Advance Plans Committee: 2003-4 Comprehensive Plan Update

Summary of Meeting #8
7:30 am, January 8, 2004
Attendance
Committee Members: 	Kerry Coulter, Morris Dunlap, Bud Hentzen, Ron Marnell, John 
McKay, M.S. Mitchell
MAPD staff: 		Dave Barber, Nalini Johnson, Stephen Banks, Scott Wadle	
Other:			Irene Hart

Discussion Summary 

Future Land Use Guide Map and Definitions Review: 
The Committee offered the following comments on the latest draft of the Wichita Land 
Use Guide Map and the proposed definitions for the functional land use categories.

?	The definition of Urban Development Mix should state commercial instead of just 
local serving commercial.  The Committee felt that full disclosure would be better 
achieved through this change. 

?	All the intersections coming off of the Northwest Bypass should be marked as 
regional commercial nodes. The area to either side of the Northwest Bypass 
should be shown as regional commercial. However, it is still difficult to flag the 
precise areas for regional commercial designation because it is difficult to 
anticipate marketplace factors.

?	The Advanced Plans members would rather show the functional land use 
classifications as more intense, because it is always easier to go to less intense 
land use classes.

?	The map will be updated every year, so the map can be modified regularly to 
reflect changes in anticipated land use patterns.

Midtown Plan Review Comments:
The Committee offered the following comments on the latest draft of the Midtown Plan: 

?	Ron Marnell requested that his name not be included in the finished plan 
document.

?	Some Committee members felt that the plan document is over bloated and too 
complex, not clear and concise:

o	You have to read forever to see what's going on.
o	A comparison was made to the McAdams Neighborhood Plan regarding 
size and length.

?	One Committee member felt that the Midtown Plan document is easier to  
implement than other plans because it provides details describing what, where, 
when, and how much.  The details included in the plan make it easier to follow up 
on. 

?	The vision statement is too lengthy.

?	The appendices give the appearance of "patting ourselves on the back".

?	Before the Midtown Plan is presented before the MAPC as a whole, members of 
the Advance Plans Committee recommended:

o	Another meeting to discuss the plan and to ask questions;
o	A meeting with the Steering Committee members to ask questions and to 
make recommendations.

?	One specific organization in the Midtown Neighborhood has not heard about the 
plan.

?	What happened to the neighborhood facilitator's position in the plan? The 
position is still listed in the plan. Elizabeth Bishop's position should be listed with 
a time frame condition disclosing her time of participation as a facilitator to the 
plan development process.

?	The footnote disclaimer does not need to be included at the end of every page.

?	The total cost of all projects included in the plan should be identified, specifically 
those projects that will/would not occur if the plan did not call for them:

o	The projects that benefit the entire City should not be included in this plan 
because this plan should be focuses on the neighborhood.
o	It might be advisable to include statements of support for citywide projects 
that the plan encourages but that the plan is not solely responsible for.

?	Irene Hart requested that the references to the Sedgwick County Economic 
Development (SCED) be removed, as the County does not currently have the 
resources to serve in that capacity.

?	A table of maps needs to be included in the document.

The next Advanced Plans meeting will be on February 5th at 7:30 am.