked and then if we brought service off of those poles, we would
have to go underground to the new subdivision is that what you are trying to
say?
Mr. Andrew stated to the new but not to the old or the existing.
Mr. Jackson stated that is the way I read it. just wanted to be sure.
Mr. Andrew stated like the south edge of Bonnie Ridge, if it just happened that
the poles for serving Bonnie Ridge were on the adjacent unsubdivided property
to the south, you could still have overhead service off of those existing poles.
They wouldn't have to be put underground.
Mr. Jackson stated good I wanted to verify that.
Stan Byquist, 233 Highland, Assaria, Kansas I just had one comment that will
maybe help Dean out on this hardship case. I will be faced eventually with a
development that will probably fall under those parameters and I feel
comfortable in the Planning Commission's decision to constitute what is a
hardship even though maybe it is a little bit of a gray area. I feel comfortable
with your decision on such matters when the time comeso Thank you.
Mr. Webb asked would you like to have a motion and an approval of this?
Mr. Andrew stated you have covered so much ground this evening that it may
be too hard to even think about at this point. The only thing I noted in there and
we discussed before, as this stands now it would only apply to new residential
subdivisions, it would not apply to all subdivisions. There are some communities
that have an underground requirement for all subdivisions, some just for
residential. This is only proposing for residential. If there is any thought for new
#
Salina Planning Commission
December 4, 2001
Page 24
commercial developments or anything that should be a consideration that
should be part of your recommendation. Otherwise you have the five options
there that are availableo
MOTION:
Mr. Salmon moved that the Planning Commission approve Alternative Number
One to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision text amendment by
requesting all new residential subdivisions to have underground utilities.
Mr. Hertzenberg seconded the motion.
SECOND:
VOTE:
Motion carried 7-00
#70
Other matterso
Mr. Andrew stated the item on the drinking establishment downtown has been
carried over to December 18, we also have a zoning case that has been fil
for Lewis Ave. right across from the existing McDonald's there where Wad I's
and Conklin's had a car display lot. Somebody wants to make that a res' ntial
zoned property for possible housing. And then we will just have a art two
update on the Comprehensive Plan and what we have accomplis over the
last 10 years and that is all we will haveo
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:10 porno