METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION 

MINUTES

June 19, 2008 

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was 
held on Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 1:30 P. M., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th 
floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas.  The following members were present:  M.S. 
Mitchell, Chair; Don Anderson (out @ 4:08 P. M.), Vice Chair; David Dennis; Darrell Downing; 
David Foster; Bud Hentzen; Hoyt Hillman; Bill Johnson; Ronald Marnell; John W. McKay Jr.; Don 
Sherman (in @1:35 P. M.); Debra Miller Stevens and G. Nelson Van Fleet.  Michael Gisick was 
absent.  Staff members present were:  John Schlegel, Director; Dale Miller, Current Plans Manager; 
Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Derrick Slocum, Associate 
Planner and Lisa Estrada, Recording Secretary.

	--------------------------------------------------
1.	Approval of the June 5, 2008, MAPC meeting minutes

MCKAY moved, HILLMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------
2.	CONSIDERATON OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
	Items may be taken in one motion unless there are questions or comments.
       SUBDIVISION CASE DETAILS
2-1.	SUB 2008-11: FALCON FALLS EAST ADDITION, located south of 53rd Street North 
and on the east side of Hillside. 

NOTE:	This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita’s city limits and annexation is required.  
The site is currently zoned SF-20 Single-family Residential (“SF-20”) and will be converted 
to SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-5”) upon annexation. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need 
to be completed.  Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-5 and allow for the lot sizes 
being platted.
B.	City Water Utilities Department requires the extension of water and sewer (mains and laterals) 
to serve all lots being platted.

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition(s), a notarized certificate listing the petition(s) shall 
be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.

D.	City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. 

E.	Traffic Engineering has approved the access controls.  The plat proposes one street opening 
along Hillside and complete access control along the remaining Hillside street frontage.  
Complete access control is needed on Highway 254.

F.	The plat has two Block B’s.

G.	The building setback for Lot 25 adjoining Vassar Circle should be increased to 20 feet. 

H.	A temporary turnaround for Vassar is needed at the east line of the plat.  The plattor’s text 
should indicate that the vacation of the temporary turnaround area will be effective upon the 
extension of the street eastward.

I.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets.  The guarantee shall also 
provide for sidewalks on at least one side of all through, non cul-de-sac streets.  The paving 
guarantee shall include the installation of a temporary turnaround for Vassar. 

J.	In accordance with the Kansas Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources 
Conservation Service; United States Environmental Protection Agency; United States Army 
Corps of Engineer (USACE); and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, this site has been 
identified as one with potential wetland hydrology.  The USACE should be contacted (316-
322-8247) to have a wetland determination completed.

K.	Since Reserve E includes a swimming pool, a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, 
for review and approval by the Planning Director.  The site plan shall include the information 
indicated in the Subdivision Regulations.  The design for the pool must be submitted to 
Environmental Services for review prior to issuing a building permit for the pool.

L.	Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves.  The 
applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a 
covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the 
association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over 
those responsibilities.

M.	For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant that provides for 
ownership and maintenance of the reserves, shall grant to the appropriate governing body the 
authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so.  The 
covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by 
the governing body.

N.	Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent “15-foot street 
drainage and utility easements,” a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out 
restrictions for lot-owner use of these easements.  Retaining walls and change of grade shall be 
prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings.

O.	The applicant shall submit a covenant that provides four (4) off-street parking spaces per 
dwelling unit on each lot that abuts a 32-foot or 58-foot street.  The covenant shall inventory 
the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land 
and is binding on future owners and assigns.

P.	Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision 
Regulations for Lot 32 adjoining Vasser Circle.  The Subdivision Regulations state that the 
maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width.  The Subdivision 
Committee has approved the modification. 

Q.	GIS requests the street stub to the east be named “Kite.”  Vassar should be renamed “Vassar 
Ave.” 

R.	City Fire Department has requested a restrictive covenant limiting development to 50 lots prior 
to construction of a secondary access. 

S.	The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat.  Approval of 
this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a 
review.

T.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat 
and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or 
as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to 
allow for the conveyance of stormwater. 

U.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are 
applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service 
and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and 
approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

V.	The Register of Deeds requires all names to be printed beneath the signatures on the plat and 
any associated documents. 

W.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is 
advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator 
(Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the 
tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

X.	The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not 
limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley 
Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may 
impact how this site can be developed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all 
appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements.

Y.	The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork 
activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES 
Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in 
Topeka.  Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control 
devices must be used on ALL projects.  For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within 
the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental 
jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements.

Z.	Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing.

AA.	Westar Energy has requested additional utility easements to be platted. 

BB.	A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing 
the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD.  If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to 
Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address:  cholloway@wichita.gov).  Please include the name of the 
plat on the disc. 

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

SHERMAN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------

2-2.	SUB 2008-29:  BROAD STREET INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION, located west of 
West Street and south of MacArthur Road. 


NOTE:	This is a replat of the Broad Street Addition in addition to adjoining unplatted property.  
This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita’s city limits and annexation is required.

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Prior to this plat being forwarded to the City Council, the applicant shall apply for annexation to 
Wichita.

B.	Water Utilities Department requires a petition for future water services.  Sewer has already been 
extended but sewer main in lieu of assessment fees are needed. 

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition(s), a notarized certificate listing the petition(s) shall 
be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.

D.	County and City Engineering have approved the drainage plan. 

E.	County Surveying advises that the Semcrude pipeline needs to be located on plat.

F.	County Surveying advises that utility easement Document #28947270 needs to be located.

G.	This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have 
groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation.  Building with 
specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is 
recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised.  
More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is 
available in the City Engineers’ office.

H.	The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat.  Approval of this 
plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a 
review.

I.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat 
and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or 
as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to 
allow for the conveyance of stormwater. 

J.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are 
applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and 
fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval 
of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

K.	The Register of Deeds requires all names to be printed beneath the signatures on the plat and 
any associated documents. 

L.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is 
advised of the necessity to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management 
Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of 
delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

M.	The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited 
to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 
67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how 
this site can be developed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies 
to determine any such requirements.

N.	The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork 
activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment in Topeka.  Also, for projects located within the City of 
Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects.  For projects 
outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should 
contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control 
device requirements.

O.	Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing.

P.	The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for 
any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. 

Q.	A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing 
the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD.  If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to 
Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address:  cholloway@wichita.gov).  Please include the name of the 
plat on the disc.

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

SHERMAN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------

2-3.	SUB 2008-42: One-Step Final Plat -- IMBLER ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, located on 
the northeast corner of 69th Street North and 151st Street West. 

NOTE:	This county plat is a replat of three lots in the Imbler Estates Addition, which includes the 
extension of a street.  It 	is in an area designated as “Rural” by the Wichita-Sedgwick County 
Comprehensive Plan.  It is located in the Colwich Area of Influence.

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Since neither sanitary sewer nor municipal water is available to serve this property, the applicant 
shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what 
standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage and water wells.  A memorandum shall 
be obtained specifying approval prior to MAPC. 

B.	In conformance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards, for individual domestic wells 
that are proposed, a Safe Yield Analysis must be provided to Sedgwick County Code 
Enforcement prior to MAPC to assure the availability of an adequate, safe supply of water that 
does not impair existing water rights.  Easements shall be dedicated for potential future extension 
of public water. 

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition(s), a notarized certificate listing the petition(s) shall 
be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.

D.	This plat contains lots less than the required two-acre minimum lot size.  A zoning adjustment 
will need to be approved for the affected lots.  

E.	County Engineering requests the applicant’s drainage plan.  The applicant shall evaluate the need 
for the 30-foot floodway reserve on Lot 4.  Approval of the drainage plan is needed prior to 
MAPC. 

F.	County Surveying requests a benchmark datum.

G.	County Surveying advises that the taper in the major section right of way needs to be depicted 
properly.

H.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that all access drives shall be in accordance with 
Sedgwick County Service Drive Code.  

I.	County Engineering requests a contingent right-of-way dedication on 69th St. North as the Access 
Management Regulations requires a 60-foot half-street right-of-way width along rural arterials.  
The contingent dedication shall be referenced in the plattor’s text with the following language, 
“The contingent street dedication shall become effective in the event that the appropriate 
governing body determines a need for the right-of-way for any street-related purposes.”

J.	Block number “1” shall be denoted on the face of the plat. 

K.	The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the cul-de-sac to the 36-foot rock suburban 
street standard. 

L.	For lots fronting on cul-de-sacs, the lot frontage is required to be 50% of the required lot width 
(200 feet).  Lots 3 and 4 do not meet this 100-foot frontage requirement.  The Subdivision 
Committee has approved a modification. 

M.	Lots 3 and 4 do not conform to the 200-foot lot width standard which is measured at the 
building setback line.  The Subdivision Committee has approved a modification. 

N.	GIS has requested the cul-de-sac be labeled as “70th Ct. N.”  “70th St.  N.” should be labeled 
correctly. 

O.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and 
that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as 
modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow 
for the conveyance of stormwater. 

P.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are 
applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and 
fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval 
of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

Q.	The Register of Deeds requires all names to be printed beneath the signatures on the plat and any 
associated documents. 

R.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is 
advised of the necessity to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management 
Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, 
and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

S.	The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited 
to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 
67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how 
this site can be developed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies 
to determine any such requirements.

T.	The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork 
activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment in Topeka.  Also, for projects located within the City of 
Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects.  For projects 
outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should 
contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control 
device requirements.

U.	Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing.

V.	The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for 
any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. 

W. A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the 
final plat in digital format in AutoCAD.  If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to 
Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address:  cholloway@wichita.gov).  Please include the name of the 
plat on the disc.

MOTION:  Approve the Subdivision today hold sending to County Commission 
until those conditions have been approved by County staff. 

HILLMAN moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------

2-4.	SUB 2008-43: One-Step Final Plat – SCHOLZ COUNTRY ACRES ADDITION, located 
on the west side of 167th Street West and north of 69th Street North.  

NOTE:	This is unplatted property located in the County.  It is in an area designated as “Rural” by the 
Wichita-	Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.  It is located in the Colwich Area of Influence.

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Since neither sanitary sewer nor municipal water is available to serve this property, the 
applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and 
what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage and water wells.  A memorandum 
shall be obtained specifying approval prior to MAPC. 

B.	In conformance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards, for individual domestic wells 
that are proposed, a Safe Yield Analysis must be provided to Sedgwick County Code 
Enforcement prior to MAPC to assure the availability of an adequate, safe supply of water that 
does not impair existing water rights.  Easements shall be dedicated for potential future 
extension of public water. 

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition(s), a notarized certificate listing the petition(s) shall 
be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.

D.	County Engineering requests the applicant’s drainage plan prior to MAPC.  Additional 
information is needed on the 12-inch irrigation pipe and plans for removal.

E.	The preliminary plat should show adjacent owners.

F.	In accordance with Access Management Regulations for County plats, complete access control 
is required for arterials intersecting with local streets.  Complete access control of 75 feet is 
needed along 73rd St. North from 167th St. West.  
G.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that all access drives shall be in accordance with 
Sedgwick County Service Drive Code.  


H.	The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed cul-de-sac to a 36-foot rock 
suburban street standard.  The guarantee shall include the installation of a temporary 
turnaround. 

I.	GIS has requested that “73rd St.  N.” shall be renamed as”72nd St. N.”  “167th St. W.” shall be 
labeled correctly. 

J.	The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat.  Approval of this 
plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a 
review.

K.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat 
and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or 
as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to 
allow for the conveyance of stormwater. 

L.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are 
applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and 
fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval 
of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

M.	The Register of Deeds requires all names to be printed beneath the signatures on the plat and 
any associated documents. 

N.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is 
advised of the necessity to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management 
Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of 
delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

O.	The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited 
to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 
67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how 
this site can be developed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies 
to determine any such requirements.

P.	The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork 
activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment in Topeka.  Also, for projects located within the City of 
Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects.  For projects 
outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should 
contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control 
device requirements.

Q.	Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing.

R.	Sedgwick County Rural Electric has requested additional utility easements to be platted on this 
property. 

S.	A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing 
the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD.  If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to 
Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address:  cholloway@wichita.gov).  Please include the name of the 
plat on the disc.
MOTION:  Applicant requested deferral. 	   



HENTZEN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

---------------------------------------------------

2-5.	SUB 2008-44:  One-Step Final Plat -- ROHMEYER ADDITION, located on the north 
side of 55th Street South and east of 183rd Street West. 

NOTE:	This is unplatted property located in the County.  It is in an area designated as “Rural” by 
the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County 
Code Enforcement to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for 
approval of on-site sewerage facilities.  A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. 

B.	In conformance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards, for individual domestic wells 
that are proposed, a Safe Yield Analysis must be provided to Sedgwick County Code 
Enforcement to assure the availability of an adequate, safe supply of water that does not impair 
existing water rights.  Easements shall be dedicated for potential future extension of public 
water. In the alternative, the property shall be serviced by the Rural Water District. 

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition(s), a notarized certificate listing the petition(s) shall 
be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.

D.	County Engineering requests a drainage plan. 

E.	County Surveying requests a legend on the final plat.

F.	The plat proposes complete access control along the 55th St. South street frontage.  In 
accordance with Access Management Regulations for County plats, complete access control is 
required for arterials intersecting with collectors.  County Engineering has required complete 
access control of 150 feet along 179th St. West from 55th St. South. 

G.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that all access drives shall be in accordance with 
Sedgwick County Service Drive Code.  

H.	The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument, which establishes the pipeline easements 
on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be 
located adjacent to and within the easements.  Any relocation, lowering or encasement of the 
pipeline, required by this development, will not be at the expense of the appropriate governing 
body. 

I.	The applicant’s agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching 
the text of the pipeline agreements.  If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in 
the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat.

J.	The recording information for all pipeline easements shall be indicated on the face of the plat.

K.	The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat.  Approval of this 
plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a 
review.

L.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat 
and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or 
as modified 

	with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the 
conveyance of stormwater. 

M.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are 
applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and 
fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval 
of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

N.	The Register of Deeds requires all names to be printed beneath the signatures on the plat and 
any associated documents. 

O.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is 
advised of the necessity to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management 
Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of 
delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

P.	The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited 
to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 
67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how 
this site can be developed.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies 
to determine any such requirements.

Q.	The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork 
activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment in Topeka.  Also, for projects located within the City of 
Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects.  For projects 
outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should 
contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control 
device requirements.

R.	Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing.

S.	Sedgwick County Rural Electric has requested additional utility easements to be platted on this 
property. 

T.	A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing 
the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD.  If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to 
Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address:  cholloway@wichita.gov).  Please include the name of the 
plat on the disc.

MOTION:  Applicant requested deferral. 	   

HENTZEN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------

3.	PUBLIC HEARING – VACATION ITEMS
3-1.	VAC2008-16: City request to vacate a portion of a platted easement

OWNER/APPLICANT:	Steve L Jacobs

AGENT:	PEC, PA, c/o Rob Hartman

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:     	The east 20 feet of the west 30 feet of the platted 40-foot utility 
easement.  30 feet of the platted 40-foot easement is located on Lot 
6, Block 3, the Chapel Hill 2nd Addition, with the remaining 10 feet 
of the platted 40-foot utility easement located on Lot 7, Block 3, the 
Chapel Hill 2nd Addition.  All of the platted 40-foot utility easement 
runs parallel to the common lot lines of Lots 6 & 7, Block 3, the 
Chapel Hill 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas
		
LOCATION:	Generally located west of K-96 Highway, midway between 21st and 
13th Streets North, and northeast of the Crestwood and Chapel Hill 
Streets intersection (WCC #II) 

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Additional space for development 

CURRENT ZONING:	Subject property and adjacent and abutting eastern, southern and 
western properties are zoned TF-3 Two-family Residential (“TF-
3”).  The abutting northern property is zoned MF-18 Multi-family 
Residential (“MF-18”).   

The applicant is requesting consideration for the vacation of the described portion of the platted 
utility easement.  The GIS map shows a storm water pipe, manholes and sewer line west portion of 
the subject platted easement, outside of the proposed vacated area.  There are no utilities located 
within the described portion of the platted utility easement.  The Chapel Hill 2nd Addition was 
recorded with the Register of Deeds April 5, 2003.   

Based upon information available prior to the public hearing and reserving the right to make 
recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works/Water & Sewer/Storm 
Water, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends 
approval to vacate the portion of the platted utility easement as described in the legal description 
with the following conditions.

A.	That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this 
petition
     	and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings:

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, in the 
Wichita Eagle and the Derby Reporter, of notice of this vacation proceeding one 
time May 29, 2008, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing.
	
2.	That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-
described portion of the platted utility easement and the public will suffer no loss or 
inconvenience thereby.

3.	In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted.

B.	Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the platted utility easement described in the 
petition should be approved with conditions; 

(1)	Vacate only that portion of the platted utility easement as described in an approved 
legal description, as approved by City Water & Sewer, Public Works, Storm Water 
and franchised utilities.  Provide Planning Staff the approved legal description of the 
vacated portion of platted utility easement, via e-mail on a Word document. 

(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be 
the responsibility and at the expense of the applicant.  Provide City Public Works, 
Water & Sewer, Storm Water and franchised utilities with any needed plans for 
review for relocation or reconstruction of utilities.  Provide any guarantees needed 
for the relocation or reconstruction of utilities.  Provide any easements needed for 
the relocation or reconstruction of utilities.  All must be completed prior to 
proceeding to the Wichita City Council for final action.

(3)	All improvements, including reverting public sewer line and manholes to a private 
sewer line, shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant’s expense. 

(4)	Per MAPC Policy Statement #7, all conditions shall be completed within one year of 
approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void.  All 
vacation requests are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick 
County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and 
the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, 
County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded 
with the Register of Deeds.

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

(1)	Vacate only that portion of the platted utility easement as described in an approved legal 
description, as approved by City Water & Sewer, Public Works, Storm Water and 
franchised utilities.  Provide Planning Staff the approved legal description of the vacated 
portion of platted utility easement, via e-mail on a Word document. 

(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility and at the expense of the applicant.  Provide City Public Works, Water & 
Sewer, Storm Water and franchised utilities with any needed plans for review for relocation 
or reconstruction of utilities.  Provide any guarantees needed for the relocation or 
reconstruction of utilities.  Provide any easements needed for the relocation or 
reconstruction of utilities.  All must be completed prior to proceeding to the Wichita City 
Council for final action.

(3)	All improvements, including reverting public sewer line and manholes to a private sewer 
line, shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant’s expense. 

(4)	Per MAPC Policy Statement #7, all conditions shall be completed within one year of 
approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void.  All 
vacation requests are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County 
Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation 
order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised 
utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds.

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

JOHNSON moved, HILLMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------
3-2.	VAC2008-17: City request to vacate a setback dedicated by separate instrument  

OWNER/AGENT:	             	McDonalds Ozark Civil Engineering, c/o Earl Hacker
	
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:	Generally described as the platted 35-foot front yard setback that 
runs parallel to 47th Street South on the north side of west half of Lot 
3, Nolan’s Garden Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, as 
recorded on MISC BOOK 663/PAGE 217.  

LOCATION:	Generally located on the southeast corner of 47th Street South and 
Broadway Avenue (WCC #III)

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Rebuild the McDonalds   

CURRENT ZONING:	The site and the abutting eastern property are zoned GC General 
Commercial (“GC”).  The abutting southern and adjacent northern 
and western properties are zoned LC Limited Commercial (“LC”).    

The applicant proposes to vacate the described 35-foot front yard setback and replace it with the 
GC zoning district’s 20-foot front yard setback.  There is a 20-foot sanitary easement (Court 
Condemnation case #C-17046) within the proposed 20-foot setback, which has manholes and 
sewer line in it.  There are no utilities located within the vacated portion of the described setback.  
The site is not part of the abutting (south and east sides of the site) CUP DP-48.  There are CUP 
overlays on properties located west of the site, across Broadway Avenue, and north of the site, 
across 47th Street South.  The Nolan’s Garden Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds 
December 21, 1925.  The Lot Split of Lot 3, Nolan’s Garden Addition was recorded with the 
Register of Deeds October 19, 2000.

Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make 
recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility 
representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation of 
the described portion of the described setback with conditions. 

A.	That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this 
petition
    	 and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings:

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, in the 
Wichita Eagle and the Derby Reporter, of notice of this vacation proceeding one time 
May 29, 2008, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing.

2.	That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-
described portion of the setback dedicated by separate instrument and the public will 
suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

3.	In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted.

B.	Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the setback dedicated by separate instrument 
described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 

(1)	Vacate the 35-foot setback and replace with the GC General Commercial zoning 
district’s 20-foot front yard setback.    
  
(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be 
the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense. 

(3)	All improvements shall be according to City standards and at the applicant’s 
expense. 

(4)	Per MAPC Policy Statement #7, all conditions are to be completed within one year 
of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void.  
All vacation requests are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the 
Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the 
request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to 
the City, County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been 
recorded with the Register of Deeds. 

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

(1)	Vacate the 35-foot setback and replace with the GC General Commercial zoning district’s 
20-foot front yard setback.    
  
(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense. 

(3)	All improvements shall be according to City standards and at the applicant’s expense. 

(4)	Per MAPC Policy Statement #7, all conditions are to be completed within one year of 
approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void.  All 
vacation requests are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County 
Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation 
order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised 
utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds. 

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

JOHNSON moved, HILLMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.	Case No.:  CON2008-18   (Deferred from May 8, 2008) – Saint Stephen’s Mission, Inc., 
c/o Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Church (owner & applicant); Creative Place Inc., c/o Dee 
Nelson (applicant)  Request City Conditional Use for day care, general, on property zoned 
"SF-5" Single-family Residential. 

Block E, Woodlawn Village 3rd Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas, generally located 0.3-
mile west of Rock Road midway between Central Avenue and 13th Street North, on the 
northwest corner of Killarney Place and Lawrence Lane (7404 Killarney Place).

BACKGROUND:  The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use to operate a day care, general.  
The applicants propose to build an approximately 20,000-sqaure foot, two-story building for a day 
care that will house 150 preschool aged children at any one time.  The building will be separate 
from the existing approximately 40,000-square foot Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Church.  The church 
owned 5.94-acre site, Block E, Third Addition to Woodlawn Village, is zoned SF-5 Single-family 
Residential (“SF-5”).  A church is permitted by right in the SF-5 zoning district.  A day care, general 
(Unified Zoning Code, UZC, Art II, Sec II-B., 4a & b) is an establishment that allows for the care, 
protection and supervision of more than 10 individuals at one time on a regular bases away from 
their primary residence for less than 24 hours per day.  A day care, general can be considered as a 
Conditional Use in the SF-5 zoning district.  The owners of the proposed day care, Creative Place 
Inc, are not affiliated with Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Church   

The conditions for a day care, general in the in the SF-5 zoning district, per Art III, Sec III-D 6.i of 
the UZC are:  (a) Day care centers shall comply with all applicable state regulations.  (b) When 
located in the residence of the care provider in a residential zoning district, day care centers shall 
comply with the general home occupation standards of Sec IV-E-3; this condition does not apply to 
this case.  (c) Outdoor play shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 6:30 PM, if located within 
100 feet of a lot containing a dwelling unit.  (d) Provisions of parking spaces in Art IV, Sec IV-A, 4 
may be provided by shared parking when the day care is located within an existing church or place 
of worship, however the day care must provide convenient off-street loading facilities as required.  
The applicants have provided site plans.  

The proposed 20,000-square foot day care’s operation schedule is year round, Monday-Friday, 
7:15 AM to 6 PM, with the facility open to all preschool children, ages 22-months to five-years.  
Besides the proposed maximum150 children on site at any one time, there will also be 25-30 staff 
members present at any one time.  The applicants have stated (based on their current operations at 
the Independent School) that during the summer months, June to mid-August, the day care operates 
at approximately 60% of its capacity.  The site plans show three (3) playground areas, one located 
south of the proposed facility and the other two located between the proposed facility and the 
church.  The proposed areas for the playgrounds are located within 120 feet (south across Killarney 
Place) to 250 feet (west across the north to south drainage right-of-ways, “ROWs”) from the nearest 
lots with single-family residences.  The site plans do not show any proposed signage, lighting, 
landscaping or screening.  The site plans do not show existing or proposed parking.  A count taken 
off of the City’s Geozone system shows approximately 87 parking spaces, which is sufficient, as 
the church will normally not use the parking during the proposed operation schedule for the day 
care.  The elevations of the proposed facility show a two-story building, with the ground floor 
extending beyond the upper story towards the church’s east side.  There is a brick wainscot on the 
ground floor, with hardiboard/hardiplank lap siding covering the rest of the wall area.  The roofs 
are gables with asphalt shingles.   

The site plans show a proposed entrance and exit off of Killarney Place, a drop off area located 
west of the facility and the vehicle queuing area.  The site plan showing vehicle queuing also gives 
a break down of the arrival and departure times of the day care’s clients and the total number of 
vehicles trips generated, as based on this arrival/departure times.  The applicants’ count shows a 
total of 313 trips generated by 120 students using the current facility’s location at the Independent 
school.  The applicants do not project the increase in the number of trips generated by the proposed 
facilities’ 150 student limit (30 more students than their current facility) nor does it include the trips 
generated by the facilities 25-30 staff members, which also were not included in the trips counted 
(313) off of their current facility.  With these additional trip calculations (30 additional students and 
25-30 staff members) the proposed site could generate over 400 trips per day.  The applicants have 
stated that peak times for trips are 7:15 AM–9:45 AM, with 129 cars and 2:50 PM–6:00 PM, with 
116 cars.  Traffic counts conducted by Public Works on Friday, April 18, 2008 show Killarney’s 
traffic count for the 7:15 AM – 9:45 AM time to be 105-137 trips and 209-214 trips for the 2:50 
PM – 6:00 PM time slot.  The day care proposes two field trips per year, per class, with 
transportation provided by the parent’s cars.  Typically the field trips are for one classroom a time.  

The subject site’s neighborhood is located between the arterials 13th Street North (north) - Central 
Avenue (south) - Rock Road (east) - Woodlawn Boulevard (west).  The arterial corners of the 
neighborhood are a mix of LC Limited Commercial (“LC”), GO General Office (“GO”) , TF-3 
Two-family Residential (“TF-3”), and B Multi-family Residential (“B”) zoned businesses, duplexes 
and apartments, with the remainder (which is the majority) of the neighborhood being zoned SF-5 
and developed as single-family residential.  There are four others churches in the neighborhood 
(besides the subject site and an adjacent Baptist church), which are located on the south side of 13th 
Street North, with access directly onto 13th Street.  The zoning of these four other churches is SF-5, 
TF-3 and GO.  One of those churches operates a preschool (3-years to PreK) and school (K-8) on 
its site.  There are over 700 children enrolled in these programs.  The subject site, Saint Stephen’s 
Church, (Third Addition to Woodlawn Village, recorded 10-17-1962), Celebration Baptist church 
(Pine Valley Estates, 01-15-1956) and Price Harris Elementary are all located adjacent to each other 
on the either the west or east sides of drainage channels/ ROWs.  All three of these nonresidential 
facilities are basically located in the middle of the single-family residential neighborhood.  All three 
are zoned SF-5; churches and schools are permitted by right in the SF-5 zoning district.  The 
elementary school recently added onto its building.  A day care is not considered a school, as 
defined in the UZC.   

A two-lane urban collector, Armour Lane, runs through the neighborhood from Central to 13th 
Street.  9th Street is classified as a collector, but ends at a north-south drainage channel/right-of-way 
(ROW) that separates the east and west sides of the neighborhood.  In effect, 9th ends at its 
intersection with Armour Drive.  There are no east – west collectors running through the 
neighborhood, in fact there is only one street, Killarney Place that crosses the drainage channel that 
run from above 13th to below Central. Killarney runs west from Rock, becoming Rutland Road 
after it crosses the drainage and turns south to Central.  

The Killarney Place – Doreen Street intersection is located a short block (270 feet) from the subject 
site and represent the shortest route from an arterial (Rock) to the proposed facility.  No matter how 
traffic enters this neighborhood to get to the proposed facility, the traffic will be in this vicinity of 
Killarney.  The Killarney – Lawrence Lane intersection is the closest intersection to the proposed 
facility.  Lawrence is short, residential street that wraps around the subject site’s east and north 
sides, dead ending at the drainage channel.  The Killarney Place – Doreen Street intersection has 
total traffic counts of 802-725 trips along Killarney and 360-256 trips along Doreen.  These counts 
were provided by the Public Works as generated on Friday, April 18, 2008.  Traffic was also 
counted Saturday, April 19, and Sunday, April 20.  There was an approximate 10-18% drop in 
traffic during the weekend, although the west portion of Killarney actually had a slight increase 
(two cars) in traffic on Sunday.  There was more traffic generated on Sunday than Saturday.  
Killarney does intersect with Rock Road, which has between 27,000-29,000 trips per day on this 
portion between Central and 13th Street; the 812 trips counted at the Killarney – Rock intersection 
appears to be local traffic generated by the neighborhood.  

The “Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation” model notes that as many as 500 trips 
could be generated by a day care.  Trips generated by single-family residential development is more 
difficult to estimate because of the variables and uncertain information involved, but if the 5.94-
acre subject site had not been developed as a church, but developed as 10,000 square foot lots 
(plus or minus the average lot sizes in the area) with single-family residences, as permitted by right, 
trips generated could be approximately 200 trips per day.  If the site was developed with 5,000-
square foot single-family lots, as permitted by right for the zoning district, it could generate 
approximately 400 trips per day, or basically the same as the proposed day care.   

Approximately half of the 420 students to Price Elementary school are bused, with the remaining 
half coming by automobiles.  Because this a magnet/English as a second language/neighborhood 
school, very few students walk or bike to school.  As calculated by the “Institute of Transportation 
Engineer’s Trip Generation” models, an elementary school can generate similar trip totals as a day 
care, when it is operating.         
  
CASE HISTORY:  The subject site is part of the Third Addition to Woodlawn Village, which was 
recorded with the Register of Deeds October 17, 1962.  There have been numerous calls inquiring 
about, protesting (most) or supporting the proposed day care.  

Update on case history:  DAB II heard this request at their May 5, 2008, meeting and 
recommended deferral.  Prior to the May 8, MAPC public hearing, the applicants requested that the 
case be deferred, to allow them to modify their proposal.  The MAPC recommended deferral, but 
recognizing that members of the neighborhood were present at the meeting, allowed short 
comments on the proposal.  The applicants chose to not make comments at that time.

The applicants’ revised proposal is to instruct the clients of the proposed day care, to use Armour 
Drive to access the site, via Cresthill Road and Broadmoor Avenue during the times Price Harris 
Elementary School isn’t congesting Armour.  They propose to instruct their clients to travel to their 
site via Killarney Place and Broadmoor Avenue between the hours of 8:45 AM – 9:15 AM and 
3:45 PM – 4:15 PM: see attached e-mail letter from Lester Limon.       

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	SF-5			single-family residences, drainage, church
EAST:		SF-5 			single-family residences
SOUTH:	SF-5 			single-family residences  
WEST:		SF-5 			single-family residences, drainage, school 

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The subject property has access to Killarney Place and Lawrence Lane, 
paved, two-lane residential streets.  As previously noted Killarney is the only street in this 
neighborhood that crosses the north to south drainage channel.  Killarney intersects, with Rock 
Road, more than ¼-mile east of the site, and as Rutland Road with Central Avenue, less than a ½-
mile to the south.  Lawrence Lane dead ends against the drainage channel on its northwest end and 
ends at its intersection with Killarney on its south end.  Killarney has no sidewalks and it appears 
sidewalks are the exception rather than standard in the neighborhood.  Armour Lane, an urban 
collector is located approximately ¼-mile west of the site, across the drainage channel, via 
Broadmoor Avenue and Cresthill Road, both paved residential streets.  The 2030 Transportation 
Plan shows no change to any of the above mentioned streets’ status.  There are no CIP projects to 
build another vehicular bridge across the drainage channel.  All services/utilities are available to 
serve the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide” of 
the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as appropriate for “Major Institutional.”  This category 
includes institutional facilities of significant size and scale of operation and could include a range 
of such uses as government facilities, military bases, libraries, schools, cemeteries, churches, 
hospitals, and medical treatment facilities.  The UZC classifies day cares as a “public and civic” 
use.  The “Public/Institutional Location Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan” states that these 
uses that serve residential areas should be grouped together along with the neighborhood 
commercial centers and located near parks or along intersections of greenways/recreational 
corridors.  It also states that they should have convenient access to arterial streets and public 
transportation.  The policies of the UZC allow consideration of day care general as a Conditional 
Use in the SF-5 zoning district, with application of the standards of Art III, Sec III-D.6.i and on a 
site by site consideration.    

The subject site is located in the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood.  The site has 
no direct access to any arterial or collector streets.  The site is not located by neighborhood 
commercial centers or parks.  The site, as platted, is large enough for additional development.       

RECOMMENDATION:  The applicants have stated that the proposed day care provides several 
opportunities for Saint Stephen’s Church and the area.  Saint Stephen’s sees the day care as a 
method to introduce the church to citizens using the day care.  The day care is not affiliated with 
the church, is under separate ownership and will occupy a separate building.  Also as a result of 
families using the day care, some may decide to join the church, thus insuring that the church 
membership is at the least retained and at best increased with younger families.  A church with 
stagnate membership could face an eventual decline in membership and possibly the church itself 
could be abandoned.  A vacant church on property zoned SF-5 does not easily lend itself to 
conversion to this zoning district’s permitted uses.  Even if the separate day care facility was 
approved, there is no guarantee that there would be an increase or retention in church membership, 
thus the prospect of a vacant 40,000-square foot church standing by a 20,000-square foot day care.  
This scenario suggests future zoning change or Conditional Use requests on the site.  The church 
also sees the proposed day care as an opportunity to offer educational opportunities to the 
immediate neighborhood and the community outside of the neighborhood.  The proposed day care 
operator currently has its facility located in at the Independent School, located on the south side of 
Douglas Avenue, midway between Rock and Webb Roads, and approximately 1 ½-mile from the 
proposed site.  The Independent School site has direct access onto an arterial, Douglas, and has no 
vehicular access through single-family residential neighborhoods.  This facility at the independent 
School is going to be closed and it is probable that, at least in the beginning of its operation at the 
proposed site, most of its current clients would follow it here.  It is also probable, in the beginning 
that most of the clients would be from outside the neighborhood.  The size of the church property, 
as it was platted in 1962, lends itself to more development on it and it is reasonable for the church 
to be able to further develop this property, based on the property’s platted size.  

The issue with the church site for the day care is its location.  It falls short of the locational criteria 
of the Comprehensive Plan: it is not grouped together along with neighborhood commercial centers 
and it does not have convenient access to arterial streets.  The church is located in the middle of a 
single-family residential neighborhood with access to it limited to residential streets.  Access to the 
church is also limited by existing subdivision design and drainage channels that limit east to west 
access through the neighborhood to one residential street, Killarney Place.  For the most part, the 
subdivision design of the area did not include sidewalks or parks, thus the streets carry both 
vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and recreational traffic.  The proposed day care would increase 
traffic being generated from the middle of the neighborhood, which admittedly is a pattern 
established by the adjacent (separated by drainage channel) elementary school.  Unlike the subject 
site, Saint Stephens, the elementary school does abut and have direct access onto Armour Lane and 
9th Street, both urban collectors.  Armour Lane is located approximately ¼-mile west of the site, 
across the drainage channel, via Broadmoor Avenue and Cresthill Road (both residential streets).  
Staff feels the request has merit, based on the size of the church site, but that the large site’s 
location in the middle of the single-family residential neighborhood, on residential streets is not 
appropriate for the proposed use.  Staff also recognizes that a school, as defined in the UZC, could 
go on this site by right and create a similar increase to traffic in the neighborhood.  But, even for a 
school, a use permitted right, the site would still fall short of the locational criteria for this type of 
use.  Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends that 
the application be DENIED.
 
This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The subject site’s neighborhood is 
located between the arterials 13th Street North (north) - Central Avenue (south) - Rock Road 
(east) - Woodlawn Boulevard (west).  The arterial corners of the neighborhood are a mix of 
LC Limited Commercial (“LC”), GO General Office (“GO”) , TF-3 Two-family Residential 
(“TF-3”), and B Multi-family Residential (“B”) zoned businesses, duplexes and apartments, 
with the remainder (which is the majority) of the neighborhood being zoned SF-5 and 
developed as single-family residential.  There are four others churches in the neighborhood 
(besides the subject site and an adjacent Baptist church), all located on the south side of 13th 
Street North, with access directly onto 13th Street.  The zoning of these four other churches 
is SF-5, TF-3 and GO.  One of those churches operates a preschool (3-years to PreK) and 
school (K-8) on its site.  The single-family development was platted from the mid 1950s 
(most of the area west of the drainage channels) to the mid 1980s.  The subject site’s large 
size (5.94-acre Lot E, Third Addition to Woodlawn Village, recorded 1962) is not typical of 
the surrounding single-family lots, but it is adjacent (but separated by drainage channels) to 
the similar sized 9.9-acre Price Harris Elementary site and the smaller 1.55-acre Celebration 
Baptist Church site.  The elementary school generates traffic from outside the 
neighborhood, with half of its 420 students being bused (half mini buses – half regular size 
buses) to the school.  Sidewalks are the exception rather than standard in this neighborhood.       
       
2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The 
subject site is zoned SF-5 and is currently developed as a church which, is permitted by 
right in SF-5 zoning.   The site could continue to be used for a church, although it has never 
been fully utilized the property’s size.  The site could be redeveloped as a use permitted by 
right, such as single-family residential or a school.  But, even for a school, a use permitted 
right, the site would still fall short of the locational criteria for this type of use. 
       
3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  A day 
care with a proposed capacity for 150 children, plus 25-30 staff would increase 
nonresidential traffic on the residential streets in the neighborhood.  Killarney Place would 
be the street that would have the most notable increase, as it is the street that everyone 
would have to use to enter and exit the subject site.  The increase in traffic would be year 
round, during the facility’s operation schedule, 7:15 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday.  
The day care’s hours of operation are generally in the hours when people are going to work, 
going to school or at work, but continue past the normal elementary school hours of 
adjacent Price Harris Elementary.  Unlike the elementary school the day care would be 
operating year round, but at an estimated 60% capacity during the summer term from June 
to mid August.  The traffic increase generated by the day care would be similar to the 
development of a school of the same size on the site, without certain considerations.  Those 
considerations include, if a school offered bus service and did not operate during the 
summer months, which would mean the traffic generated by the school, would be less by 
possibly more than half of the day care.  A school is permitted by right in the SF-5 zoning 
district.  

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and Policies:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide” of the Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this site as appropriate for “Major Institutional.”  This category includes 
institutional facilities of significant size and scale of operation and could include a range of 
such uses as government facilities, military bases, libraries, schools, cemeteries, churches, 
hospitals, and medical treatment facilities.  The UZC classifies day cares as a “public and 
civic” use.  The “Public/Institutional Location Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan” states 
that these uses that serve residential areas should be grouped together along with the 
neighborhood commercial centers and located near parks or along intersections of 
greenways/recreational corridors.  It also states that they should have convenient access to 
arterial streets and public transportation.  The policies of the UZC allow consideration of 
day care general as a Conditional Use in the SF-5 zoning district, with application of the 
standards of Art III, Sec III-D.6.i., on a site by site consideration.  This site falls short of the 
locational criteria. 

5.	Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the 
hardship imposed upon the applicant:  The church occupies maybe half of the total 5.94-
acres it owns and as such the property is underutilized.  The proposed day care would bring 
a development to the site that is not affiliated with the church, but which the church 
supports because of the day care’s educational and care function for preschool children.  
The proposed day care is no guarantee that church membership would stabilize or increase.  
A possible impact of a declining church membership is the possible abandoning of the 
church, leaving a vacant 40,000-square foot building in the middle of the neighborhood, 
without or with the proposed separate 20,000-square foot day care building/use.  This 
scenario suggests a possible future zoning change or Conditional Use requests on the site.  
This would have a negative impact on the neighborhood as would the day care generating 
an increase of traffic in the neighborhood, coming from mostly outside the neighborhood, 
at least in the beginning, if not always.  This increase would be generated from the middle 
of the neighborhood by the proposed day care, with its proposed 150 children and the 25-
30 staff members of the day care.  This area has few sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and no 
parks, thus the residential streets carry vehicular, pedestrian and recreational traffic, which 
would have to contend with the proposed day care’s possible additional approximately 400 
trips per day, with a possible drop off during the summer months.          

6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  There will be traffic 
increases onto Killarney Place and the other residential streets in the neighborhood from  
the site year round, Mondays – Fridays, 7:15 AM to 6 PM.

However if the MAPC finds the proposed day care an appropriate use, Staff recommends approval 
with the following conditions:

1.	All applicable requirements of Art III, Sec III-D.6.i of the Unified Zoning Code shall be 
met.  Operation of the facility will be year round, Mondays – Fridays, 7:15 AM to 6 PM. 

2.	The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan and 
elevations.  All improvements shall be completed within one year of approval of the 
Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable.  The applicants will 
provide a revised site plan, showing proposed/additional landscaping, screening, signage 
and lighting.  It will limit ingress and egress to Killarney Place.  The revised site plan shall 
be provided within 3 months of approval by the appropriate body.

3.	The day care shall operate only as long as the church continues to operate on this site.

4.	Meet with the Traffic Engineer to determine the feasibility of methods of slowing traffic 
down along Killarney Place and any other street as determined by the Traffic Engineer.

5.	If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the 
Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set 
forth in Article VIII of the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning 
Director, declare that the Conditional Use is null and void.
     
MITCHELL It’s my understanding that a number of people were able to address the Planning 
Commission at a previous hearing, due to number of persons interested in cases today, if you spoke 
on that item before, we have your information on record, it’s not necessary to repeat it here again 
today and we would ask you not to. 

HILLMAN I’ve been approached numerous times by both sides on this issue, but I have not made 
a decision.  My decision will be based on information provided in public hearing.

MITCHELL Is any member on the planning commission who did not get contact on this case.  We 
all did, and none of us have made up our mind.  

BILL LONGNECKER Planning staff presented staff report, noting that Staff’s recommendation 
was to deny the request, based on the size of the facility and it not meeting the locational criteria 
for this type of use with this size.  He also noted that the traffic numbers present in the report had 
all been questioned by both the applicant and the neighborhood.  He stated that staff had based 
their numbers on models taken from the “Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation,” 
and that staff had also used the numbers provided by the applicant.  Using these two sources, 
traffic generated from the proposed day care would be over 400 trips per day.  He brought to the 
members’ attention the traffic counts along Killarney, provided by Public Works.  He noted that the 
applicant’s modification to their original request, which was the reason for their requested deferral, 
was to instruct the parents of the day care children to use certain roads at certain times of the day.  
He pointed out to the members that staff was giving an option to approve with conditions, but that 
Condition # 3 on page 9 needs to be taken off. 

APPLICANT LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE, applicants’ agent, 110 E. Fourth, 
Newton, KS.  We’ve always known this Conditional Use permit process involves a public hearing 
and it’s always been our intention to inform the neighborhood.  We’ve had one voluntary 
neighborhood meeting to introduce facts.  At that time we listened to public comment and 
submitted our application to planning staff.  Upon review of the staff report we decided to review 
with them the possible changes as well as meet with Traffic Engineer.  Due to the timing of the 
District Advisory Board and Metropolitan Area Planning Commission meetings it was not possible 
to meet with staff and the neighborhood prior to the May 9th MAPC deadline, as we also needed to 
take into consideration the comments and request from the District Advisory Board meeting.  We 
submitted our written request for deferral to Mr. Longnecker, Tuesday, May 7th.  We assumed 
Planning Commission would defer the agenda item in total and allow us time to provide a more 
complete presentation.  This commission decided to table the item at our request but unfortunately 
heard the public remarks portion without an adequate basis of understanding from us.  We feel this 
has adversely affected your perception of our project. 

On May 28, under the direction of the first DAB meeting, we held a small meeting with chosen 
representatives from the neighbored with Councilwoman Schlapp in attendance, only as an 
observer.  This meeting is outlined in the report I’m giving you now.  A week prior to this meeting 
we released the information to the neighborhood, which you have in your packets.  Three days ago 
we gave the same presentation to DAB, and their recommendation was for denial based on the 
planning staff’s recommendation.  We hope that you can be open minded as recommendation by 
legal council at the last meeting.  After our application was made public the church received verbal 
threats of arson against it and callers have harassed and belittled church staff to the point of tears.  
There have been inappropriate and abusive contacts made to the Director of Discovery Place at the 
Douglas Street center.  In fact, one confrontation ended in charges being filed against a member of 
the neighborhood. 

The Discovery Place child care facility has been located currently, and for the past 23 years, on 
East Douglas at the Independent School.  Discovery Place is ending their lease arrangement with the 
Independent School because of the school’s expansion, and Discovery is looking for a new home. 
Discovery Place operates between the hours of 7:15 A. M. and 6:00 P.M., and they currently have 
200 children enrolled.  They are currently licensed for approximately 120 children on site at any 
one time.  They are a nonprofit corporation and their board is currently in a fund raising campaign 
for this project.  They have looked at four sites, some to be built on and some with buildings that 
would have to be renovated.  The overwhelming need of the facility is natural outdoor space, 
which the teaching program would use.  St. Stephens, at the urging of the Bishop, absorbed the 
membership of St. Albans Episcopal Church nearly two years ago when St. Albans closed.  At that 
time the Bishop strongly recommended St. Stephens to move from its current location to a new 
address and facility, but it was the wish of the St. Stephens’ membership to stay where they’ve 
been for 40 years.  St. Stephens has always had, and will continue to have, a mission to provide 
education to young people.  In fact, St. Stephens once had a preschool program in its current 
building.  We understand through public meetings that the concerns of the neighborhood are the 
following:  that the day care will generate too much additional traffic in the neighborhood; that 
there is no way to control traffic in the neighborhood; the current and future conditions of the 
streets as impacted by the day care; the safety of the neighborhood with the additional traffic and 
the noise generated by the day care.  

Discovery Place has plans to license this facility for 150 children.  Today the facility manages 120 
children between ages of 22 months and 5 years old in their current location.  The number of 
children at this facility has been a hard concept for the neighborhood and DAB to understand, but 
what’s important to consider is because a child care center has a fluid population.  The number 
we’ll need to consider for this discussion purpose is the final licensed capacity and not the enrolled 
population.  Vehicular traffic can be debated as it pertains to the current 120 child facility.  On 
sheet 3 of 6 you can see the break down of the traffic occurring right now on the current Discovery 
Douglas Road facility in 5 minute increments as counted by staff.  Today 314 cars travel between 
7:15 A. M. and 6:00 P. M.  In the (St. Stephens) Woodlawn subdivision we have the presence of 
Price Elementary School at 7th Street and Armour Drive.  Its hours are between 9:00 A. M. and 4:10 
P. M., Monday thru Friday.  It has two classes of all day kindergarten.  It operates a before school 
program from 7:00 A. M. to 8:50 A. M., and an after school program from 4:10 P. M. to 5:45 P. M.  
Current enrollment is 420 children, 48% arrive and depart daily by bus.  These 13 buses arrive on 
9th Street approximately 10 minutes prior to school starting, and depart 10 minutes after school 
concludes.  The other 52% of the students are collected by private means.  The before and after 
school programs are facilitated in the gymnasium, with parents dropping off and picking up at other 
times other than the 9:00 to 4:00.  Their latch key program parents que along Armour Drive.  I 
propose to you that the parents of Discovery Place can be educated to use Armour Drive, a 
designated collector street, to access our site via Cresthill Road and Broadmore Avenue during 
those times Price Harris isn’t congesting Armour.  We propose that between the hours of 8:45 A.M. 
and 9:15 A.M. and again between 3:45 A. M. and 4:15 P.M. the parents of Discovery could access 
the site via Killarney Place and Broadmore Avenue.  During these times these two streets will see a 
total of 40 cars.  There have been many opposed that say parents cannot be trusted to follow the 
drop off rules, but I submit to you that the access to the Independent School site is a complex but 
highly organized process that relies on the parents following a strict schedule of times and routes, 
and that this site need be no different.  Unfortunately for the neighborhood, whether by design or 
not, and because of its access across the drainage ditch Killarney Place acts as a collector for the 
east portion of the neighborhood.  Killarney is a roughly paved street because of this traffic.  Most 
of the folks use this street either as an access path for Price Harris Elementary or for St. Thomas, 
and know that the intersection of Killarney Place and north Rutland Street is the only access point 
across the drainage ditch; therefore the increased traffic is causing the deterioration of the street.  I 
agree with the neighborhood that street repair is needed in this section of the subdivision and that is 
the responsibility of the street department with the City of Wichita.  I would urge you not only to 
define Killarney as a collector but recommend improvements to it to bring it to collector status.  As 
for the safety of the residents of Woodlawn Village, I can only support their desire for sidewalks 
along Killarney Place from Rock Road to north Rutland, and up to Cresthill connecting to Armour.  
Further, we can see the need for traffic control signage at the intersection of Killarney Place and 
north Rutland Street as a means to help slow traffic.  Also, pedestrian signage, as well as posted 
speed limit signage, would allow better control not only for law enforcement and for of the 
neighborhood.  Finally, in regards to the concern of an increase in noise, Discovery Place is a 
model of education which encourages outdoor experiences; it’s what’s pulled us toward this 
partnership.  We intend to spend a great deal of time outdoors, and children are children after all.  
Our children are in smaller groups, are less vocally active than the children in the K-5 program at 
Price Harris.  Members of the Commission, there is no way to satisfy those folks who don’t want 
increased traffic in the neighborhood, and we only have the capacity to regulate the traffic we will 
generate.  We’ve demonstrated that the population of the center is scattered throughout the day, and 
it will remain that way.  Further, we hope that by working with the City Planning staff, the Traffic 
Engineer, by listening to the neighborhood concerns, and by explaining our reasons for pursuing 
this project in a professional and logical manner demonstrates our willingness to be good neighbors 
while allowing St. Stephens the right to develop not only their mission as a parish but also their 
private property.  Dee Nelson, Director of Discovery Place and Father Steve Muse, Director of St. 
Stephens are also here and can answer questions you have of them. 

MCKAY I’d like to see how many are here to speak. 

MITCHELL How many people wish to speak today that did not earlier?  I estimate about a dozen. 

After some discussion, the commission voted 12-1 to limit speaking time to three minutes.

MITCHELL Mentioned to the speaker that he was limited to three minutes. 	

FATHER STEVE MUES, 9502 E. LAKEPOINT I want to thank all of you for all the work you 
do on our behalf.  My wife and I moved to Wichita three years ago and think it’s a wonderful City 
and you share in making it that kind of place.  We are all together here in our commitment to the 
quality of life in our neighborhoods in Wichita.  I have eight points and I will be as concise as I 
possibly can.  (1) St. Stephens’ has had plans for a school /preschool since before it was built over 
forty years ago, and the original drawings included plans for a school.  The land St. Stephen’s owns 
has always been reserved for the purpose of a school, and now we have that opportunity with 
Discovery Place’s Early Childhood Educational program.  (2) It is “common practice” for Episcopal 
Church congregations to have supportive and collaborative connections with preschools and 
schools, and there are numerous examples of this easily observed throughout the country.  (3) It is 
also a “common practice” for these church related schools to have separate 501c3 status in addition 
to the church’s non-profit statues designation.  This is often done for insurance, fundraising, and 
liability reasons.  (4) The Discovery Place proposal does involve an affiliation with St. Stephens 
and The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas.  (5) Conversations about how the relationship between St. 
Stephens and Discovery Place School would be structured include “cross board membership” 
between the two entities with board of director members from each entity serving on the other’s 
board. (6) St. Stephens along with many Episcopal Churches includes within its mission and 
ministry a commitment to life-effectiveness education, to the experiencing and teaching of those 
things that help children and adults achieve their God-given potential. 

MITCHELL Sir, your time is up. Do you need additional time to complete what you have given us 
in writing? 

MUES I can do that, my secretary has it in writing. 

MITCHELL We all have a copy.  Do you need additional time for this presentation?

MUES I could use 30 seconds. 

MOTION TO APPROVE an additional 30 seconds passed.

FATHER MUES The Discovery Place proposal is a legitimate and church approved expression of 
our mission and ministry, an important part of a long-time vision.  It represents a valuable 
collaboration and sharing of resources between two respected, stable proven entities which will be 
of great service to the neighborhood and the larger Wichita community.  It should be supported, 
and I hope you will support it. 

RANDY SCHAEFFER, 7405 KILLARNEY I want to make the comment that today you said the 
people who spoke last time couldn’t speak this time, but at the last meeting, you said if Discovery 
changed their proposal, then those people would be allowed to speak again, and they did change 
their proposal.  One of the things they talked about is one of our biggest concerns, traffic.  The 
proposal has been to have people come in from different ways at different times of the day, and I 
have several comments about that.  We can’t get people to use their turn signals and that’s the law.  
We can’t get people to use their seatbelts and that’s the law.  We can’t get people to go the speed 
limit and that’s the law.  Now we’re going to expect people to suddenly agree to go specific ways at 
different times of the day.  No matter how many different ways you go this site, everyone ends up 
on Killarney, because they all have to turn in at the same place.  I also want to say that we are 
talking about Discovery Place at this site.  The Episcopal Church is a good neighbor, and both the 
church and Discovery are good citizens in our community.  The issue is putting a commercial 
enterprise into an area that simply can’t handle it.  This isn’t an issue of a church or the daycare 
center; it’s about throwing a commercial enterprise right in the middle of a residential area, with no 
other commercial enterprise within a half of mile. 

DEE NELSON, 8313 E. DOUGLAS Founder and Director of Discovery Place preschool which 
works currently in corporation with Independent School and Hillside Christian Church.  For the past 
23 years Discovery Place has been dedicated to providing the highest quality early childhood 
education for children, their families, and the community.  Discovery Place joined the Independent 
School in 1985 to provide an early childhood education program in order to ensure children would 
enter kindergarten with the best possible educational foundation.  We are a nonprofit school, 
serving children 2-6 years of age.  In addition to serving our own children our staff members 
collaborate with other programs for all children.  These partner programs include the Opportunity 
Project, Head Start, Rainbows United, Boys and Girls Club, and St. James Episcopal Church.  Our 
research based philosophy of education reflects what is known as the best practice in early 
education.  Our curriculum is informed by innovative world curriculum developed by schools in 
Italy.  This approach was named among the best programs by Time Magazine.  This approach is 
changing our views of young children.  Our governor proclaimed 2007 as the year of the 
preschooler, promoting universal prekindergarten in schools across our state.  At Discovery Place 
we believe all children deserve to be educated in carefully designed indoor and outdoor 
environments that reflect respect for their potential. We believe that all member of the community 
have the responsibility to honor the rights of all children. 

MITCHELL Your time is up.

NELSON Asked for 30 seconds.

MITCHELL Motion and Second. 

NELSON Some view early childhood programs as commercial enterprises; we feel that view 
disrespects our work and our children.  An educational environment should reflect the values and 
cultures of our neighborhoods.  That is why we are excited about our collaboration with St. 
Stephens Episcopal Church. 

DOWNING Do you have daycare or preschool?

NELSON The difference between the two is a kind of antiquated approach to early childhood.  
Daycare is no longer considered the work we do with children under the preschool age, and it’s 
considered a preschool educational facility that can include an all day component.

SHERMAN Why the change in affiliation from Hillside to St. Stephens? 

NELSON We have been at The Independent School for 23 years.  They have grown from being an 
elementary school, to becoming all grades through high school.  This growth is squeezing us off the 
Independent School campus and is the reason we’re looking for a new place.  

SHERMAN I think Mr. Limon said you looked at four locations. 

NELSON More. 

SHERMAN Did you rule out every location or is there a runner up?

Side B Tape 1

NELSON The last I counted, and it’s been a few years, there were 1,400 children on the 
Independent campus including our 120 preschoolers.  I am guessing over 1,000.

SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE I counted at one point that over half of our students at 
Independent had been at some time enrolled at Discovery Place. 

NELSON Did I answer the question? 

RICHARD FOOT, 7506 NORFOLK CIRCLE I am the Vice Chancellor, the Episcopal Diocese 
of Kansas.  The Diocese contains an area that is located basically east of Highway 81 in Kansas.  I 
am here to represent the Bishop and the Diocese and they recommend that the Conditional Use be 
approved.  The articles of the corporation of St. Stephens and the constitution of the Diocese 
provide that if St. Stephens sells off or encumbers their property they must have the permission of 
the Bishop and the counselor trustees.  Today we’ve heard that schools have always been a part of 
the church.  Discovery Place is a non profit 501c corporation; it’s a license program with local 
memberships and a national organization including the association for education of young children.  
Their North American alliance and their practice in their curriculum is in harmony with those 
standards and with the organization that they represent.  To put the issue in perspective, as Mr. 
Longnecker did, if we had a school for children kindergarten up thru fourth grade it wouldn’t be 
necessary to have this hearing.  I have circulated a letter from Bishop Dean Wolfe that sets out his 
feelings on it and he recommends that the Conditional Use be approved.  When St. Stephens was 
organized it was designed to have a school ring around the church building as it now stands, which 
would maintain the school.  It’s in that purpose we intend to carry on with that endeavor.  The 
partnership between St. Stephens and Discovery Place seems to be right to the Bishop and the 
congregation of the churches. I recommend that it be approved.  

SALLY ALEFS, 7711 DONEGAL I have lived in neighborhood for 20 years, I have worked part 
time at Discovery Place preschool for 14 years, and have been a member St. Stephens Episcopal 
Church for 15 years.  I cover all three interested parties in this proposed idea within my own house.  
I want my church to prosper and grow in its mission.  I want my employer to prosper and find a 
suitable place to relocate and I would like my neighborhood to continue to prosper.  My neighbors 
and I really do not disagree as much as you might think.  I, like them, do prefer that traffic not 
increase in our neighborhood, but my perspective as a St. Stephens’ member tells me change on the 
church property is coming.  I have looked the list of possible uses for the St. Stephens’ property 
that would not require any change of zoning to occur to allow any input from the neighborhood.  
These uses include a private recycling center and a group home among others.  I do not like the list 
and where I differ from those who oppose this change, is that since a school is allowed by right on 
this site, I would prefer to work with a well respected, organized entity and a Discovery Place 
preschool rather  than take my chances.  Today, you will hear from many neighbors how a majority 
of them are against the proposal.  I would like for you to know in social situations or while out 
walking my dog, I have spoken to numerous neighbors who support the collaboration of St. 
Stephens and Discovery Place preschool.

CLIFFORD N. FARHA, 7225 E. CRESTHILL COURT I wanted to talk specifically about the 
traffic impact upon our neighborhood.  Discovery Place was kind enough to give us the enrollment 
and the number of cars that would be arriving at their school everyday.  As we looked at that, we 
do see that 141 cars arrive in the neighborhood generating 282 movements.  In a whole day those 
160 children generate 676 total movements for the day.  That is an 84% increase in traffic on 
residential street.  Our primary concern is traffic.  No matter how we look at it our streets are 
residential and are very narrow and have a lot of winding curves.  We’re asked to accept on a 
weekly basis over 3,000 additional new movements arriving in our neighborhood to service a Civic 
enterprise, which is still a commercial enterprise located in the middle of the neighborhood using 
residential streets.  It was our understanding that the policy of the City does not allow residential 
streets to be utilized for commercial purposes.  We hope you would respect uses of the neighbors, 
the planning staff as well as the District Advisory Board and deny this request.

KAREN NORTON, 7531 E. 26th COURT I’ve had a very privilege relationship with Discovery 
Place, I was head of the Independent School from 1980 to 2006 and I worked extensively with Dee 
Nelson and her staff.  In the summer of 1985, as Independent School was preparing to go to East 
Douglas we were finalizing arrangements to join up with Discovery Place.  It was a unique 
relationship, which had two 501c schools in one building, but we knew with collaborate spirit we 
could make it work.  Through the 21 years I’ve worked with them, both the Independent School 
and Discovery Place grew, as a matter of fact we grew so fast we outgrew our building and Mr. 
Garvey built a building especially for them because he realized what a contribution Discovery Place 
made to the city.  High quality early childhood education is imperative.  The emphasis of Discovery 
Place on the individual child’s environmental awareness, the arts, and school readiness makes them 
significantly different from preschools and daycares.  In their 23 years of existence they have 
provided a superb start to several thousand children.  One of the greatest challenges we had was 
coordinating traffic for the Independent School, Discovery Place and Wichita Swim Club.  We had 
over 1,000 cars a day coming in and out of the property, but we managed to develop a very logical 
approach to traffic, which was efficient and safe.  On our map I’ve placed pins at the household of 
every Discovery Place student, as you can see the students come from all over including Valley 
Center and Maize.  What people do not understand is the preschool can sit down with parents and 
find out where they’re coming from and create a plan.  We wouldn’t be having the discussion if 9th 
Street had been extended, it could then serve as a collector.  I don’t know why it was never 
extended; perhaps Killarney and Rutland were already acting as collector streets.  One concern 
neighbors have is the fear that drivers will not be paying attention, that’s the least of my concerns, 
at least with our parents.  Preschool parents are generally good drivers and they know they have 
their children’s young lives in their hands, and the good news is that very few of these kids have 
older brothers and sisters that are driving so we won’t have teenage drivers coming to pick them up.  
At the DAB meeting one person mentioned that there were no examples of preschools within a 
neighborhood but there are some.  For example both the Learning Ladder and East Heights are on 
Douglas but they have to be accessed on the neighborhood and New Song Academy is not on an 
arterial.  In your packet you see a chart of traffic flows. 

MITCHELL Your time is up.

NORTON Asked for 30 seconds.

MITCHELL Motion to approve additional 30 seconds.

NORTON Our arrival and dismissal hours are not the same ones as those with Price Harris, and we 
can work with families to avoid high traffic times.  I honestly believe that most people in the 
neighborhood won’t significantly notice the increase in traffic.  Good quality early childhood 
education is imperative for the health and growth of our city.  Allowing St. Stephens and Discovery 
Place to collaborate is good for children, good for the neighborhood, and good for Wichita. 

DAN ENGEL, 701 N. DOREEN I support Planning Department’s recommendation that this 
request be denied.  The location of the proposed site has no direct access and is some distance from 
the arterial streets Rock Road, Central, Woodlawn and13th, that bound the neighborhood.  There 
are two collector streets within this area, neither of which is adjacent to this piece of property.  To 
get to the church property it’s necessary to travel along residential streets not intended for the load 
or type of traffic the proposed site would bring.  These residential streets Rutland, Broadmore, 
Cresthill and Killarney have no sidewalks and these streets are the ones used by the neighbors to 
walk, jog and are the ones our children use to ride their bikes in.  My point is regardless of the 
proposed suggestion that traffic be asked to travel along Armour or 9th Street, it still requires cars to 
travel along Cresthill and Broadmore and Killarney to get to the property.  These are residential 
streets without sidewalks and not intended for the traffic load we are discussing today. 

SUSIE STALLINGS, 14435 E. 9TH STREET NORTH I consider myself as a neighbor of both 
neighborhoods.  My comments will be short, due to the lack of time; I’m here to bring attention to 
the map you received in your packet today for this meeting.  This is a very powerful visual aid that 
was introduced to DAB meeting Monday night.  However, it has come to the church’s attention that 
this map is incorrect.  Since Monday night’s DAB meeting, not one but five households have 
notified the church that that they are represented on the map as red and opposed to the request.  
The map should be representing them as green which is for the permit to build a preschool.  One 
household even commented that no one has approached them for their opinion.  This map clearly 
overstates the true representation of those opposed to the project in the neighborhood and casts 
doubt to whether there are others.    

SUZANNE LAYCOCK, 7622 KILLARNEY PLACE I am not affiliated with St. Stephens or 
Discovery Place.  I do however support the recommendation by Bill Longnecker to deny this 
request.  I understand and appreciate the missions of St. Stephens and Discovery Place and I hope 
they can continue to serve their members and the children of Wichita successfully.  It is a legitimate 
request of St. Stephens but I simply disagree that my neighborhood is the most appropriate location, 
both of these entities need room grow and the area in which they currently reside on has a very 
fixed limit on which to do that.  My main concern is safety and quality of life.  My husband and I 
have two young children, ages 4 & 7, so I do understand the needs for a daycare, the needs for a 
preschool and the needs for a church.  After living in five states in ten years and reflecting on the 
quality of life which would be best for our family, we came to the conclusion that this is the nicest 
neighborhood in which we’ve had the opportunity to reside.  I believe this is the result of good City 
Planning, which has been in place all these years.  Mr. Longnecker has denied the request due to 
the guidelines that have enabled this neighborhood to maintain its character and quality for the past 
30 plus years.  Please continue to protect it, and its residence the way you have in the past.  
Another point I want to make is that our neighborhood already has five churches and two schools 
located right within the boundaries, and that St. Thomas’ preschool already serves this area.   

ANTHONY SINGER, 7925 KILLARNEY I live at corner of Killarney and Rock Road and I want 
to echo the sentiments of one of the earlier speakers.  I have nothing against St. Stephens and 
Discovery Place, this is simply a matter of traffic and the affect it will have in my neighborhood.  I 
want to talk briefly about some of the traffic problems already present and explain to you what an 
increase to it would do.  At the corner of Killarney and Rock Road, if traffic attempts turn left, we 
have a situation where traffic already backs up two to three cars deep.  If we have any events in the 
neighborhood such as a garage sale, or something of that nature, traffic backs up five or six more 
cars deep.  If the daycare is allowed to go in, during the time frame from 8:00 A. M. to 8:30 A. M., 
when they are proposing to put an additional 60 cars through the neighborhood, you’re going to 
back cars all the way along Killarney.  This is the time when parents are trying to get their kids to 
school and people are trying to get to work, this simply is not going to work.  We have nothing 
against daycares or the church; we just do not believe this is going to work in this neighborhood.  
As I understand it, they have two proposals to solve the traffic problem.  One is to tell busy parents 
in the morning to filter back through the neighborhood via an indirect route, drop their children off 
and then exit the same way.  That’s not going to happen.  If you’re busy in the morning you’re 
going to take the most direct route, which is to come up Rock Road and go straight down Killarney.  
The other proposal they have is to turn Killarney into a collector and put in sidewalks.  My only 
response to that is why should the City bear the burden of installing sidewalks and potentially 
having to widen the street all to support one commercial enterprise?  The site they have chosen 
simply does not fit their intended use and that’s why staff is recommending that it be denied, why 
the DAB is recommending that it be denied and I would ask you to do the same. 

SUSANNE GRAHAM, 1401 N. CASTLE ROCK ROAD My spiritual home is at St. Stephens 
Episcopal Church at 7404 Killarney.  I have been a member of this church for a very long time, 
since 1963.  I grew up in this neighborhood.  My husband and I were married in the church, my 
children were baptized there and my father still lives across the street from the church.  St. Stephens 
is my church home and I consider myself a neighbor.  Like many entities St. Stephens has a 
mission and that mission is our north star; we believe that we are called by God to be a Christ 
center, a caring community living out the gospel of God for all people.  Like other families in this 
neighborhood our church family wants to do what is best for our community.  We have been 
involved in numerous outreach programs in the area and many of our members serve in leadership 
positions in various charitable organizations.  One of our most important outreach is our 
collaboration with Price Harris communications magnet, our neighbor to the west.  We’ve had a 
long term relationship with this elementary school, even using the building as a meeting place for 
several years.  In the last few years our church has made an ongoing commitment to provide 
financial and volunteer support to the teachers, students and families, strengthening the existing 
services for this quality elementary school.  The reason we are here today is to request the 
opportunity to collaborate with Discovery Place and continue the work of our mission, providing 
additional outreach and reinforcing our commitment to children and their rights.  It is my belief that 
the positive elements of this project far outweigh manageable issues associated with increased 
traffic.  Positive elements such as the fact that it’s a perfect union of two entities with similar 
missions working together for the benefit of children, the fact that it’s a convenient location for 
existing and future Discovery Place families and the fact that this is a potential opportunity to link a 
quality early childhood program with a highly valued, newly renovated neighborhood elementary 
school.  The question has been posed; what’s in it for us and our neighborhood?  I maintain that we 
are their neighbors and have demonstrated our commitment to the neighborhood in many ways.  
We want to keep our building and grounds in good shape and that many of neighbors took 
advantage of the public access to our grounds.  I would even go so far to say we are major stake 
holders willing to invest in our property to bring added value to the area.  I ask that you consider 
the suggestions that been brought to you today regarding traffic, look beyond the short term 
stumbling blocks, and think about the future.  Isn’t our neighborhood better served by a thriving 
vibrant and stable community focused church and wouldn’t you agree that our children deserve the 
opportunity for an excellent early childhood educational experience?     

RAFFAELE FAZIO, 702 N. DOREEN I want to speak to the solution proposed by the Discovery 
Place to handle the traffic issue.  I was part of the small group of neighbors that was invited to meet 
after the deferral of the MAPC meeting.  I appreciated their willingness to try and deal with the 
traffic issue, but when I asked them how they were going to regulate compliance with this, they said 
they couldn’t.  When asked what the consequences were if there is no compliance, they stated that 
there were no consequences.  What we have here are people making a promise that cannot be kept.  
The obligation is with the parents using Discovery that don’t live in this neighborhood.  Out of that 
one square block area around the church you have five people who are associated with Discovery 
Place and everybody else is coming in from outside the neighborhood and they don’t have to bare 
the burden of the traffic generated by Discovery.  I would also like to talk about what a vote in 
favor of the Discovery Place permit would mean; it would be against the will of an overwhelming 
majority of the neighbors who are directly impacted by the traffic.  We have petitions to prove that, 
you have copies of that.  It would also mean a vote against the will of the people who were on the 
map that was highlighted within 350 feet of the site.  I am going to assume that some were 
mistakenly put on the map, thus the protest number drops to 80%.  That’s 40 out of 51 neighbors 
against it; 80% of the neighbors within 350 feet of the site are against this.  It will be a vote against 
their will.  It will also be a vote against the eight DAB members, who recommended against this, 
with one abstaining.  If you vote for this, it would be for the benefit of a few who don’t live in the 
neighborhood and against the will of all of these people who have to bare the burden of the 
increase in traffic. 

MARILYN GRIGGS, 7213 CRESTHILL COURT 67206 I’ve lived in the neighborhood for 30 
years.  I appreciate respect and honor, St. Stephens and Celebration Baptist, both were there before 
Discovery.  I am a former educator and a volunteer preschool teacher in my own church so I am 
very aware of the need for quality education for our preschoolers.  The issue I cannot get by is the 
lack of access to this area, which is bound by 13th, Central, Woodlawn and Rock Road.  My 
biggest concern is Rock Road.  Anyone who wants to go north when they leave St. Stephens 
property has to go on to Killarney.  I don’t know how often you travel Rock Road, but it is a mess 
and one of the most accident prone intersections, is Central & Rock Road; it’s a dangerous 
situation.  In the beginning, I think that Discovery Place could probably control the traffic.  I’ve 
seen public schools attempt to do that before.  But I promise you in a few years the parents that are 
there that weren’t there before are going to be saying “what were they thinking putting us in here 
where we have to take our lives in danger trying to get on Rock Road.”  The only other way is to 
come around Killarney across Cresthill and up Armour and when you get up to 13th and Armour 
you have another traffic jam at certain times of the day because of St. Thomas.  I apologize and am 
appalled as I am sure all of my neighbors are at the idea that someone would make threats against 
the church.  My opposition is about the safety of not only our neighborhood children, but the 
children going to St. Thomas, Price Harris and the Discovery children.  I urge you to vote no, 
strictly because of the traffic issue problem.   

ROGER LOWE, 7842 KILLARNEY PLACE Our house is located three houses west of Rock 
Road.  My wife and I have lived there 36 years.  If you have a question about the concerns that 
people talked today about traffic, turning on and off of Rock Road, I would invite you to live with 
us for a couple weeks and ride with me in the car to experience that, because it is a problem today 
with the traffic that is there now.  No one has mentioned today about the additional vehicles that 
will come in from commercial enterprise to support products and services to this additional 
commercial enterprise, which would be added to the traffic discussed earlier. I would suggest that 
you take into consideration the fact that the staff recommended that it be denied, as did the DAB. 

MITCHELL Are there any other speakers?  Seeing none the applicant has rebuttal.

APPLICANT LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE A statement from Mr. Longnecker at 
one of our previous meetings referred to a reasonable right of St. Stephens to develop their 
property.  Due to poor planning two decades ago an east collector street was never built.  
Gentlemen, while your not responsible for the actions of your predecessors you must wear their 
scars; you must address every opportunity we put before you to correct these injustices.  In fact, on 
page 233 of UZC, there is a section called nonconformities created by public action.  They address 
specifically sizes of sites and setbacks but I feel the policy is the same in regards to the street.  We 
are not unreasonable people and we’ll listen to any alternatives, but you must find in favor of our 
proposal and task us with the four conditional items in Mr. Longnecker’s report to give us the 
opportunity to be good stewards of your approval .

MILLER-STEVENS You have spoken, and the others have also, about current conditions.  Can 
you give me information about your projective growth for Discovery Place and the possible impact 
growth would have?

LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE We currently have 129 licensed capacity. We have 
applied for a 150 capacity child care center; there will be no growth beyond 150 children.

SHERMAN You mention four other locations, where were those locations? 

LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE In general terms, we had one location that was north 
of the northeast bypass off of Woodlawn, and we had two independent sites.  When I say 
independent, I mean they were non-built sites that were out near Greenwich.  

SHERMAN None of those locations, when compared to this location, measured up? 

LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE For various reasons the vacant sites that were east of 
our location, turned out to be too expensive.  Again, we are a nonprofit so we have to raise all our 
funds.  The one location that was north of the bypass on Woodlawn was a structure that was under 
construction and we were hoping to get in as a lease tenant and renovate that building.  

SHERMAN Was that financial too?

A LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE The building was adequate, but the outdoor site 
area was inadequate. 

SHERMAN What is the square feet of your proposed building?

LESTER LIMON, PKHL ACHITECTURE 20,000 square feet. 

MARNELL Is the City Traffic Engineer available? 

PAUL GUNEZELMAN, TRAFFIC ENGINEER Introduced himself.  

MARNELL Have you met with the applicant and looked at the data provided having to do with 
traffic counts on this project? 

GUNZELMAN I have met with them, it’s been a few weeks ago.  I have seen that data.  

MARNELL Would you mind commenting on it?  I’m referring to page 3 of 6 data.

GUNZELMAN They went over their existing traffic, arrival and departure times, during the 
morning and afternoon, and those numbers look like the ones I saw.  When Mr. Longnecker 
brought this case to my attention, I put some counters out in this area to count the traffic.  I do have 
those numbers; there are a little over 830 vehicles on Killarney during the day.  The proposed day 
care will definitely impact those numbers that currently exist. 

MARNELL How do these numbers look in terms of capacity on those streets added to the existing 
counts?

GUNZELMAN Adding to existing traffic, the streets could probably handle it, but the volume 
would be on the high end. 

MARNELL It would seem to me, the problem for congestion would appear to be turning left on 
Rock Road or attempting to run east on Central where you would be making left hand turns.  Is that 
your assessment of what would be congestion out of this level of traffic?  For creating congestion 
would it be the left hand turns as in Rock Road out of Killarney? 

GUNZELMAN East bound on Killarney to go north?  Probably, and you heard some of that, the 
gaps on Rock Road they probably do stack up to make the left.  

MARNELL Considering the traffic getting out and taking right hand turns, with generally no more 
vehicles then this, it wouldn’t be deemed to congest the area.  I know left turns can be problematic 
on Rock Road.  I live in the area where Beech lets out.  If you want to go against the traffic it’s 
very difficult to turn left.  I’ve managed to live with it for many years, by going right or going in a 
different direction.  But the street capacity itself is not in question as far as you can see.

GUNZELMAN Not with the counts I had.  This count was just west of Rock Road on Killarney; 
the highest volume in the hour, taken on April 18, was 87 vehicles, and that was in the afternoon, 
4:00 P. M. to 5:00 P. M.   

JOHNSON Has there been ever been any consideration or do you know of any in regards to 
crossing the drainage there on 9th? 

GUNZELMAN We had gone out with some Planning staff members and looked at that.  I’m not a 
drainage engineer, but there are a couple of different drainage areas that are crossing where 9th 
would be connecting into Lawrence Lane.  We have a structure coming out of the existing pond and 
then we have a drainage canal on the west side as well, and they all meet right there where a 
connection would be made.   

JOHNSON Anywhere up and down there, would there be a way to get cost for a crossing?  

GUNZELMAN Not being a drainage guy I don’t feel comfortable answering that.

HILLMAN Do we have access to a drainage person?

MITCHELL No. 

HILLMAN I can see potentially walkways here for pick up and delivery on the west side, bridges 
for kids either tied to the north side of Killarney or from the school yard.  My question is if that is 
possible? 

MITCHELL My memory is there is a foot bridge along the alignment on 9th Street for the school, 
but I don’t believe it would serve this use.
 
MOTION:  To approve the applicant’s application for the Conditional Use.  

MARNELL moved, MCKAY seconded the motion. 

MARNELL I think they do have right to develop this site and that the increase in traffic is not 
unreasonable and people will adjust to it.
					
JOHNSON Asked if the motion included the items on page 9, conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5.

MARNELL Yes it would

SUBSTITUE MOTION: To deny.   

VAN FLEET moved, SHERMAN seconded the motion. 

			
VAN FLEET We have heard discussion today on two different proposals, one being a business 
marriage between the church and a successful child care.  The other proposal, as I see it and it 
being the reason why we are here; is what the appropriate use for the property is.  It seems to me 
that overwhelming testimony has been presented to us, stating that this is not the right place no 
matter how good the marriage business proposal may be.  I support staff position, which is well 
reasoned, that the Conditional Use be denied.

SHERMAN This is stressing me out, with the church and the community at odds like this, it’s really 
unfortunate.  I am very pro business, I believe everybody has a right to put a business where they 
need to, but business rule one is location, location, location and I just do not believe this is the right 
location for the proposed use.

DENNIS I agree.  I am very torn on this issue.  I’ve listened very carefully to all the comments.  I 
believe strongly in early education for our children, which can benefit them a great deal, but again 
the location to me is not appropriate for the use that is being proposed.  I think I will vote against it. 

HENTZEN I am going to vote against the substitute motion.  I happen to believe very strongly in 
neighborhood schools and neighborhood care of young people, and we’ve adjusted to traffic all 
over the city to allow that to happen at the private schools, 501c organizations.  In fact, we are 
infected with what I call self appointed activist, who try to stop things in their own neighborhood.  I 
think the idea saying that we are going from a church to a commercial operation, is not correct, 
because what they requesting is not a commercial operation.  I’ve never heard that when we tried to 
place a high school, either public or private, that we were going to put in a commercial operation.  
We’ve adjusted to that time and time again whenever we started a private school or parish.  
Tape 2 side A

MOTION: To deny. 	   

VAN FLEET moved, SHERMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (7-6).
			
JOHN SCHLEGEL, PLANNING DIRECTOR All those who were here on this item, this is a 
Conditional Use, and it’s final action by the Planning Commission unless appealed by someone to 
the City Council. 

			---------------------------------------------------
5.	Case No.: ZON2008-21 and CUP2008-15  - Todd Parker (owner); Poe and Associates, 
Incl., c/o Tim Austin (agent), Christian Ablah (agent) Request Creation of DP-313 Parker 
Addition Community Unit Plan and City zone change from "SF-5" Single-family Residential 
to "LC" Limited Commercial on property described as: 

The Southeast Quarter EXCEPT the North 1643 feet and EXCEPT West 1645 feet and 
EXCEPT part beginning 75 feet West of the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter; 
thence North 175 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 178.75 feet; thence Northeasterly 
25.28 feet; thence East 175 feet to beg & EXCEPT East 50 feet & South 50 feet for Roads 
& EXCEPT 4.67 acres for Highway, Section 15, Township 27, Range 2 East of the 6th 
P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas.

AND

That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter lying north and West of K-96 
Highway, EXCEPT Roads, Section 23, Township 27, Range 2 East of the 6th P.M. 
Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Generally located on the northwest corner and southeast corner 
of Central Avenue and 127th Street East.

BACKGROUND:  The applicant proposes to create a commercial community unit plan (“CUP”) 
containing 29.5 acres with nine parcels located on the northwest and southeast corners of the 
intersection of Central Avenue and 127th Street East and running parallel to K-96.  Ten acres (10.1) 
of the CUP is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and the applicant has requested to rezone the 
balance of the CUP (19.4 acres) from SF-5 Single-family Residential to LC.  Parcels 1-7 would 
comprise the property to the northwest of the intersection, except for the 0.8 acre corner tract that is 
under separate ownership and already developed as a convenience store with gas islands and a 
single-bay car wash.  Parcels 8 and 9 would comprise the property bordered by Central Avenue, K-
96, the south I-135 ramp and 127th Street East.

All parcels except Parcel 2 would allow uses permitted by right in the LC district.  Parcel 2, located 
on the western edge of the CUP along Central adjacent to Crestlake Addition, would be restricted to 
NR Neighborhood Retail (“NR”) uses.  Uses prohibited on the entire CUP are:  cemetery, 
correctional placement residences, taverns, nightclubs, drinking establishments or adult 
entertainment establishments (sexually oriented businesses).  Additional prohibitions are on auto-
oriented uses (service stations, convenience stores with gas islands, restaurants with drive-in or 
drive through facilities and vehicle repair) within 200 feet of residential zoning, overhead doors 
facing residential districts, and screening of these types of trash, mechanical equipment, loading 
docks and service areas.

The CUP provides architectural standards, consistent design of lighting elements and height 
limitation of 20 feet, landscape palette consistency and more stringent planting ratios, avoidance of 
neon and florescent lighting on buildings.  A standard masonry wall is required on the north and 
west property lines of Parcels 1, 2 and 7.  Additional signage and lighting provisions are suggested 
to protect the adjacent residential development under construction from the commercial uses. 

Perimeter setbacks are 35 feet.  However, the CUP proposes reducing the front setback to 20 feet if 
the area between the right-of-way line and the street wall line (defined as a line extending from the 
front building façade) is limited to landscaped area only.  Only one drive aisle (defined as a two 
way drive aisle with parking spaces on one or two edges, which is a paved area of approximately 
60 feet for two lines of parking and 42 feet for one line of parking spaces).

Pedestrian connectivity and internal site circulation and cross circulation are required.  Maximum 
building coverage would be 30 percent; maximum gross floor area would be 35 percent of total 
land area, and maximum building height would be 35 feet.  The requested number of buildings is 
large, being ten for Parcel 9, eight for Parcels 1 and 8, five for Parcels 5, 6 and 7, and three for 
Parcels 2, 3 and 4.

The CUP proposes a sign plan consisting of a more limited number of sign locations, and specifies 
the maximum sizes permitted.  Continuous movement signs are prohibited, temporary 
banners/pennants are allowed per specific guidelines.  Building wall signage is limited to use of 
individual letters, with three feet height of letters for Parcel 1 and two feet for other parcels, and 
otherwise would seem to be per Wichita Sign Code.

The property is vacant.  The tract excluded from the CUP on the northwest corner of Central 
Avenue and 127th Street East has a convenience store with gas islands and a single-bay car wash on 
property zoned LC.  The property on the southwest corner of Central and 127th is zoned LC and 
has a strip commercial building with retail/personal service types of uses and a bank, but over half 
of this CUP (DP-247) is undeveloped.  A warehouse, self-service storage facility and a vacant tract 
is located on the next property to the west of DP-247.  The land to the north and west of Parcels 1, 
2 and 7 is zoned SF-5 and is being developed in single-family residences in Crestlake Subdivision 
and Preston Trails.  The property to the west of Parcel 8 along 127th Street East is held in large 
residential lots.  The property to the south of Parcel 9 is vacant land with OW Office Warehouse 
(“OW”) zoning and is part of DP-248.  The KTA southbound ramp forms the southern boundary of 
Parcel 9.  K-96 borders the property on the east.  The land east of K-96 is zoned SF-5 and consists 
of single-family development in Bridgefield Subdivision and Crestview, an assisted living facility 
and a church.

CASE HISTORY: The property is not platted.  DP-255 KTP Center Addition Community Unit Plan 
(CUP2001-00005) and an associated zone change to LC and GO General Office (“GO”) 
(ZON2001-00009), was approved in 2001 for a larger tract of 51 acres, but which included the 
northwest 12 acres in Parcels 1-7 of this request.  This case was denied and closed for failure to 
plat.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	SF-5, 		Single-family residential, assisted living, church
EAST:		SF-5		Single-family residential
SOUTH:	LC, OW	Commercial strip center (retail/personal services, bank, warehouse, 
self-service storage, vacant
WEST:		SF-5		Single-family residential

PUBLIC SERVICES:  Central Avenue is classified as a minor arterial street and constructed as a 
four-lane arterial with a center turn lane from Garnett Street, which is located one block west 127th 
Street East, and continuing past the bridge over K-96.  Traffic counts on 127th in 2007 were 11,000 
vehicles per day (ADTs).  127th Street East is classified as a minor arterial street.  North of Central, 
it is constructed as a four-lane arterial with a center turn lane, and had traffic counts of 4,875 ADTs 
in 2007.  South of Central, it is constructed as a two-lane arterial with a center turn lane, and had 
traffic counts of 3,738 in 2007.  The KTA ramp is a divided four lane entrance/exit to the Turnpike 
and K-96.  K-96 is classified and constructed as a four-lane limited access freeway.

The state has complete access control along the KTA ramp bordering the south boundary of Parcel 
9.  It is recommended that the drive alignment between Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 be shifted to align 
with Garnett Street, that drive openings shall be aligned with existing drives on 127th Retail Addition 
and that the remaining frontage shall be platted per Access Management Policy.

Other normal public services are available.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide, Map 
as amended May 2005” of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this area as appropriate for “local commercial.”  This CUP would be in conformance with 
this guideline.

In terms of conformance with commercial goals/objectives/strategies and locational guidelines, it 
partially conforms to Commercial Goal/Objective B of “Develop future retail/commercial areas 
which complement existing commercial activities, provide convenient access to the public and 
minimize detrimental impacts to other adjacent land uses.” It conforms to Strategy III.B1 of 
locating local commercial development (neighborhood centers) in areas shown on the Land Use 
Guide at the intersection of two arterial streets and it is within the area shown for urban expansion.  
The CUP incorporates provisions conforming to Strategy III.B.2 of integrating out parcels to 
planned centers through shared internal circulation, similar landscaping and building materials, and 
combined ingress/egress.  Strategy III.B.3 seeks to reduce access points along arterial streets; 
which would be accomplished through alignment of the drive with Garnett Street and following 
access management for the other access points.  Commercial Locational Guideline #1 of the 
Comprehensive Plan recommends that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterial 
streets.  The proposed development complies with this guideline.  Commercial Locational 
Guideline #3 recommends site design features that limit noise, lighting and other aspects that may 
adversely affect residential use, and #4 recommends compact clusters versus extended strip 
development. The proposed CUP incorporates provisions related to architectural, landscape, 
signage, lighting, screening and other features to comply with this guideline.

RECOMMENDATION:  Based on these factors, plus the information available prior to the public 
hearing, staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to platting within one year and 
subject to the following conditions:

A.	APPROVE the zone change (ZON2008-00021) to LC for the property zoned SF-5 subject to 
platting within one year.

B.	APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-313), subject to the following conditions:
1.	Revise General Provision #4 to state:  “Signage will be permitted as allowed by the Sign 
Code, City Code Title 24.04, with the following additional conditions/ limitations.”
2.	Revise General Provision #4A to prohibit off-site signs and billboards.
3.	Clarify that General Provision #4C to state: “Each parcel shall be permitted monument style 
ground signage as indicated in the Sign Schedule.  Please refer to ‘Legend: Proposed 
Monument Sign’ schedule on this document.”
4.	Limit the height of monument sign on Parcel 2 to 15 feet.
5.	Add to General Provision #4F:  “Prohibit building wall signs facing residential on Parcels 1-
7.”
6.	Revise General Provision #13 to limit height of lighting to 15 feet within 100 feet of 
residential zoning.
7.	Revise General Provision #23 to require construction of the masonry wall when any 
portion(s) of Parcels 1, 2 and/or 7 are developed.
8.	Provide guarantees for left turn center lanes and right turn decel lanes to all full movement 
approaches at time of platting.
9.	It is recommended that the drive alignment between Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 be shifted to align 
with Garnett Street, that drive openings shall be aligned with existing drives on 127th Retail 
Addition and that the remaining frontage shall be platted per Access Management Policy.
10.	Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission 
and to the Governing Body for their consideration.
11.	The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit 
Plan does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall 
run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, 
their successors and assigns, unless amended.
12.	The ordinance/resolution establishing the zone change shall not be published until the 
platting has been recorded with the Register of Deeds.
13.	Prior to publishing the ordinance/resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) 
shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as 
DP-313) includes special conditions for development on this property.
14.	The applicant shall submit four revised copies of the CUP to the Metropolitan Area 
Planning Department within 60 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or 
the request shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The property is vacant.  The tract 
excluded from the CUP on the northwest corner of Central Avenue and 127th Street East 
has a convenience store with gas islands and a single-bay car wash on property zoned LC.  
The property on the southwest corner of Central and 127th is zoned LC and has a strip 
commercial building with retail/personal service types of uses and a bank, but over half of 
this CUP (DP-247) is undeveloped.  A warehouse, self-service storage facility and a vacant 
tract is located on the next property to the west of DP-247.  The land to the north and west 
of Parcels 1, 2 and 7 is zoned SF-5 and is being developed in single-family residences in 
Crestlake Subdivision and Preston Trails.  The property to the west of Parcel 8 along 127th 
Street East is held in large residential lots.  The property to the south of Parcel 9 is vacant 
land with OW Office Warehouse (“OW”) zoning and is part of DP-248.  The KTA 
southbound ramp forms the southern boundary of Parcel 9.  K-96 borders the property on 
the east.  The land east of K-96 is zoned SF-5 and consists of a single-family development 
in Bridgefield Subdivision and Crestview Subdivision, an assisted living facility and a 
church.


2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
current zoning, SF-5 and LC, is suited for development although the presence of 
commercial use to the south of Parcels 1-4 may deter the viability of residential uses.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  The 
CUP provisions should diminish the detrimental effects of the development on nearby 
residential property.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and Policies:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide, Map as amended May 2005” 
of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this 
area as appropriate for “local commercial.” This CUP would be in conformance with this 
guideline.  In terms of conformance with commercial goals/objectives/strategies and 
locational guidelines, it partially conforms to Commercial Goal/Objective B of “Develop 
future retail/commercial areas which complement existing commercial activities, provide 
convenient access to the public and minimize detrimental impacts to other adjacent land 
uses.” It conforms to Strategy III.B1 of locating local commercial development 
(neighborhood centers) in areas shown on the Land Use Guide at the intersection of two 
arterial streets and it is within the area shown for urban expansion.  The CUP incorporates 
provisions conforming to Strategy III.B.2 of integrating out parcels to planned centers 
through shared internal circulation, similar landscaping and building materials, and 
combined ingress/egress.  Strategy III.B.3 seeks to reduce access points along arterial 
streets; which would be accomplished through alignment of the drive with Garnett Street 
and following access management for the other access points.  Commercial Locational 
Guideline #1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that commercial sites should be 
located adjacent to arterial streets.  The proposed development complies with this guideline.  
Commercial Locational Guideline #3 recommends site design features that limit noise, 
lighting and other aspects that may adversely affect residential use, and #4 recommends 
compact clusters versus extended strip development. The proposed CUP incorporates 
provisions related to architectural, landscape, signage, lighting, screening and other features 
to comply with this guideline

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The development will add 
traffic to the arterial streets, but the improvements on Central are adequate.  If significant 
activity occurs on 127th, the street may need expansion.  Other municipal services are 
available.

DONNA GOLTRY Planning staff presented staff report.  DAB II voted to approve this request, 
but heard concerns from a community member who lived across the street to the east concerning 
lighting, building signage and similar impacts.  I’ve spoken to the agent about the DAB 
recommendation.  Apparently, although the DAB recommended in favor, they asked that we look 
at ways to mitigate the impact.  The suggestion I have been given by the agent was that they would 
offer to plant trees for a landscaping type buffer at a rate of one tree per 50 feet along that K-96 
buffer.  I would point out you that, from the standpoint that landscaping, normally the buffer will 
accrue naturally along a freeway, but it actually wouldn’t here because the site is not at grade with 
K-96. 

MILLER-STEVENS Asked Donna if she could point out where the nearby residential is located.  

GOLTRY Preston Trails and Crest Lake Addition, which is under development, is nearest the 
property where they have asked for LC zoning. 

TIM AUSTIN, POE & ASSOCIATES, Agent for the applicant stated the applicant was in 
agreement with staff comments. 

KEVIN JONES, 13109 E. BRIDEFIELD PLACE As mentioned earlier, I spoke to the other day 
to DAB II.  And, I have spoken to a number of neighbors.  Our property backs up to K-96 and K-
96 is depressed there.  We have a great view of this property, particularly Parcels 8 and 9. In theory 
we really don’t have a problem with this application.  Our only concern is Item #28 on the CUP, 
where it talks about the 200- foot setback from residential areas for limiting those types of 
businesses.  We’re a little more than 200 feet; we’re about three times that.  The agent has been 
very responsive about adding screening.  Some of us have screening in our back yard, it’s great in 
the summer but the screening goes away in the winter time.  We also have 6-foot walls.  Most of 
our houses are built on an elevation and extend in height above that wall.  So we have a great view 
of that property.  Our biggest concern will be convenient store, gas station type of business on those 
two plats.  We’d like to see that part of CUP changed, other than that we have no objections.   

MITCHELL Asked AUSTIN if he would answer the question about screening.

AUSTIN I didn’t think there was a question with screening.  There’s no landscape requirement 
along with K-96.  After the meeting the other night and consultation with Donna we added a 
landscape buffer requirement where none was required before, I feel like we’ve already answered 
that question. 

MITCHELL You think you have satisfied his concern. 

AUSTIN Yes.
MOTION:  To approve. 

MARNELL moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).		

FOSTER Would the motion include the additional buffering recommended by staff? 

MARNELL Asked GOLTRY if that was separate from the staff report.  

GOLTRY Stated  would need to be added.

MARNELL Yes it would be added.

 			---------------------------------------------------
6.	Case No.: ZON2008-24 and CON2008-23 – Munizr Razzaq & Murad Abdel -Razzaq 
Request County zone change from RR Rural Residential to LC Limited Commercial and 
County Conditional Use permit to allow Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Outdoors on 
property described as: 					 

West 183 feet of the East 823 feet of the South 350 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the 
Southeast Quarter, EXCEPT Road on South, Section 4, Township 29, Range 1 East, 
Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Generally located on the north side of 79th Street South, 1/8 
mile west of Hydraulic Avenue (1506 E. 79th Street South).

BACKGROUND:  The applicants proposes to sell used automobiles and light trucks on the 1.34-
acre unplatted, RR Rural Residential (“RR”) zoned tract.  LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) zoning is 
the first zoning district that allows the sale of vehicles outdoors with a Conditional Use permit, thus 
the applicants’ request for the LC zoning and the Conditional Use.  The applicants also propose to 
repair vehicles and then sell them.  The LC zoning district permits “vehicle repair, limited.”  Vehicle 
repair, limited (Unified Zoning Code {UZC}, Art.II, Sec.II-B, 14h) allows repair and maintenance 
services on vehicles within a completely enclosed building, but does not include “paint and body 
shops” (UZC, Art II, Sec.II-B, 14i).  Body and paint shops are first allowed in the GC General 
Commercial (“GC”) zoning district.  A “vehicle storage yard” (UZC, Art.II, Sec.II-B, 14j) is first 
permitted in GC zoning district, while a “wreaking and salvage yard“(UZC, Art.II, Sec.II-B, 14r) is 
first permitted in the CBD, Central Business District (“CBD”) zoning district.  The site is located in 
the county, less than a mile southeast from the City of Haysville.  The site is in Haysville’s area of 
zoning influence, which means the Haysville Planning Commission must consider the request prior 
to the MAPC’s consideration.         

Because the applicant has stated that he does not plan to expand his operations beyond its present 
area, the GIS aerial will serve as a site plan.  The 2006 GIS aerial of the site shows two large 
buildings, with one of them (the south most building) listed as a 2,760-square foot single-family 
residence built in 1960.  The other large building, located north of the residence, appears to be 
accessory outbuilding.  Neither of these buildings looks residential, having a curved “hanger” 
shape.  There is a smaller outbuilding, located to the west of the residence and slightly in front of it.  
The aerial shows maybe 39 vehicles scattered in the back yard, which is enclosed by a solid wood 
fence.  The site does not appear to have any paved parking areas or landscaping. 

The site and its abutting eastern and western neighbors, (all located west of Hydraulic Avenue, on 
both sides of 79th Street South) are zoned RR while the rest of their neighbors, on all sides of them, 
are mostly zoned SF-20 Single-family Residential.  All abutting and most of the adjacent properties 
are developed as single-family residences, with the older residences (most built in the 1950s) 
usually built on regular shaped, unplatted tracts around an acre in size.  The newer residences in the 
same area are built (1992-2002) on platted lots, around an acre in size.  There are approximately 65 
property owners and/or single-family residences within 1,000 feet of the subject site.  This western 
portion of the area has very little vacant land and one of those vacant properties has the only 
nonresidential zoning in the area.  This mostly vacant, platted (Hancock 5th Addition, 12-17-1981) 
LC zoned property (SCZ0736) is located on the northwest corner of 79th and Hydraulic, 
approximately 150 to 400 feet east of the subject site.  There is an accessory structure on the LC 
zoned property, which is owned by the RR zoned single-family residence located between the 
subject site and the LC zoned property.  The rest of the area east of the site, across Hydraulic, is 
zoned RR and is used for agriculture.  In the past this area around 79th and Hydraulic was 
developed as fruit orchards, such as Blood or Hancock Orchards, which may explain the design of 
the site’s two large buildings.     
       
CASE HISTORY:  The County Office of Code Enforcement has citied this property for operating 
an illegal salvage yard in 1997 and 2000, the current owners were not the property owners at those 
times.   The current property owners have had tickets written for operation of a wreaking/salvage 
yard and commercial parking in RR zoning.  The current property owners are currently in the 
County courts for the above citied illegal activities.  Code Enforcement directed the applicant to 
come into compliance, either by rezoning or conforming to the uses allowed in the RR zoning 
district.   

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	SF-20 		single family residences     
SOUTH:	SF-20		single family residences     
EAST:		RR, LC  	single-family residence, vacant land, agricultural land                 
WEST:		RR, SF-20  	single-family residences                           

PUBLIC SERVICES:   79th Street South and Hydraulic Avenue are paved two lane County 
highways and are classified as minor arterials.  The 2030 Transportation Plan shows no change in 
the status of these roads.  There are no traffic counts at the 79th – Hydraulic intersection.  There is 
no public water or sewer available to the site or the area.  All other utilities are available to the site.    

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide” of 
the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being in the City of Haysville’s “urban growth area.”  
A small city’s urban growth area is defined as being generally located adjacent to the city’s 
boundaries and indicates the reasonable direction and magnitude of growth these communities can 
expect to experience out to the year 2030.  The City of Haysville’s land use map shows this 
property as being suitable for residential development. The proposed LC zoning, to allow vehicle 
repair, limited, and the Conditional Use for car sales does not comply with the Haysville plan.  
Commercial Objective III.B encourages future commercial areas to “minimize detrimental impacts 
to other adjacent land uses.”  Commercial Locational Guideline #3 of the Comprehensive Plan 
recommends that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site 
design features that limit noise, lighting and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding 
residential areas.  The site, its proposed zoning and proposed Conditional Use mostly fail to meet 
these criteria.    

RECOMMENDATION:  Staff usually does not support the introduction of car sales into an area 
where none exist.  The exceptions to introducing car sales into an area where none exist, has been 
on LC zoned sites where an existing garage (vacant or active) has been supported for a Conditional 
Use for car sales.  The results of these approvals are at best mixed, as they can add more 
mechanical clutter on sites that may have been marginal in regards to their economic vitality and 
their positive contribution to a neighborhood and its appearance.  This site is requesting LC zoning 
in an attempt to continue to operate what appears to be, at best, a nonconforming vehicle repair 
limited business and at worst an auto salvage yard, which is why it is currently in County court.  LC 
zoning does not permit a wreaking/salvage yard.  The requested Conditional Use to sell cars and 
light trucks, which the applicants propose to repair and then sell, could encourage continuation of a 
nonconforming use under the approval of the requested LC zoning for vehicle repair limited, plus 
introduce car sales, which is  not established in the area, on a site that is best suited for residential 
use.  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that 
the request for the LC zoning for vehicle repair, limited and a Conditional Use to allow car sales be 
DENIED.

The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings:

    1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The character of the neighborhood is 
predominately RR and SF-20 zoned single-family residential development, mostly located 
west of Hydraulic Avenue, on both sides of 79th Street South.  The older residences (most 
built in the 1950s) have usually been built on regular shaped, unplatted tracts around an 
acre in size.  The newer residences in the area are built (1992-2002) on platted lots, around 
an acre in size.  There are approximately 65 property owners and/or single-family 
residences within 1,000 feet of the subject site, which makes this a densely populated area 
of Sedgwick County. This portion of the area has very little vacant land and one of those 
vacant properties has the only nonresidential zoning in the area. The mostly vacant, platted 
(Hancock 5th Addition, 12-17-1981) LC property is located on the northwest corner of 
Hydraulic and 79th, approximately 150 to 400 feet east of the subject site.  The rest of the 
area east of the site, across Hydraulic, is zoned RR and is used mostly for agriculture.     

    2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
property is zoned RR, but because of its size (1.34-acres) it is probably more suitable for 
single-family residential.  The property is currently out of compliance with the uses 
permitted in the RR zoning district and is in County court for operating a wreaking/salvage 
yard and commercial parking.  The proposed LC zoning for vehicle repair, limited and the 
requested Conditional Use for car sales would not permit a wreaking/salvage yard.
   
3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: 
This site is requesting LC zoning in an attempt to continue to operate what appears to be, at 
best, a nonconforming vehicle repair, limited business and at worst an auto salvage yard, 
which is why it is currently in County court.  LC zoning does not permit a wreaking/salvage 
yard.  The requested Conditional Use to sell cars and light trucks, which the applicants 
propose to repair then sell, could expand a nonconforming use on a site that is best suited 
for residential use.  Continuation of the current activity, let alone introduction of a new auto 
related uses on the site is out of character with the area and does nothing to enhance the 
value of the area’s many single-family residences.  The proposed zoning would also 
sandwich an existing single-family residence between the applicants’ proposed uses and 
their requested LC zoning and the existing LC zoning on the northwest corner of 79th Street 
South and Hydraulic Avenue. 

4.	Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies:  The “2030 
Wichita Functional Land Use Guide” of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as 
being in the City of Haysville’s “urban growth area.”  A small city’s urban growth area is 
defined as being generally located adjacent to the city’s boundaries and indicates the 
reasonable direction and magnitude of growth these communities can expect to experience 
out to the year 2030.  The City of Haysville’s land use map shows this property as being 
suitable for residential development.  The proposed LC zoning to allow car repair, limited 
and Conditional Use for car sales does not comply with the Haysville plan. The property is 
currently out of compliance with the uses permitted in the RR zoning district and is in 
County court for operating a wreaking/salvage yard and commercial parking.	

5.	Impact on Community Facilities:  There is no public water or sewer available to the site or 
the area.  All other utilities are available to the site.  Existing road facilities are adequate.  

NOTE:  Per the UZC, the RR and SF-20 zoning districts permit automobile painting, upholstering, 
rebuilding, renovation, reconditioning, body and fender works, and overhaul conducted entirely 
within an enclosed structure with no outdoor storage of vehicles, parts or equipment, as a ‘rural 
home occupation’, if a site conforms to all eight criteria listed in  Art.IV, Sec.IV-E, 6, a-h; see 
attached.  The subject site does not meet a number of these criteria; it is not 20-acres in size, is 
closer than 600 feet to a dwelling unit wherein no rural home occupation is conducted, per the GIS 
aerial the storage area is larger than 10,000-square feet in size and is located closer than 200 feet 
from the any other property line and public street right-of-way and because the site is less than 5-
acres it would not qualify for consideration as a Conditional Use.

However if the MAPC finds the requested zoning and Conditional Use to be appropriate for this 
site, Staff proposes the following Protective Overlay and conditions:

(1)	The LC Limited Commercial zoning will permit by right only vehicle repair, limited, which 
must be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure with no outdoor storage of 
vehicles, parts or equipment.  
(2)	A Conditional Use will be permitted only for the sale of automobiles and light trucks.  All 
standards per Art. III, Sec.III-D, x, 1-6 of the UZC’s supplemental use regulations will 
apply; see attached. 
(3)	All compatibility setbacks will be observed and no parking or display of vehicles will be 
allowed within them.  
(4)	Provide a landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Department, within 6 
months of approval by the MAPC or governing body, or the application will be considered 
null and void.
(5)	Provide a revised site plan, including the car sales area, customer and employee parking, 
parking barriers, concrete or asphalt parking, storage and display areas, easements, setbacks, 
the office, the garage, lighting, trash, solid screening, etc, within 6 months of approval by 
the MAPC or governing body, or the application will be considered null and void.  
(6)	All improvements to the site must be completed within one year of approval by the MAPC 
or governing body, or the application will be considered null and void.
(7)	If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the 
Conditional Use or the provisions of the Protective Overlay, the Zoning Administrator, in 
addition to enforcing the other remedies set forth in Article VIII of the Unified Zoning 
Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare that the Conditional Use 
is null and void.
  
This case was withdrawn by the applicant.

			---------------------------------------------------
7.	Case No.:  ZON2008-25 – Ronald and Leah Garcia (owners/applicants) Request County 
zone change from SF-20 Single-family Residential to LC Limited Commercial on property 
described as: 

The East ¾ of the North 440 feet of the Northeast Quarter excluding the West 660 feet and 
excluding the East 800 feet and excluding the North 50 feet for road, Section 12, Township 
27, Range 2 East of the 6th P.M., Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Generally located the 
south side of 21st Street North, 1/5 mile west of 159th Street East (15621 East 21st Street 
North).

BACKGROUND:  The applicant is seeking LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) zoning on 4.7 acres 
located on the south side of 21st Street North and 1/5 mile west of 159th Street East.  The 
application area consists of one unplatted tract zoned SF-20 Single-family Residential (“SF-20”).  
The site is developed with a single-family residence and some accessory buildings.  The site has 
approximately 445 feet of frontage on 21st Street.  Currently, 21st Street is a two-lane arterial, but is 
scheduled to be improved to five-lanes in the next couple of years.

Most properties located in the larger area surrounding the application are zoned SF-20 and 
developed with agricultural or single-family residential uses; however the land located north of 21st 
Street East has been annexed by the City of Wichita, and is zoned SF-5 Single-family Residential 
(“SF-5”) but has been approved as Parcel 1 of DP-303, Monarch Landing Community Unit Plan.  
Parcel 1 has been approved for LC zoning, subject to platting, but is restricted to those uses 
permitted in the NR Neighborhood Retail (“NR”) district, but not including the special individual 
commercial use size limits found in the NR district (no individual commercial use can exceed 8,000 
square feet; restaurants are limited to a maximum size of 2,000 square feet and drive-through 
service is not allowed), and the GO General Office (“GO”) district.  Overhead-doors, drive-through 
or in car service, service stations, fuel outlets or gas pumps are also prohibited if located within 100 
feet of any single-family residential lot or if these uses are facing any single-family lot.  CUPs also 
have 35-foot interior side setback and masonry wall buffer requirements.

Property to the south is zoned SF-20 and is currently vacant agriculture land.  The property to the 
east is zoned SF-20 and is currently vacant, but the property has been approved for LC zoning 
subject to the provisions of Protective Overlay #206.  Property to the west is zoned SF-20 and is 
developed with a single-family residence and outbuildings, but this property has just recently been 
approved by the MAPC for a zone change to LC subject to provisions of a Protective Overlay, 
which mirror the Monarch Landing restrictions discussed above.

The segment of 21st Street located east of K-96 Highway is a rapidly changing corridor that, in the 
last few years, has seen increasing levels of both residential and commercial activity.  On the Butler 
County side there have been a new Andover school, the Cornerstone Commercial Planned Unit 
Development and a new hospital built in the northeast quarter-section adjoining 21st Street and 
159th Street.  West of 159th Street, in addition to the two commercial tracts discussed earlier, there 
have also been a number of new urban-scale residential subdivisions, churches, private school and 
another new Andover school.  

CASE HISTORY:  This property is currently unplatted.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	“SF-5” Single-family Residential		Residence
		(Approved for NR and GO uses subject to DP-303)
SOUTH:	“SF-20” Single-family Residential		Ag. Land
EAST:		“SF-20” Single-family Residential		Vacant
			(Zone change to LC subject to provisions of Protective Overlay #206)
WEST:	“SF-20” Single-family Residential		Residence
(Zone change to LC with a Protective Overlay approved by the MAPC on 
May 8, 2008)

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The site has direct access to East 21st Street North, a two-lane principal 
arterial street with no traffic volume counts near this location.  The subject property has access to 
water, with a water main running along the north property line.  Public sewer service will have to be 
extended to the subject site.

Improvements to 21st Street, between K-96 and 159th Street East are scheduled to begin around the 
spring of 2008.  21st Street is currently a two-lane asphalt road with drainage ditches.  The proposed 
improvement would consist of a five-lane roadway with two through lanes in each direction.  Left 
turn lanes will be provided at all three intersections with the 21st Street at 127th Street East, 143rd 
Street East and 159th Street East.  Drainage improvements are included in the project as well as 5-
foot sidewalks on both sides of the street the length of the project.  It is estimated that the project 
would take 12 to 15 months to complete.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The application area is located within “Wichita’s 
2030 Urban Growth Area.”  Land located within the 2030 Urban Growth Area has the potential to 
be developed by 2030 depending upon population growth and market trends.  Land Use-
Commercial/Office Goal Statement III states there should be an adequate supply of land to promote 
successful commercial activity in appropriate areas throughout the County.  Objective B of the 
Land/Use-Commercial/Office policies indicate that future retail/commercial area should be 
developed to complement existing commercial activities, provide convenient access to the public 
and minimize detrimental impacts to other adjacent land uses.  Commercial location guidelines 
indicate that commercial sites should be encouraged to locate near arterial streets or major 
thoroughfares in order to avoid traffic congestion; commercial development should have required 
site design feature that limit noise, lighting and other aspects of commercial activity that may 
adversely impact surrounding land uses and commercial uses should be located in compact clusters 
or nodes versus extended strip developments.   

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning 
staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and the 
following Protective Overlay conditions:

1.	Even though the site is zoned LC zoning, permitted uses are those permitted in the NR 
Neighborhood Retail (“NR”) district, but not including the special individual commercial 
use size limits found in the NR district, and the GO General Office (“GO”) district.  
Overhead-doors, service stations, fuel outlets or gas pumps are also prohibited if located 
within 100 feet of any single-family residential lot or if these uses are facing any single-
family lot.

2.	Front, interior side and rear building setbacks shall be 35 feet, where adjacent to residential 
zoning.

3.	Masonry screening walls shall be installed along side or rear property lines where adjacent 
property is zoned TF-3 or more restrictive; otherwise applicable code screening standards 
shall be required.

4.	All buildings within the tract are to share similar architectural character, color and 
predominate exterior building materials, as approved by the Planning Director.  Building 
walls shall not utilize metal as a predominate exterior façade material.

5.	Lighting elements (pole, fixtures, lamps, hoods, etc.) shall be similar in character with a 
maximum height of 25 feet above ground.  If the light pole is to be located within 100 feet 
of a residence pole height is limited to 15 feet above ground.  Extensive use of back lit 
canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings is not permitted and is 
prohibited.

6.	Signage shall be per code except:  no flashing, moving, portable, billboard, off-site, banner 
or pennant signs (except time and temperature) shall be permitted; ground signs shall be  
monument style, sharing similar elements of design; spaced 150 feet apart with a maximum 
height of 20 feet and have a maximum sign face area of 150 square feet.  Window signage 
shall be limited to 25 percent of window area.  Building wall signage shall not be permitted 
on any façade that faces an abutting lot zoned TF-3 or more restrictive.

7.	No occupancy permits shall be issued for any development without public sewer and water 
service.

8.	Access shall be as approved by the appropriate traffic engineer.  Internal and cross lot 
circulation shall be provided at the time of platting to ensure smooth circulation between 
abutting tracts and within the tract.  Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Traffic 
Engineer shall approve all access and circulation improvements

9.	A pedestrian circulation system shall be provided that connects all buildings within the 
development and with each other and sidewalks.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The property to the north, across 21st 
Street is zoned SF-5, developed with some residences, but is approved for NR and GO 
subject to DP-303, the Monarch Landing Community Unit Plan.  Property to the south is 
zoned SF-20 and is currently vacant agriculture land.  The property to the east is zoned SF-
20 and is currently vacant, but the property has been approved for LC zoning subject to the 
provisions of Protective Overlay #206.  Property to the west is zoned SF-20 and is 
developed with a single-family residence and outbuildings, but this property has just 
recently been approved by the MAPC for a zone change to LC subject to provisions of a 
Protective Overlay that mirror the Monarch Landing restrictions.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
subject property is zoned “SF-20” Single-family Residential.  Due to its location next to an 
arterial street, the intersection of section line roads and plus its close proximity to an 
approved commercially zoned CUP, it is unlikely that the subject property will continue to 
be viable as single-family residential property.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  The 
scale and impact of any development within LC zoning should be mitigated by the site 
development requirements related to access management, landscaping, screening, lighting 
and signage.

4.	Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the 
hardship imposed upon the applicant:  Denial would presumably be an economic loss for 
the property owner and/or developer.  Approval would add to the inventory of land 
available for retail or office development.

5.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The application area is located within “Wichita’s 2030 Urban Growth Area.”  
Land located within the 2030 Urban Growth Area has the potential to be developed by 
2030 depending upon population growth and market trends.  Land Use-Commercial/Office 
Goal Statement III states there should be an adequate supply of land to promote successful 
commercial activity in appropriate areas throughout the County.  Objective B of the 
Land/Use-Commercial/Office policies indicate that future retail/commercial area should be 
developed to complement existing commercial activities, provide convenient access to the 
public and minimize detrimental impacts to other adjacent land uses.  Commercial location 
guidelines indicate that commercial sites should be encouraged to locate near arterial streets 
or major thoroughfares in order to avoid traffic congestion; commercial development 
should have required site design feature that limit noise, lighting and other aspects of 
commercial activity that may adversely impact surrounding land uses and commercial uses 
should be located in compact clusters or nodes versus extended strip developments.   

6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Drainage, access and right-
of-way dedication could become issues in the development of this site, due to the size of 
the subject site, all of which will be addressed during the platting of the subject properties. 

DERRICK SLOCUM Number 3 on the Protective Overlay reads masonry screening walls shall be 
installed along the side or rear property lines where adjacent to property zoned TF-3 or more 
restrictive.  The only thing the applicant wants to change is the addition of a landscaped berm as a 
possible option with the masonry wall.  They want to match it up to the property to the east which 
had a zoning case heard and approved in Jan 2008.  

HENTZEN Do you accept that recommendation? 

SLOCUM Yes.

FOSTER On that earlier application to east didn’t it involve picking up the berm literally and 
moving it to the south, would the berming be on the subject property?  

SLOCUM It would have to be on the subject property. 

MOTION:  To grant the request to change from a landscape wall to a berm and 
landscaping.    

HENTZEN moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------
8.	Case No.:  ZON2008-27 and CON2008-24 – Resource Recovery Management, 
LLC/Robert W. Kaplan Request County zone change from SF-20 Single-family Residential 
to RR Rural Residential and County conditional use permit for a construction and 
demolition landfill on property described as;  

The Southeast Quarter, except roads on East and South, Section 21, Township 28 South, 
Range 1 W of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Generally located west of Ridge 
Road and north of 55th Street South.

BACKGROUND:  The applicant is seeking RR Rural Residential (“RR”) zoning and Conditional 
Use (“CU”) approval to permit a “construction and demolition”  (“C&D”) landfill on approximately 
160.8 acres located northwest of the intersection of Ridge Road and West 55th Street South.  The 
160-acre application area is zoned SF-20 Single-family Residential (“SF-20”), is currently used as 
cropland and has approximately one-half mile of road frontage along both Ridge Road and 55th 
Street South.  The SF-20 zoning district does not permit landfills; however the RR district does 
permit landfills with conditional use approval.  Near the center of the site there are two 50-foot 
wide utility easements running east-west through the site.

The applicant’s site plan depicts three major landfill areas or phases, a composting area and a 
drainage detention/retention.  Approximately 94 acres of the site will be used for C&D landfill 
operations, with a storage capacity of 6.4 million cubic yards.  Phase I is proposed to be located in 
the northeastern quadrant of the quarter-section.  The entrance to the site is to be located 
approximately 450 feet south of the northeast corner of the application area, using Ridge Road to 
enter Phase I.  The Ridge Road entrance is to be the project’s only entry point.  Roadways located 
internally to the site will provide interior traffic circulation to the other fill areas.  Also located in 
Phase I, located south of the entrance, is to be a building housing the:  scale, office, training room 
and storage.  Ten parking spaces are shown nearby the multi-use building.  On average, there will 
be six employees operating the facility. 

The Phase I fill area is designed to extend to the west, creating a Phase II fill area that would 
occupy most of the northwestern quadrant of the site.  The toe of the fill area for Phases I and II is 
to be setback from Ridge Road 175 feet; 150 feet from the north and west property lines and 50 
feet from the south, adjacent to a fifty-foot wide Kansas Gas and Electric Company easement.

Approximately the southern 1,060 feet of the site is proposed to contain the Phase III fill area.  
Again, the toe of the fill area would be setback 175 feet from Ridge Road; 150 feet from 55th Street 
South and from the western property line.  The northern toe of the Phase III fill area would be 
setback 50 feet from a Kansas Gas Supply pipeline easement.

In the center portion of the site, located between the two utility easements, the applicant proposes to 
locate a detention/retention pond and an area for composting.  On the east-center portion of the site, 
the applicant indicates six acres of the site will be dedicated to the composting of 
construction/demolition waste and other inert waste.  On the west-center portion of the site, there 
will be a detention/retention pond.   

At the time that filling begins, each fill area will be fenced with a six to eight-foot chain-link fence.  
Landscaping and berms are to be installed as depicted on the site plan.  The fill areas may be 
excavated prior to depositing fill material in order to increase capacity and to provide soil for the 
proposed berms.  The applicant proposes to fill up to 80 feet above existing grade, and is requesting 
a 33-year life span.  Staff is advised the site is currently free of groundwater contamination.

The applicant indicates they expect approximately 400 tons of waste to be delivered daily.    

The applicant proposes hours of operation of 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday; 6:00 
A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturday and closed on Sunday.  Open space with an option to continue 
recycling is the site’s proposed post-closure use.  Recycling will require an amendment to the 
proposed conditional use or a new application.

Surrounding properties are zoned SF-20, except the southeast corner that is zoned GI General 
(“GI”) Industrial, and used for crop production.  There are at least three single-family residences 
located to the west of the site, approximately 667 feet, 927 feet and 2,650 feet away.  Except for 
Air Products, all of the land located west of Ridge Road near the application area is used for 
agricultural activities.  The closest other residence is located approximately 2,133 feet to the north, 
east of Ridge Road, and is zoned SF-20.  There are some other residences located one-half mile to 
the north, north of 47th Street South and one-half mile line west of Ridge Road; also zoned SF-20.  
An electric utility station is located one-half mile east of the site, and is zoned LI Limited Industrial 
(“LI”).  One-half mile south of the site, east of Ridge Road, is the Occidental Chemical plant, zoned 
GI.  Northeast of the Occidental plant, southeast of the site, is a grain elevator, zoned LI.  Air 
Products is located approximately 1.25 miles south of the application area, and is also zoned GI.  
RR zoned land is located ½ mile south of the application, west of Ridge, and is located one mile 
west of the application area, just south of 55th Street.  The border between the SF-20 and RR zoning 
districts was likely established in 1958 when land located approximately within three miles of the 
then city limits of Wichita were zoned SF-20 and land beyond that three mile distance was zoned 
RR.    

The site is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Mid-Continent Airport.  The recommended 
conditions of approval require compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations.  The 
applicant supplied a page from their licensing application indicating that Federal Aviation 
Administration Office (FAA) Advisory Circulars AC150/5200-33B titled Hazardous Wildlife 
Attractants on or near Airports and AC150/5200-34A titled Construction or Establishment of 
Landfills [MSWLF] near Public Airports do not apply to C&D landfills.  Staff contacted Mid-
Continent staff regarding the application, and was advised to contact the FAA.  The program 
manager for the regional FAA office replied to staff’s inquiry stating:  “My understanding is that 
this is a construction and demolition landfill that will not accept putrescible waste and will not be 
co-located with other waste disposal operations.  Such landfills generally do not attract wildlife and 
are compatible with airport operations.”  

The greater Wichita area currently has three C&D landfills in operation:  the City of Wichita’s at 
Brooks Landfill and C&D Recyclers operate a facility at 4250 West 37th Street North and at 3299 
Southeast Boulevard; none of which are located in the southwest quadrant of the county.  The 
facility at 4250 West 37th Street is permitted up to 70 feet in height on their fill areas.  However 
long it takes for the fill area to reach 70 is the time frame for that conditional use.  The 3299 
Southeast Boulevard facility is to cease operations in December 2010, and the height of fill was 
limited to five feet above the grade of the Santa Fe Railroad tracks.  

With respect to recycling, staff from the FAA has advised planning staff that composting is not 
allowed on airport property, but is allowed off of airports so long as the fill material does not 
contain putrescible materials.

With respect to drainage, the site plan depicts a detention/retention pond in the left center of the 
site.  The plan also depicts that drainage will flow south to the center of the southern property line 
where an existing drainage structure exists underneath 55th Street South.  By code, the applicant is 
to design a drainage plan that limits the amount of runoff that occurs after development to the 
amount of runoff that existed prior to development.  Due to the expense involved in developing a 
detailed drainage plan, detailed drainage plans are typically developed when the property is platted, 
not during the conditional use hearings.  Staff has been advised by at least two interested neighbors 
that due to the very level topography of the area, drainage is a concern as it does not take very 
much rain before the water ponds, and it takes a few days for the land to finally drain.  There have 
also been expressions of concern if the height of the fill material will speed up the rate of runoff, 
thereby increasing the volume and the potential that stormwater could inundate Ridge Road.  Any 
improvements needed to address drainage issues would be guaranteed at the time of platting.  (See 
recommended condition of approval G below.)

With respect to groundwater, “location restriction D” listed below requires a five-foot separation 
from the predicted maximum water table elevation to the bottom of the landfill cell.  Also, it is 
planning staff’s understanding that local regulations require the applicant to insure that an 
impermeable barrier is either present in walls and bottom of each cell or is installed, or monitoring 
wells are installed.  Staff has been advised that Occidental Chemical has water wells located within 
a mile of the site to the north and within 1.5 miles to the south.  Occidental Chemical also has a 14 
inch water line running along the west side of Ridge Road, adjacent to the application area that 
serves their plant located south of the application area.  Occidental Chemical also has many 
monitoring wells in the area and is concerned that they may have to install additional wells to 
protect their interests if the request is approved without further study. 

Another concern expressed by at least one resident has to do with the potential for a vapor release 
from Occidental or any of the other industrial uses in the area that may deal in materials that are 
“heavier than air”; will the mounds created by the fill impede or delay the dispersal of heavier than 
air material to a degree that the presence of the landfill increases the hazard to nearby residences?     

Per the Sedgwick County Sign Code, the site will be limited to an eight square-foot sign unless 
modified by the conditions of approval listed below.

CASE HISTORY:  None

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	SF-20 Single-family Residential; farmland	
SOUTH:	SF-20 Single-family Residential; farmland
EAST:		SF-20 Single-family Residential; farmland
WEST:		SF-20 Single-family Residential; farmland	

PUBLIC SERVICES:  Publicly supplied sewer and water service is not available at this location.  
Ridge Road is a paved two-lane section line road with 50 feet of half-street right-of-way.  55th 
Street South is a sand and gravel two-lane section line road with 30 feet of half-street right-of-way.  
At the time of platting, the applicant may be asked to install a south-bound right-turn lane and a 
north-bound left-turn lane on Ridge Road at the entrance to the landfill.  The closest City of 
Wichita supplied sewer and water service is approximately 1.5 to 1.75 miles away (following 
current street right-of-way lines) at 47th Street South and Hoover.  47th Street and 63rd Street east of 
Ridge Road do not connect with Hoover.  The main paved routes to the site from Wichita or 
Haysville would be coming west on 55th Street or south from K-42 on Ridge Road or west on 
MacArthur and then south on Ridge Road.  Sedgwick County Fire Station No. 34 is located at 71st 
Street South and West Street, and would likely be the first responder to any fires or medical 
emergencies at this location.
  
CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The application area is located within the City of 
Wichita’s 2030 Urban Growth Area.  Land located within a city’s urban growth area is currently 
undeveloped, but has the potential to be developed by the year of 2030.  “Landfills” are 
categorized by the Comprehensive Plan as a “major utility/transportation” use.  Location guidelines 
contained in the Comprehensive Plan indicate that major utilities should be located near support 
services and be provided with good access to major arterials and should be extensions of existing 
industrial uses.  The plan also recognizes the need to minimize the potential for environmental 
contamination while maintaining cost efficiency by proper management of construction debris 
generated within the county.  

The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains an objective that states an intention to enhance 
and encourage agricultural activities within Sedgwick County, recognizing that viable agricultural 
land exists within the County.     

The proposed site has been reviewed by Sedgwick County’s Solid Waste Management Committee 
and has received their approval (May 5, 2008).  Licensing by the County is required as is 
conformance with the County’s C & D landfill design and operation requirements.  Pertinent site 
design requirements include:
A.	No operations shall be located closer than 500 feet of an occupied dwelling, school, or 
hospital that was occupied on the date when the owner first applied for a permit, 
unless the owner of such dwelling, school or hospital consents in writing. (The nearest 
occupied residences are located approximately 780 feet southwest and 980 feet west 
of the site.)  
B.	Newly permitted C&D facilities shall maintain a minimum 150-foot buffer from the 
edge of the C&D landfill’s property line. (The proposed site plan meets this standard.)  
C.	Surface water drainage and control systems shall divert surface water away from areas 
where waste is present or from operational areas.  (Item G in the conditions of 
approval addresses this requirement.)
D.	Discharge of pollutants is prohibited.
E.	C&D facilities shall be reasonably screened from adjacent roads, streets, and 
commercial or residential properties except at points of ingress and egress, to a 
minimum height of 8 feet by the use of berms, walls, fences or plantings.  (The 
proposed site plan depicts plant materials to be located along the eastern, southern and 
the southern 1/3 of the western side of the site.  Berms are depicted along the southern 
1/3 of the western side of the site and along the northern and southern 1/3 of the 
eastern side of the site, and along the southwest and southeast corners of the site.  Plant 
materials and berms are absent along the western side of the Phase II fill area.)
F.	Landscaping shall be maintained in proper order.
G.	Facility property and property within one-half mile from the facility shall be kept 
reasonably free of debris, litter or vectors resulting from the C&D facility.  (See item E 
in the conditions of approval.)  
H.	Access roads to the facility shall be all weather and negotiable at all times.  Load limits 
on bridges and access roads shall be sufficient to support traffic generated by the 
facility. (Access to the site is proposed to be off of Ridge Road, and see Item D in the 
conditions of approval.)
 
Location restrictions include:
A.	C&D facilities shall not be located within the 100-year floodplain unless protected by 
flood control levees. (Site appears to be out of 100-year flood plain)	
B.	C&D facilities will not cause significant degradation of wetlands.  (Applicant must 
provide documentation that this is not a wetland area.)
C.	C&D facilities will not result in the destruction of critical habitat of endangered or 
threatened species nor contribute to the taking of same.  (No evidence has been 
presented which would suggest that this is an issue.) 
D.	The vertical separation between the lowest point of the lowest cell and the predicted 
maximum water table elevation shall be sufficient to maintain a five foot vertical 
distance between deposited material and the water table elevation.
E.	No permit for a C&D facility shall be issued on or after the effective date of this 
resolution if such area is located within one mile of an intake point for any public 
water supply system.  The owner may petition the County Commissioners for an 
exception based upon proof of protection of the public water supply.    

RECOMMENDATION:  An industrial use such as a landfill could be a compatible land use to 
many of the area’s existing industrial uses since a landfill typically has a low number of employees 
when compared to a residential subdivision or other industrial use, and the existing industrial uses 
in the area have the potential to represent a hazard to residential uses.  Agricultural activities are 
also compatible with industrial uses.  Because of the existing industrial uses in the area, it is likely 
there is already a significant amount of truck traffic.  Based upon information available prior to the 
public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting 
within one year, and subject to the following conditions:

A.	Demolition and construction solid waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, 
repair and demolition of structures, roads, sidewalks and utilities as further defined in K.S.A. 
65-3402(u) shall be the only landfill material permitted.  Household solid waste, hazardous or 
toxic wastes, as defined by K.S.A. 65-3430 et. seq. shall not be permitted for disposal at this 
site.

B.	The landfill operation shall obtain all applicable permits or licenses prior to depositing landfill 
material on the site.  Operations shall proceed in accordance with all regulations and conditions 
established by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Wichita-Sedgwick 
County Health Department, FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Wildlife and 
Parks or any other agency having jurisdiction or oversight authority for the activities conducted 
on the application area.

C.	A landfill operator shall be on the site during all hours of operations for the purpose of 
screening incoming loads for authorization, inventory of the type, size and quantity of loads, 
and direction of loads to the appropriate cells.  Access to the subject property shall be 
prohibited except during the hours of operation. 

D.	The delivery of construction and demolition waste to the site shall be only by way of paved 
roads.

E.	A minimum 8-foot high fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the site to minimize 
the blowing of any materials onto adjacent properties.  The fence shall be either chain link or 
welded or woven wire with openings no larger than two inches.  The fence shall be installed 
prior to the beginning of filling operations.

F.	Upon written notice of any violation by the appropriate zoning administrator or any agency 
authorized to permit, review or evaluate operations, operations shall cease and the violation 
shall be corrected within 48 hours.

G.	A detailed grading/drainage plan shall be submitted to the Sedgwick County Department of 
Public Works for review and approval prior to commencement of operations.  As part of that 
review, the Department may require that easements be dedicated for drainage purposes.  A 
copy of the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department 
for filing with other case materials.  The operation of the landfill shall be in conformance with 
the approved grading and drainage plan, and with the approved “Site Plan.”  Landfill 
operations shall be conducted so as to minimize the area that could blow.  In order to minimize 
the potential for blowing material, a maximum of 3 acres at any one time may be utilized as 
fill area.  Prior to the opening of any new area, the previous area shall be graded and seeded 
with at least 18 inches of clean cover material.  All fill, work or drive areas shall be maintained 
in a manner that minimizes blowing dust or fugitive material.

H.  	The maximum height of fill material shall not exceed 80 feet in height; and landfill and 
composting operations shall cease 33 years from the date of final approval.  It shall be the 
responsibility of the applicant to notify the planning staff and the Director of County Code 
Enforcement of the date when filling began; otherwise the time period shall run from the date 
of MAPC or BoCC approval, whichever is latest.

I.	A landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning.  All 
plant materials shall be maintained in good condition and shall be replaced as necessary and 
immediately within the context of the growing season.  Evergreens, a minimum of 5-feet in 
height shall be installed between the fill areas and the property lines at a rate of at least one 
tree per 15-feet.  The landscaping is to be installed prior to beginning fill operations on the site. 

J.	Right-of-way dedications commensurate with those required by the Subdivision Regulations 
shall be required if existing rights-of-way are substandard.

K.	If required, a revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval.    

L.	The C&D landfill shall be developed and operated in compliance with all conditions of 
approval or the Conditional Use shall be considered null and void.  Operations shall 
commence within one year of the date of final approval or the Conditional Use shall be 
declared null and void.  

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  Most properties immediately 
surrounding the application area are zoned SF-20, and used for crop land.  The southeast 
corner of the intersection of 55th Street South and Ridge Road is zoned GI General 
Industrial, and used for crop production.  There are single-family residences located to the 
west of the site.  An electric utility is located one-half mile east of the site, and zoned LI 
Limited Industrial.  One-half mile south of the site, on Ridge Road, is the Occidental 
Chemical plant, zoned GI General Industrial.  Northeast of the Occidental Chemical plant, 
southeast of the site, is a grain elevator, zoned LI.  One mile to the east is a solid waste 
transfer station, zoned LI Limited Industrial.  In general, the area east of Ridge Road is a 
mix of industrial and agricultural uses while the area west of Ridge Road is agricultural.  RR 
zoning exists anywhere from immediately south of 55th Street, one mile west of the 
application area to 1.5 miles south of the application area.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The site 
is zoned SF-20 Single-family Residential, which permits low density residential and a few 
other residentially compatible uses, as well as agricultural activities.  The site is currently 
farmed and could continue to provide an economic return as currently used (cropland) and 
zoned.     

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  
Rezoning the site to RR allows the applicant to request the conditional use for the landfill.  
The SF-20 district does not permit a conditional use application for a landfill.  Therefore, 
the request for RR zoning opens the door for the conditional use request for the landfill.  
The majority of Sedgwick County is zoned RR, and approval of RR zoning would not in 
and of itself permit the requested landfill.  In fact, the RR district is a more restrictive 
district from the standpoint that the RR district requires a two-acre minimum lot size while 
the SF-20 district permits lots as small as 20,000 square feet.  The recommended conditions 
of approval contained in the conditional use are designed to minimize foreseeable 
detrimental impacts of a C&C landfill.  Truck traffic will probably increase; however there 
probably already is substantial truck traffic in the area due to the grain elevator and 
Occidental Chemical, and the applicant will be required to provide any needed traffic 
improvements at the time of platting.  Fencing, berms and landscaping are required to limit 
fugitive debris and to screen at-grade work areas.  The recommended hours of operation are 
more restrictive than what typically occurs with agricultural activities.  A drainage plan is 
required at the time of platting to address stormwater issues. Sedgwick County’s and the 
Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s standards are designed to address other 
foreseeable impacts.  

4.	Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the 
hardship imposed upon the applicant:  Approval would benefit the community at large by 
providing an additional C&D landfill site in a quadrant of the city that currently does not 
have such services; and will increase competition for such services.  The only other C & D 
landfill located in the southern part of the Wichita metro area is scheduled to close in 2010.  
Approval could negatively impact adjacent property owners by introducing a use that is not 
currently in the area, and whose potential collateral impacts may be seen as disruptive to a 
farming lifestyle.  Presumably denial would be an economic loss to the property owner.

5.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The application area is located within the City of Wichita’s 2030 Urban 
Growth Area.  Land located within a city’s urban growth area is currently undeveloped but 
has the potential to be developed by the year of 2030.  “Landfills” are categorized by the 
Comprehensive Plan’s as a “major utility/transportation” use.  The site has access to a paved 
arterial road, Ridge Road, and can be viewed as an extension of the existing industrial uses 
in the larger area:  Occidental Chemical, Air Products, grain elevator, utility substation and a 
municipal solid waste transfer station.  The plan also recognizes the need to minimize the 
potential for environmental contamination while maintaining cost efficiency by proper 
management of construction debris generated within the county.  The site is located in 
reasonable proximity to sites expected to generate the majority of the waste.  

The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains an objective that states an intention to 
enhance and encourage agricultural activities within Sedgwick County, recognizing that 
viable agricultural land exists within the County.     
 
6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  The site does not require 
municipally supplied sewer or water service.  Truck traffic on Ridge Road will increase and 
may requirement improvements, and if needed, will be identified at the time of platting.  
Sedgwick County Fire Station No. 34 is located at 71st Street South and West Street, and 
would likely be the first responder to any fires or other emergencies at this location.  Due to 
the change in use, additional traffic and code enforcement and road maintenance will likely 
be required.  

JOHNSON Mentioned he’s going to abstain from this item, he’s had business dealing with Mr. 
Dugan. 

SHERMAN My employer at Westar Energy has issue with this, there’s a Director here with Westar 
who is going to speak during public comment, and I will have to excuse myself from this item.  

FOSTER must recuse myself from this case since my firm  has provided services to Waste 
Connections.

MITCHELL Asked if there was anyone who did not receive exparte comment on this item. 

JOHNSON I, too, need to excuse myself from the proceedings.  I have done work with Waste 
Connections in the past. 

DALE MILLER Planning staff presented the staff report. 

MILLER-STEVENS The information that we were just given on this hearing, are you aware if it’s 
in compliance with what you said, because there’s some differences on the pictures that you 
showed in regards to phase I and II.  Is the rest of the document accurate?
 
MILLER What I have here is what was submitted with the application.  I have not seen what you 
apparently have there. 

BOB KAPLAN, AGENT, 430 N. MARKET My representation technically here this afternoon is 
of John Dugan and his family corporation.  You’ll note that the applicant, Resource Recovery 
Management LLC., is a Dugan Company; that’s a John Dugan family operation.  I’m representing 
Mr. Dugan. However, my assignment by Mr. Dugan was to work with Waste Connections on this 
application.  I want to tell you up front that it’s been a real luxury to work with these folks.  They 
have tremendous expertise. They have tremendous experience and they’ve done their homework.  
They’ve done their regulatory work, and they’ve come in and done a lot more preapproval work 
than ordinarily you might expect.  Site selection on this site has been in process for a long time.  
Mr. Harv Ebers is here.  He’s out of Missouri. He does site selection work for Waste Connections, 
and has been looking a long time for a suitable C&D site.  If you want detail on site selection, if 
you want to know what he’s looked at, why this is the site, Harv is here  to address any questions  
you may have in that regard as far as regulatory issues, agency issues are concerned.  They’ve 
submitted applications to a dozen agencies already.  They’ve received favorable responses.  
They’re not done yet, but to the extent that they have responses, and we have a list of the agencies.  
If you have questions about that, Mark Adams is out of Colorado, the Waste Connection office, 
and Mr. Adams is here to discuss with you any technical aspects or technical concerns you may 
have.  The preliminary drainage plan; and we did do a preliminary drainage plan that was done by 
Golder Associates out of Lakewood Colorado.  Their Engineer, Tim Cazier, is here from Colorado 
if you have questions about technical aspects about drainage.  What we’ve done preliminarily, and 
even before approval, is we’ve gone through the regulations.  We’ve gone through the regulatory 
hurdles and we’ve been busy filing those applications and obtaining those approvals so far have 
been very well received with favorable responses, including the Sedgwick County Solid Waste 
Committee who has approved the application.  Recognizing that there is not a perfect site for a 
C&D; having done all the research and all the work, I’ve identified three basic premises on which 
we work.  One of course is the need.  Currently three C&D facilities are in Sedgwick County.  My 
good friend and sometimes client, Ron Cornejo owns two of them. One of which is C&D Recyclers 
South.  This one, as I understand, is presently scheduled to close in 2010.  That’s one I myself 
handled for Cornejo & Sons approximately 10 years ago. The Brooks Landfill, as you well know, 
is City owned.  That’s in the northern part of the county and then we have the former Ritchie 
facility in the 3700 block of West 37th and that is also now a Cornejo facility, having acquired that 
from Ritchie, I think, before Ritchie sold its operations to LaFarge.  We have nothing basically in 
the southern part of the County.  If we’re going to have construction, we’re going to need disposal.  
According to Waste Management and Harv and all the work we’ve done, there is clearly a need; it 
provides a service.  The County needs it.  The applicant needs it, and we do need disposal if were 
going to continue with construction.  Some of you have technical expertise in hydrology issues; in 
matters of this sort.  I am going to suggest to you because of the comments I anticipate you are 
going to hear has to do with technical aspects, surface water, sub surface water, environmental, 
drainage, pollution and all of those things are governed by a respected agency.  In other words, we 
have an agency locally or in the state that is responsible for each of those issues.  So what I’m 
suggesting to you is that we deal with land use and we leave those technical aspects and issues to 
those agencies that are required to review them and approve them.  We are a state permit.  We are 
not going anywhere without a permit from The Kansas Department of Health and Environment.  
We do not have that at this point, and we can’t operate without it.  We’ve got all these agencies that 
will provide their expertise, and of course Waste Connections will provide their expertise in 
working with them.  I believe the technical issues ought not to be a substantial part of this 
discussion this afternoon, except I have the engineer here, and the people from Waste Connection.  
That brings us back to land use.  We believe that this site is best suited to minimize neighborhood 
impact.  You are going to have an impact on folks.  I don’t know where you can put a C&D that is 
not going to have some impact.  I’m not suggesting it’s perfect.  I’m suggesting that with all research 
that Waste Connections has done, it’s got access.  It’s going to meet all the legal and regulatory 
requirement.  It’s going to be most advantageous to the County, and to this applicant.  Of course, 
the applicant has his own factors, the route, traffic and matters of this sort.  We have looked long 
and hard for a site that meets the criteria and regulations; that is best suited for C&D and has the 
least impact on any neighboring residence.  Here we’ve got three.  None of them are located within 
500 feet.  The closest is 700 feet, and I understand the concerns.  It has to go someplace.  Having 
looked and researched it, this is an appropriate site for this.  We are doing it in phases.  Mr. Ewy is 
here.  He will run you through the rest of the slides.  They will do a very good job of berming and 
landscaping.  

RUSS EWY, AGENT, BAUGHMAN COMPANY, discussed the applicant’s slide presentation.
 
MITCHELL Time has expired, and asked if the Commission wanted to give him the opportunity to 
go through rest of slides?

HENTZEN How much time is needed?

EWY There are only seven slides, one minute.

MITCHELL Mentioned he had a motion and second to give the applicant additional one minute.

EWY (continued showing slides) Monitoring wells are a part of plan for the site.  He also indicated 
that a very limited amount of man power would be needed on-site; very limited amounts of actual 
operation on- site. 

HENTZEN Since it’s within the development of the City; did you say the 2030 plan?  Is that what 
you told us? 

MILLER Yes, The Comprehensive Plan map outlines future urban growth areas for the City of 
Wichita that goes out to the year 2030. 

HENTZEN Does it go before any District Advisory Board?

MILLER No, it’s a County application.  It’s not submitted to any District Advisory Board. 

MITCHELL Mr. Kaplan, I’m not sure who would answer this but, I didn’t see anything in the 
report or on the drawing to indicate a recycling of construction material such as crushing concrete, 
recycling asphalt, that kind of thing.  

EWY That’s correct.  You don’t see that because that’s not going to occur on the site.  Rock 
crushing and the recycling of asphalt would be a separate conditional use, and there’s no intention 
at this stage to have that type of facility here.   

MITCHELL Any material of that type brought to this location would be buried instead of 
recycled.  

EWY I would presume so. 

MITCHELL I am sure we have a number of people who want to be heard on this issue, with time 
restraints.  I would entertain a motion to limit your conversations.  If you promise not to repeat each 
other we may not have to do that.  We will start out with a normal 5 minutes.  

DIANE THOME SEILER, 3920 S. 215TH STREET WEST, GOODARD KS. I am here speaking 
for myself, my brothers, sisters; all of whom are represented or present here today, and all are 
residents and landowners in Sedgwick County.  We own and my brother Larry resides upon and 
farms the adjacent 160 acres to the west of the proposed zoning site change.  I am here to say for 
all of us that we strongly oppose the application by Resource Recovery Management, LLC for 
zoning change, and the issuance of a Conditional Use permit for the construction and operation of 
a construction and demolition landfill on the 160 acre tract at the corner of Ridge Road & 55th 
Street South.
     
It is a known fact that when landfills are built, any kind of landfill, surrounding properties decrease 
in value.  Therefore it is a fact that all landowners and property owners in the immediate area of the 
proposed zone change will be adversely affected.  I would venture to say that none of you on this 
board or the people you represent would want this in their backyard.  We need to recall what 
happened previous to Brook’s Landfill closing.  City and County officials held town hall meetings 
in the local communities such as Clonmel & Furley; communities to be impacted by possible 
landfill sites.  The people were given the chance to voice their opinions, and because of 
overwhelming opposition no landfill site was found to be acceptable.  The governing bodies 
decided and did the right thing by representing the citizens.  The decision was made to ship trash to 
existing accepting facilities.  The property, land owners and citizens to be impacted by this zoning 
change have only been given a few weeks to address the issues involved.  The applicant on the 
other hand, a non-resident business, has had up to a year and a half to build a case for rezoning.  I 
am here to say that citizens you represent have not changed and will not change their minds.  We 
do not want a landfill of any kind.

This land is productive farmland, and has been for generations and will for generations to come if 
allowed.  The construction of landfill on productive farmland, or any land for that matter raises 
many environmental questions.  One very important issue to consider is ground water 
contamination.  The landfill, as proposed, will become the home for all kinds of construction 
materials, for example, treated lumber which is not allowed to be burned because of the toxic 
fumes created.  So what happens when the same toxins seep into groundwater?  Also, air quality 
will suffer as numerous contaminants will be widely dispersed by the Kansas winds to surrounding 
properties.  The quality of our property and our lives will be adversely affected by their facility.

The MAPC and County commissioners know adequate facilities already exist, and are aware of 
plans to maintain a South Sedgwick County disposal option without the need for the construction of 
additional landfills in the County.

I ask you to do the right thing.  Listen to the citizens you represent.  Use the “Golden Rules” for 
decision making as outlined for board members and you will find that you cannot and should not 
grant this zoning change.

On a personal note:  Our grandfather purchased the 160 acres adjacent to the property proposed for 
zoning change in 1940, it became the home where my parents raised 7 children.  It was paid for 
with hard work and sweat equity.  It provided a living for our parents and family as we have 
farmed and improved our land for nearly 70 years.  We survived a May 1965, tornado, after which 
my father while looking over the devastation was quoted as saying he’d like to “sell the place and 
get out”---but he didn’t.  He stayed, we stayed, we cleaned up, we rebuilt and we are still there.

We ask that City, County and government agencies not assume that families who have cared for 
their land for generations…  

MITCHELL Approved 30 seconds. 
 
SEILER Would you welcome the destruction of their traditions and their way of life?  Would 
Wichita consider dumping their own construction trash in the vacant areas of Wichita?  That would 
be an insult to the residents of an area of the city.  How is it any different for rural residents?

FLORENCE BERGKAMP FOR CHARLES HORNER He lives in Raleigh NC, at 4409 
Touchstone Forrest Road. I am an out-of-state owner of a producing farm (SW/4 of 22-28-1W in  
Sedgwick County) that lies directly across Ridge Road and east of the proposed construction waste 
site currently under your consideration.  Since I will not be able to attend your meeting in person, I 
have asked one of the Bergkamps to read the following statement that summarizes my strong 
opposition to rezoning this area for a debris disposal site.

As a former Kansan who was born and raised in Wichita and whose family has held and managed 
farm operations in the state for three generations, I am deeply concerned about the proposed zoning 
change in Sedgwick County for the following reasons.  Despite the precautions cited in the zoning 
petition, a waste site of this type and magnitude (up to 80’ high) of varied construction 
contaminants into the groundwater of an area that is currently free from contamination.  Although 
difficult to predict, the sustained effect of such pollution on surrounding agricultural land or on 
growing crops poses an undeniable risk and could prove financially disastrous for local farmers.  
The proposed site also raises the possibility of air-born particles—such as insulation, Styrofoam, 
plastic sheathing, shingles, asbestos backing, etc.-that could pose health risks to near-by residents.  
Uncontained debris would interfere with farming practices, increase maintenance costs, and reduce 
crop as well as land value.   The proposal to create a composting facility on the east side of the 
property adds to my concern about the proliferation of wind-driven contaminants in the 
surrounding area.

The location of this site in the midst of productive farmland would have a negative impact on the 
local agricultural economy-in both the short and long terms.  Because of aesthetic, safety and 
environmental issues, a site of this description would diminish property values and encourage the 
future loss of agricultural land.  It would also increase the personal liability of farmers and 
landowners through a higher probability of accidents, vandalism, roadside dumping and destruction 
of adjacent properties-all stemming from the daily flow of people, heavy equipment, and increased 
traffic along Ridge Road.  Since the proposed entrance to the waste site is located on the NE corner 
of the quarter, and since there are several culverts on the east side of Ridge Road that allow access 
to my property and offer a tempting place for a U-turn, the potential for trespass, littering, and 
damage to a field of crop is a major concern.
Unless the disposal site is monitored 24/7 and has appropriate measures to suppress fire, it poses 
the threat of sizeable conflagration that might be difficult to extinguish and that could subject a 
large area (including the airport) to drifting smoke, burning embers, and toxic fumes for a sustained 
period of time.
My last concern involves the broader issue of protecting traditional farmland and preserving the 
crops that benefit both the local and national economy.  Until the bank that manages my sister’s 
trust sold the property now under consideration as a waste site, this land and the quarter I own 
formed a half section of quality farmland that was purchased by my grandfather and successfully 
operated for three generations.  I do not oppose the construction of a waste site on this property 
because of my heritage.  I oppose it on the sound rationale that farmland with proven history of 
good production (in this case, wheat, soybeans, and milo) should not be lost-especially to a waste 
facility that does not require fertile soil for its intended purpose.  At a time when agricultural 
acreage is disappearing at an alarming rate and the world is coming to the realization that we cannot 
squander valuable natural resources without incurring severe consequences, it seems economically 
shortsighted and environmentally unsound to turn agricultural land into a non-producing dumpsite.  

Tape 2 Side B

MITCHELL Approved an additional 30 seconds. 

BERGKAMP If such a site is really needed, and this is something the city should assess, then it 
would be my recommendation to seek out a location better suited to that purpose and less harmful 
to one of our most precious resources-the land that grows food for the world and sustains our very 
existence.  

ANDERSON out @4:08

TOM STUHLIK, WESTAR ENERGY, 818 KANSAS AVE, TOPEKA KANSAS I work for 
Westar Energy.  My responsibility at Westar is executive director of transmission operations from 
there I direct planning operations of all transmissions at 69,000 volts and above for Westar Energy.  
Westar Energy is committed to the safe, reliable and quality of electrical service to our customers in 
this area, as well as throughout eastern Kansas.  As you can see from the earlier drawings and 
layouts, Westar has several transmission facilities out in this area.  The plant to the east of this site 
is a generation plant for us.  We have several transmission lines coming out of here.  The one line 
that we are concerned with is a 138- thousand volt line that runs directly west of the power plant, 
and actually crosses right in the center of this property.  As you can see the ultimate height of that 
landfill is proposed to be 80 feet.  Our conductor out on that particular line is 60 or 70 feet from 
the ground.  Our concern out here is for blowing debris or any type of air movement that that could 
blow things into our power line; this will result in a short which will cause outages to a significant 
number of customers.  It would also result in power quality issues for us. Large faults out here will 
essentially dip that voltage down.  Westar Energy is not really opposed to this project, however, we 
would want the developer to pay for movement of this transmission line out of the way and 
relocate it into area where we will not have concern about blowing debris that could get into power 
lines.  We would be willing to sit down with the developer and develop cost estimates for moving 
the lines.

MARNELL I assume you have easement across the center of that property or ownership? 

STUHLIK A 50-foot easement.

MARNELL Is it in the drawing they had.

STUHLIK It’s essentially on the north side of the retention pond and compost area.

MIKE GANNAWAY, 64300 SOUTH RIDGE, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL Our local office is 
located one-half mile south of proposed landfill site.  We speak neither of opposition or support of 
the overall landfill location.  We maintain a neutral position on the main issue of location of the 
landfill but, however we’ve indentified two concerns that we would asked to be adequately 
addressed before this landfill proposal moves any further forward.  Rainfall runoff and drainage is 
our primary concern.  The pictures you were shown earlier were earlier this year.  If you look 
today, the land is well flooded.  We own the 280 acres on the west side of Ridge Road immediately 
south of the proposed location.  The majority of this property is used for agriculture purposes.  It 
lays to the south from the proposed location. Additionally, our manufacturing plant is located one-
half mile south on the east of Ridge Road.  The applicant’s property drains to the south across our 
property and the outflow is on the south end of our property on down toward 63rd and 71st Street 
South.  The typography of the immediate area surrounding the subject property is flat.  Currently, 
large rain fall events like we experienced in the last three weeks caused both properties, the 
proposed location and ours, to fill and stand with water.  They slowly drain to the south over time; 
taking several days to a week to drain.  The run off collects in pools on our non-plant property.  
Anytime the inflow exceeds the natural outflow at the south end of the property the levels build.  
Recently the levels in the ditch on either side of the Ridge Road were within 6 inches of running 
back into the front entrance of our plant.  Our concern is we understand the code addresses 
drainage and run off, and that they must look at the amount of runoff prior to the development.  
Typical developments pave driveways, roads, patios, sidewalks which increases the amount of run 
off because it reduces the amount of soil.  We are not concerned about the amount; we currently 
get all the amount.  We are concerned about the rate.  With landfill hills in place we are concerned 
about the rate of increase.  Our main concern is that we will have in flow flooding into the front 
gate of our manufacturing plant on the east side of Ridge Road.  We feel the impact of this 
potential future flooding presents a serious enough potential threat to the interruption of our 
business that we would support the deferment or postponement of any vote for recommendation of 
this zoning change to the County Commission until the applicant has had adequate time to fully 
design and present a drainage and run off plan upfront.  Normally that’s not done until platting 
because of the expense.  We feel this is a serious enough threat to our potential business that we 
would like to see it done upfront.  That plan should address both the amount and rate of rain water 
runoff onto our and other surrounding properties.  The study should address the run off effects 
created by the ever increasing elevations and the slope lines as the landfill matures, eventually 
covering 160 acres to 70-80 feet in height.  It should also include the remedies necessary to prevent 
these created problems.  We understand the permitting process for the proposed landfill will 
continue to eventually include other agencies, and other state and federal agencies.  We just ask that 
our local agencies hold the proposed facility to the highest environmental and technical standards in 
order to protect groundwater from any contamination associated with the operation of the C&D 
Landfill throughout its operational lifetime and beyond.  We also own and operate four industrial 
water wells in the area to supply the manufacturing plant with process water, and drinking water for 
the employees.  Three of the wells are classified as public drinking water supply wells.  They are 
located at one mile north and just a half mile north of the proposed site.  We would also like some 
science based assurance from the applicant that these water supply well won’t be impacted by the 
project.  

LINUS LAUER, 3802 WESTPORT I own 80 acres north of this.  East of Ridge Road is the 
Greenwich Cemetery that was farmed in 1877, two years after this became a property, and another 
thing out there is Chisholm Trail which runs from the cemetery across this land and across the RN; 
across the western part of area being considered. My family has owned this property for 72 years. 
(showed pictures) 

MITCHELL Your time is up. 

HENTZEN Couldn’t see your picture.  Asked LAUER if he could point out on the where his 
house was.

LAUER (pointed out on map where his property was located)

CHARLES BECKER, 5741 S. MAIZE ROAD I live a mile and half from this site.  I am the 
Township Trustee for Waco Township.  We have a problem with this road constantly, 55th and 63rd.  
63rd is almost impossible at times. (Show slides).  I live in an area of green space south and west of 
the Cowskin, Dry Creek and Wichita-Valley Center Flood Control (Big Ditch).  This comprises the 
areas of Schulte, Oatville and Haysville.  After its completion, the Big Ditch, more or less, served as 
a buffer or barrier to residential and commercial development until the early 1950’s.  After that 
time, industrial development occurred along the Missouri-Pacific Railroad line, which comprised 
the Frontier Chemical Plant (now Occidental Chemical Corp), Abbott Laboratories Products (now 
Air Products) and Murray-Gill.  

MITCHELL Your time is up. 

BECKER Requested additional 30 seconds. 

MITCHELL Motion to approve an additional 30 seconds.

BECKER This industrialization steadily caused the environmental living conditions of the area to 
steadily decline.  During the 1980’s, a federal lawsuit was filed involving several individuals and 
30 families to force attention of governmental environmental regulatory agencies in fulfilling their 
obligation to protect citizens and the environment.  Four years of litigation ended in a settlement 
from an unjust Justice System.  Several environmental groups presently monitor and conduct 
remedial testing of the soil, the water and the air.  This will most likely occur into perpetuity.  The 
land involved with the zoning request is located at 55th South & Ridge Road.  

MITCHELL Your 30 seconds is up. 

BECKER Asked for additional time.

MITCHELL No, we have a number of people here to speak, we have your information. 

THOMAS BERGKAMP, 8231 W. 55th STREET SOUTH We are asking you to deny zoning and 
conditional use change for the following reasons:  Possible groundwater contamination.  A public 
water source is less than one-half mile north of site, 4 irrigation wells are from 2,000 feet to ¾ mile 
away.  There are three single family residences located west of site.  Each one utilizes well water.  
They are approximately 667 feet, 927 feet and 2,650 feet away.  Westar also has numerous wells ½ 
to ¾ mile east of site.  Two-hundred sixty-four acres drain thru this site.  If water flows too fast 
off the 70-80 feet tall piles of debris property to the south of the site could have the potential to 
flood more severely and possibly run into Occidental Chemical Facility.  Retention ponds can not 
do their job if they are all ready full.   KDHE and Corp of Engineers need to be involved now. 

This site has two intermittent streams that go thru the property north and south.  If allowed to 
interfere with natural drainage, farmers from north, west and south could be severely affected.

We flood irrigate 160 acres across the street and downstream from this site, and reuse the irrigation 
water that runs off by pumping it out of a recovery pit and back onto our growing crops.  If any 
contaminates from this site run off and into the water in our recovery pit we would be pumping it 
back onto growing crops.  This is productive land with proven yields of 60 bushels of soybeans 
and 190 bushel corn, today’s market value of the crops is well over $200,000 dollars.

Methane gas and Hydro sulfide gas can be produced from biodegradable waste.  Sheetrock and 
organic matter produce anaerobic condition, and then bacteria grow and produce the gas.  These 
pose an unnecessary risk to our groundwater.

Poor quality land should be used.  This property is prime farmland.  With proper farming practices 
and land has been and can be highly productive.  The applicant will not be harmed by denial of this 
zone change because he is not the end user and can continue farming the property as he has been 
doing.

Our understanding is that between the city and C-D Recyclers there is capacity for 50-75 years, this 
shows there is not a need for a C&D landfill.

In conclusion, a landfill is inconsistent with the latest revisions to the Comprehensive Plan (see 
2030 Wichita Functional Use Guide Map).  This is not the highest and best use of the property, and 
could restrict use of more beneficial Industrial Development.   Thank you for your time and we 
hope you decision shows you have this community’s best interest in mind.

PEGGY GIESEN, 3762 FAIRLAWN I am a retired health nurse.  I’ve worked 30 years for the 
Wichita- Sedgwick County Department of Community Health.  I live in Prospect Park Addition, 
north of the proposed site. This will certainly be a public health issue.  Please do not allow this rural 
scene of agriculture beauty and quiet country, residential properties to be disrupted by this 
proposed incompatible development. 

DENNIS WOODS, 5201 S 119TH STREET WEST, CLEARWATER, KS I’d like to finish up Mr. 
Becker statement. What is not deeded in this is an additional industrial dumping ground (demolition 
graveyard) for the debris of downtown Wichita and the area.  What will eventually be viewed when 
looking in the direction of the metropolitan skyline will be an unaesthetic mountain of rubble as 
high as 80 feet.  This “mountain” will  be comprised of rubble surrounded by a ribbon of weeds 
and high fences where once stood a field of waving amber grain that provided bread for your 
dinner table.  My great hope is that the Planning Commission does not scoff at my request and will 
consider how such an industrial waste site can affect highly productive agricultural land values for 
the area.  In agriculture, a weed is considered as a plant out of place and so it is with an operation 
as being proposed. 

In the zoning change request, the vague term, “to be used as a conditional use permit,” tends to lead 
one to believe the owners can do anything with the property as they choose.  Does this not have 
any legal recourse to the rights of the property owners surrounding the site?

I am not going to willingly accept another nameless, faceless corporation as a neighbor in my 
community.  Who are these investors?  Is this just another example of how urban realtors, 
developers, and investors operate in boundlessly ferreting out disinterested absentee landowners 
that have inherited their family farm?  These landowners sell their legacy at land prices that shut out 
what any farmer can afford.  As a hot commodity the property is then offered to any buyer often 
without any regard of how it affects others in the rural community.  Is there no conscience for these 
individuals in adding to their pyramid of wealth of personal greed!  

We have a ‘visioneering’ concept of our own in the rural areas of the county.  In the county, a 
development plan should consider what is compatible and acceptable to the surrounding 
landowners and residences.

Therefore, I request this application for a change in zoning to be denied in the best interest for this 
part Sedgwick County.

In my own behalf one thing I’ve heard as a common threat throughout these comments is due 
diligence. Let’s do the work upfront as opposed to waiting after the fact and getting into situations 
that end up having to recover already environmentally compromised area. 

BOB KAPLAN Mr. Chairman, I am going to defer my rebuttal time to Mr. Ebertz.  I want you to 
hear from Harv.  I want to tell you this is not a waste landfill.  As you know, it’s a C&D so debris, 
noise and dust…people are confused.  We have done a great deal of preliminary drainage concepts 
and plans.  We’ll continue to work with Westar.  We’ll work with KG&E.  We’ll work with any of 
these folks who have issues.  The entrance is off Ridge Road, it’s not off of 55th Street. 

HARV EBERTZ I’m a graduate Civil Engineer and a licensed professional engineer.  For some 10 
years I’ve spent in Wichita and Sedgwick County area I have been developing viable safe and 
environmental facilities for the handling of solid waste in Wichita and Sedgwick County Kansas.  I 
have spent years exploring the land’s properties in and around the Wichita Kansas and Sedgwick 
County Kansas area.  At this time, we are looking at a site to provide essential service to the citizens 
and residents of this community and region; that is a convenient and safe disposal of construction 
and demolition waste.  In my travels around your community and the community of these 
neighbors here speaking today, you cannot site a construction and demolition landfill on a 
neighborhood lot, and you cannot site such a facility in the middle of a major residential or 
educational location.  In my search for an acceptable site, ladies and gentlemen on this commission, 
for this facility, an acceptable site is this area here. 

MITCHELL Your rebuttal time up. Do you need more time? 

HARV EBERTZ No. 

MITCHELL On the plan given to us it’s showing a drainage pond, where is the outlet for that 
pond? 

HARV EBERTZ On the descriptive plan we submitted on the application.  I think it would be 
beneficial to this commission to hear from our professional engineer who developed this drainage 
plan. 

TIM CAZIER I am a Professional Engineer, Graduate Engineer, this is a preliminary plan.  There 
are several options where the outlet can run, but it will run out to west and south or potentially to 
the east and then south to the existing three culverts underneath 55th Street. 

DENNIS Made a motion to deny.

MITCHELL No second. 

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff comments. 

MARNELL moved, MCKAY seconded the motion.

MARNELL Continued that this is just a preliminary point and all the issues that have been raised 
will need to be addressed with both KDHE and the county in terms of the drainage. 
  
HENTZEN Stated there’s enough information before us that we ought to at least ask our drainage 
people in the County, the Solid Waste Committee or somebody about these issues that were brought 
up.  I do not think we have near enough information to approve this.   

MITCHELL I will not support the motion to approve, based on the fact that there’s far too limited 
information available at this point.  I would have liked to have seen, at this point, a motion to defer, 
and give the governmental agencies, the applicant and the landowners in the area an opportunity to 
review and go further. 

HENTZEN If you’re not in that position to make that motion. 

HILLMAN I agree with Mr. HENTZEN and yourself.  We simply do not have enough 
information.  I am familiar with the topography in the area and there is a tremendous amount of 
water that will reside in that area at anyone time.  I do not believe those questions have been 
answered yet. 

SUBSTITUTE MOTION:  To defer until additional information has been gathered 
and presented to us.  

HILLMAN moved, DENNIS seconded the motion, and it carried (9-0-3).

 MITCHELL Asked BOB PARNACOTT, County Counselor, do we have a motion pending or is 
it appropriate to make a substitute motion?

BOB PARNACOTT Indicated a substitute motion was appropriate if that’s what you’re making. 

DOWNING I will support substitute motion. I have a tough time supporting a not in my back yard 
position.  If we take that to its ultimate conclusion nothing will ever get done because we would 
always just leave it set where it was years ago.  Having said that I think there are two issues that 
need to be resolved before we pass judgment on this - one is the electrical transmission lines.  Do 
the people who are proposing this agree to the cost of moving the lines; is it possible?  I would 
assume that’s expensive.  The other thing is the drainage issue.  Often times, especially in a flat 
area, drainage issues don’t manifest itself initially.  So we need someone who can look at that 
drainage plan, not a permanent plan but a drainage plan in some form, that gives us some 
preliminary information, some confidence, that as we increase the height and the surface area, the 
runoff will not increase with the surface area, and will move downstream at a normal pace so we 
don’t flood someone or cause some environmental issues associated with drainage.   

HILLMAN This whole area looks a problem to me, I’ve driven through there; it looks like a lack 
of coordination from various neighbors how to handle the drainage.  Some of them did a little bit of 
planning but the rest of them aren’t coordinating their efforts.  This is not going to just take the 
development plans for the landfill; it’s going to take multiple owners in agreement to create some 
kind of permanent flow area for this whole land.  This is a long term plan and project.

			---------------------------------------------------
9.	Case No.: ZON2008-29 – Koch Real Estate Holdings Attn:  Randy Lair (owner/applicants); 
Ruggles & Bohm, Attn: Terry Smythe (agent) Request City zone change from SF-5 Single-
family Residential to LI Limited Industrial on property described as:   

The East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 26 South, Range 1 East of 
the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, EXCEPT Railroad right-of-way, AND EXCEPT the 
North 40 feet for Road right-of-way, AND EXCEPT Koch Office Park, an Addition to 
Sedgwick County, Kansas; Together with the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of said 
Section 35 lying North of the Highway right-of-way, EXCEPT Railroad right-of-way.  
Generally located south of 37th Street North and 1300 feet east of Hillside.

BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-
5”) to LI Limited Industrial (“LI”) on a 62-acre unplatted tract located east of North Hillside 
Avenue, on the south side of North 37th Street.  The applicant, Koch Industries, owns a large 
amount of property around this location, including properties bordering the subject property in all 
directions, some already zoned LI, and some zoned SF-5.  The subject property is currently 
undeveloped, and this particular request was filed for possible future business expansion.

Property directly abutting the subject site is zoned either LI or SF-5.  Property to the south, across 
the train tracks, and the property to the north, across North 37th Street, are both zoned SF-5 and are 
currently undeveloped.  The property abutting the east and west side of the application area is 
zoned LI.  The property to the west is developed with a manufacturer and nursery and garden 
center.  The property to the east is developed with the Koch Industries Office Complex. 

In addition to industrial uses, LI zoning also allows retail, commercial and office activity.  LI 
zoning also permits building heights up to 80 feet and higher with additional setbacks.  Sixty-two 
acres of LI zoned land developed at 30 percent building coverage would allow 810,216 square feet 
of gross building coverage.  Traffic generation rates for light industrial uses are approximately 7 
average daily trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet of floor area creating an ADT of 8,507; shopping 
centers can generate as much as 42 trips per 1,000 square feet or up to an additional 51,043 ADT.  

CASE HISTORY:  The subject site is unplatted.
                                                                                                                                                      
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-5”)		Vacant Land
SOUTH:	SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-5”)		Ag. Land
EAST:		LI Limited Industrial (“LI”)			Office Complex
WEST:		LI Limited Industrial (“LI”)			Manufacturing / Nursery

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The property currently fronts North 37th Street, a four-lane paved minor 
arterial, at this location, with current traffic volumes of approximately 6,227 vehicles per day near 
this location.  37th Street appears to have 103 total feet of right-of-way.  The standard half-street 
right-of-way width for arterial is 60 feet.  Hillside intersects with 37th Street North to the west.  The 
applicant will need to work with the Traffic Engineer prior to platting to determine if a traffic 
impact study needs to be completed for the subject property.  Public water and sewer service are 
available nearby to serve the site.  The nearest sewer main is located approximately 500 feet to the 
east on the property abutting to the east.  The nearest water main runs along the north property line, 
along North 37th Street.  

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this area as an “Employment/Industry Center” within the Wichita 2030 Urban Growth 
Area.  “This category encompasses areas with uses that constitute centers or concentrations of 
employment of an industrial, manufacturing, service or non institutional nature. The range of uses 
includes manufacturing and fabrication facilities, warehousing and shipping centers, call centers 
and corporate offices.”  The current zoning request of LI for the 62-acre subject site is in 
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended development patten.  

In terms of conformance with commercial goals/objectives/strategies and locational guidelines, the 
application conforms to the Industrial Goal to “Promote the expansion of the industrial base 
through the provision of suitable industrial sites.”  The Industrial Objective is to “Promote 
industrial activities and development in a manner that is compatible with the built and natural 
environment,” as well as Strategy IV.A1 of protecting areas identified as industrial in the 
Comprehensive Plan from encroachment or expansion of residential land uses, by requiring 
appropriate buffers for expansion of the residential use when a nuisance situation is likely to be 
created. Strategy III.B.3 seeks to channel traffic generated by industrial uses to the closest major 
thoroughfare with minimum impact upon local residential streets. 

Industrial Locational Guideline #1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that industrial 
areas should be located in close proximity to support services and be provided good access to 
major arterials, city truck routes, belt highways, utility truck lines, rail spurs, airports and as 
extensions of existing industrial uses.  Industrial Locational Guideline #2 recommends that 
industrial traffic should not feed directly onto local streets in residential areas and #3 that 
industrial uses should be generally located away from existing or planned residential areas, and 
sited so as not to generate industrial traffic through less intensive land use areas.

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning 
staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to replatting within one year.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  Property directing abutting the subject 
site is zoned either LI or SF-5.  Property to the south, across the train tracks, and the 
property to the north, across North 37th Street, is both zoned SF-5 and is currently 
undeveloped.  The property abutting the east and west property line is zoned LI.  The 
property to the west is developed with a manufacturer and nursery and garden center.  The 
property to the east is developed with the Koch Industries Office Complex. 

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
subject property is zoned SF-5.  Due to its location next to an arterial street, the intersection 
of section line roads and plus its close proximity to existing industrial zoning and uses, it is 
unlikely that the subject property will continue to be viable as single-family residential 
property.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  The 
scale and impact of any development within LI zoning should be mitigated by the site 
development requirements related to access management, landscaping, screening, lighting 
and signage.  Also, the applicant owns nearly all the half-section of land surrounding the 
application area.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as an 
“Employment/Industry Center” within the Wichita 2030 Urban Growth Area.  “This 
category encompasses areas with uses that constitute centers or concentrations of 
employment of an industrial, manufacturing, service or non institutional nature.  The range 
of uses includes manufacturing and fabrication facilities, warehousing and shipping centers, 
call centers and corporate offices.”  The current zoning request of LI for the 62-acre subject 
site is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended development.  In 
terms of conformance with commercial goals/objectives/strategies and locational guidelines, 
the application conforms to the Industrial Goal to “Promote the expansion of the industrial 
base through the provision of suitable industrial sites.”  The Industrial Objective is to 
“Promote industrial activities and development in a manner that is compatible with the built 
and natural environment,” as well as Strategy IV.A1 of protecting areas identified as 
industrial in the Comprehensive Plan from encroachment or expansion of residential land 
uses, by requiring appropriate buffers for expansion of the residential use when a nuisance 
situation is likely to be created.  Strategy III.B.3 seeks to channel traffic generated by 
industrial uses to the closest major thoroughfare with minimum impact upon local 
residential streets. 

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  Drainage, access and ROW 
dedication could become issues in the development of this site, due to the size of the 
subject site, all of which will be addressed during the replatting of the subject properties.    

MITCHELL It’s my understanding that the applicant had a request, we may not need a full 
presentation, it correct Mr. Slocum?

SLOCUM Yes sir.   

FOSTER I need to excuse myself from this case as well we are currently doing landscape 
architectural services for the applicant.

DERRICK SLOCUM Planning staff at this time applicant and staff are in agreement with 
everything except for the platting requirement of course we require plat within one year of the 
zoning and they will end up asking not to plat. 

HENTZEN I own and operate a business about ½ mile from this place.  

SLOCUM We are in agreement with everything except the platting. I will have the applicant speak 
why they won’t want to plat. 

CHRIS BOHM, RUGGLES & BOHM  Koch owns this property, the part to the west was zoned 
with some blanket zoning changes as Limited Industrial some years ago and then over the years 
they did plat to the east basically the large triangular piece with their big complex and it’s also 
zoned Industrial as well, they came to us a couple of months ago with a request to build an 
accessory structure just to the west, that’s a product testing site, its an accessory structure, it’s run 
remotely from inside of their main operation, they want to place off to the side of their campus. 
The logic behind this we need the zoning to build this monitoring facility, we don’t want to plat 
because that’s the only thing they plan on building there, I even met with Koch management 
yesterday to ask if they had anything else to build there. They insist upon the fact that they want to 
build this testing facility roughly delineated on that sheet, that’s the only thing they have plans for, 
the reasoning behind not platting is we would have to plat all the way to 37th Street North to get 
access to a public street, for security reasons they would like to access that testing site off of their 
public driveway which runs across the west side of their property. I would propose is if we could a 
Protective Overlay that would not require platting but would allow them to build this monitoring 
facility in the general area delineated on that sheet, with the stipulation if they did any other 
building project within any of this zoning area it would require platting of that area and this lot as 
well. That area to the west has been zoned and unplatted. I did talk to Kurt Schroeder with Central 
Inspections yesterday about this and asked him if he would have a problem with the construction 
of this facility with the proper under line zoning without a plat and he said he would if he could get 
the concurrence of the Planning Commission, he also made the comment if it’s one spot that some 
condition was placed that it was only that area and if anything else went on that it would have to be 
platted.

HENTZEN Wanted to ask how many square feet in that building?

BOHM The building is 120 on one side and 85 on the other, and it’s bounded by a fence with a 
50-foot perimeter outside of it. 

HENTZEN What community infrastructure would you need? Do you need water and electricity? 

BOHM Electricity, they will have toilet with sink just for convenience, they have on site sewer 
system, a private station that pumps into the City sewer and a fire hydrant for fire protection. 

HENTZEN Will people be working be working in it everyday?

BOHM No, it is not a building that will be occupied.  It is run by remote control.  They have a 
bathroom for convenience.  It is mostly an outdoor structure.  It’s got a control building with some 
inside electrical equipment and then the bathroom. 

HENTZEN Is that in the County or City?

BOHM City of Wichita, currently zoned SF-5 through an annexation that was done sometime ago.

HENTZEN Just wondering if there was a fire who would put the fire out.

BOHM First response, whoever’s the closest responder in Sedgwick County. 

MITCHELL Asked Mr. Bohm three drainage systems in the area, any of them show flood plain or 
flood way?

BOHM No, they do not.

MOTION: To approve zoning without platting with an overlay.	   

HILLMAN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried (9-1-1). 
JOHNSON opposed.
			
SCHLEGEL The suggestion that Chris put on the table was a Protective Overlay that would restrict 
the building location to what’s shown on this site plan. 

BOHM We’d be happy to write a legal description and any other building site would require 
platting of the whole entire parcel.
       ---------------------------------------------------
10.	Case No.: CON2008-27 - Jerry D. and Tamara N. Brown Request County Conditional Use 
permit for an accessory apartment in RR Rural Residential zoning.   

Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 25 
South, Range 2 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, thence West 570 feet; 
thence North 522 feet; thence East 570 feet; thence South 522 feet to the point of 
beginning.  Generally located on the north side of 101st Street North, midway between 63rd 
and 79th Streets East (7128 E. 101st Street North).

BACKGROUND:  The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use to allow an accessory 
apartment on a 6.86-acre RR Rural Residential (“RR”) zoned unplatted tract.  The site is located in 
rural, unincorporated Sedgwick County, on the north side of 101st Street North, midway between 
63rd (Woodlawn Boulevard) and 79th (Rock Road) Streets East.  One of the applicants’ 80-year old 
mothers will live in the proposed accessory apartment, while the applicants will continue to live in 
the existing approximately 1,611-square foot single-family residence. This residence (listed as a 
farmstead in the GIS files) was built in 1908, is a two-story frame house with lap siding and gable 
roofs.  Because the proposed additional structure will contain a kitchen, bathroom and sleeping 
quarters, it is classified as a dwelling unit and thus requires a Conditional Use approval for an 
accessory apartment.  

The site plan shows the development of the site including the proposed accessory apartment located 
in line and east of the existing residence, septic, water the driveway and 101st Street North.  The 
proposed accessory apartment is an approximately 1,248-sqaure foot (26 feet 4 inches (x) 48 feet) 
residential designed manufactured home on a permanent concrete foundation.  The site plan does 
not show the site’s existing outbuildings nor does it show if the accessory apartment and the 
primary residence will share the same drive onto 101st Street.         

The subject site is located in rural, RR zoned, Sedgwick County, with scattered residences in the 
area. There are agricultural fields located on all sides of the subject site, with the nearest 
neighbors/residences located southeast (1980), across 101st, east (1996), and approximately ¼ -mile 
east and southwest (1890, 1978) of the site.  All of the land abutting and adjacent to the site is 
zoned RR.  

The Unified Zoning Code’s (UZC) Conditional Use requirements for accessory apartments are as 
follows:
(a)	A maximum of one accessory apartment may be allowed on the same lot as a 
single-family dwelling;
(b)	The appearance of an accessory apartment shall be compatible with the main 
dwelling and with the character of the neighborhood; 
(c)	The accessory apartment shall remain accessory to and under the same ownership as 
the principal single-family dwelling, including that it shall not be subdivided or sold 
as a condominium.
(d)	The water and sewer service provided to the accessory structure shall not be 
provided as separate service from the main dwelling.
CASE HISTORY:  The subject site is an unplatted tract.  
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: 
NORTH:	RR			Agricultural fields
SOUTH:	RR			Agricultural fields, farmsteads	
EAST:		RR   			Agricultural fields, farmsteads
WEST:		RR			Agricultural fields, farmstead
		

PUBLIC SERVICES:  101st Street North is a paved, two-lane County Highway.  63rd and 79th 
Streets East are sand and gravel Lincoln Township roads.  The 2030 Transportation Plan projects no 
change in their status.  The site is in Rural Water District 2.  Some Rural Water Districts will not 
allow another residence to hook up to the same line/meter as the primary residence.   The site has 
no access to public sewer and is served by septic.  All other necessary utilities are present.   

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The “Wichita and Small Cities 2030 Urban Growth 
Areas Map” designates this area as “Rural.”  The Rural category encompasses land outside of the 
2030 urban growth areas for Wichita and the small cities.  This category is intended to 
accommodate agricultural uses, rural based uses that are no more offensive than normal agricultural 
uses, and large lot residential subdivisions with provisions for future water and sewer services.  The 
policies of the UZC allow one accessory apartment to be associated with a principle dwelling as a 
“Conditional Use” if the proposed use is compatible with the principle dwelling, is in character with 
the surrounding residential development, is accessory to the main structure, remains in a single 
ownership, and obtains water and sewer service from the main dwelling hook-up.  This application 
appears to conform to these plans and policies.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearing, Staff 
recommends that the request be APPROVED subject to the following conditions being completed 
within a year:

1.	The accessory apartment shall be subject to all requirements of Article III, Section III-D.6.a 
of the Unified Zoning Code; including appearance of the accessory apartment shall be 
compatible with the primary residence. Some Rural Water Districts will not allow another 
residence to hook up to the same line/meter as the primary residence.  If that is the case on 
this property, then Staff recommends that the applicant provide a letter from the Rural 
Water District, stating that it does not allow another residence to hook up to the same 
line/meter as the primary residence. The letter will provide the basis for a waiver of 
condition (d) of Article III, Section III-D.6.a of the Unified Zoning Code.   
2.	The site will be generally developed as shown on the site plan, obtaining and conforming to 
all applicable permits, including but not limited to building, health, and zoning. The 
accessory apartment will be completed within one-year of approval of the Conditional Use 
by the appropriate governing body.
3.	If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the 
Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set 
forth in Article VII hereof, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare the 
Conditional Use null and void.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The area’s character is rural with 
agricultural fields and scattered farmsteads and single-family residences.  The site is outside 
all of Sedgwick County’s small cities growth areas.  The area is located in northeast corner 
of Sedgwick County, in Lincoln Township, a rural, mostly RR zoned part of the county.         
 
2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: Accessory 
apartments are allowed as a Conditional Use in RR zoning, provided the applicant and the 
site meet the specified criteria.  The application and the site appear to meet these criteria. 

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any 
detrimental effect should be minimized by the conditions for accessory apartments by the 
UZC and the conditional use.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies:  The Unified 
Zoning Code (UZC) makes specific provision for accessory apartments in RR zoning.  This 
application appears to comply with all the provisions outlined in the UZC for accessory 
apartments.  

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  The applicants’ request 
should have a minimal impact on community facilities.  The site is in Rural Water District 2.  
There is no public sewer available and the site is served by a septic system.  

BILL LONGNECKER Planning staff presented staff report. 

JERRY BROWN, APPLICANT I’m the owner of the property who wishes to get Conditional Use 
permit for my mother so I will have her next to me to take care of her in her elderly years.

MITCHELL Do you agree to the three conditions in the report

BROWN Yes.  There was an issue about the road that’s going into it, I sketched the site plan 
myself, and it has a gravel driveway going up to that, I just wanted to make sure that wasn’t going 
to be an issue, it if we could take the driveway in through our existing driveway. 

LONGNECKER Which is what we prefer.

MITCHELL Asked LONGNECKER if they built a second driveway would it have to comply 
with the County’s standards, is that correct? 

LONGNECEKR That’s correct.  We just told the applicant we want them to share the same drive. 

MITCHELL Asked the applicant if he agreed to share the driveway.

BROWN Yes.

LARRY & KATE BIERMAN, 8001 E. 101st STREET We didn’t know what this was going to be 
about until and read the documentation.  We have total empathy for what Mr. Brown wants to do.  
We believe live and let live, but I will say this in consideration of the existing environment.  We 
moved out there 12 years ago.  We wanted to live in farm country which it is, it’s, meaning there’s 
single family dwellings, mostly on farms.  We support farming and ranching.  The few exceptions 
are there could be as small as 10-acre single family dwellings situations.  It is mostly farm country.  
Our issue is we moved out there for minimal population and housing density.  Having two single 
family dwellings on seven acres, which is the smallest parcel out there, side by side, is just not 
consistent with the environment.  Mr. Brown is a new resident.  His mother is ill.  He has an 
emergency situation he has to address.  I guess our feeling is if we were in the same situation, we 
would accommodate our mother and expand the existing dwelling. Frankly, we don’t want a mobile 
home in that neighborhood. 

SHERILYN HURST, 7500 E. 101ST STREET NORTH We saved about 20 years for our dream 
house out in the country, like most people do.  It was our choice to live in the county.  We looked 
around for about a year before we could find property we wanted.  Our home is our investment.  
This comes down to protecting our investment.  Building another home or bringing in a double-
wide on a piece of land not even seven acres, will congest the neighborhood.  It will not be as quiet 
either.  It will lower the value of our property, just like when they built a large home a mile from us, 
it increased the value of our property. Today it will lower the value of our property, and when he 
sells this he is going to have to sell both houses as one unit.  It’s going to be harder to sell.  Then it 
will probably become a rental which will also potentially lower our value.  We have no problem if 
they want to add on to their present dwelling, which would increase the value of their property as 
well as ours with an added benefit of getting a better return on their investment when they sell their 
house.  To protect our investment, the value of our home, we are opposing this request, and ask 
that you consider our request.  The more the merrier is not why we, and most people, moved to the 
country.  I’d like to add also that several of our neighbors had to leave earlier. They were here at 
the beginning of the hearing.  

JEANETTE ULBRICH, 7219 E 101ST STREET NORTH I have lived within 2 miles where I live 
now since I was nine years old, so I know the country pretty good.  We want a country home.  We 
don’t want a lot of houses around.  I got 80 acres, and I want my 80 acres to myself. 

BROWN I have a picture of what we are putting there.  It’s just a small manufactured home.  It has 
a roof, a regular kind of roof.  It’s just a small place for her.  She’s right next to us.  She didn’t want 
to be in same home with us, and she wants her own privacy.  

HILLMAN Question for staff.  Typically on a deal like this, I see a Conditional overlay or 
situation where you accommodate and bring in, like a portable or mobile home, and it’s available 
for the life span of the need of the person involved?  Then that’s not a permanent fixture.  When 
that person passes they get a chance to take the mobile home away.  I was wondering if that was the 
design of this particular request. 

LONGNECKER The County does allow a temporary accessory apartment for medical hardship 
and those typically are not on a foundation.  Within 90 days of the occupant of those leaving that 
accessory apartment, the applicant is to remove those.  We did talk about that as a possibility, but at 
this point we were looking at putting it on a permanent foundation which is certainly not out of 
character with accessory apartments that we have both in the City and the County. 

DENNIS I just looked at the picture. It looks like it’s already being constructed.  Is this an approval 
after the fact?

LONGNECKER No. 

BROWN That’s just an example produced from the manufacturer of the home where we’ve been 
looking at. We haven’t purchased anything yet.  This is just a proposal.

MOTION:  To approve per staff comments. 	   

JOHNSON moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried (10-1-0).  
FOSTER opposed.
		
			---------------------------------------------------
11.	Case No.: CON2008-28 – Neal Dornbusch  (owners); Lucy Dome (applicant) Request City 
Conditional Use permit for a Beauty Salon (personal care service)in GO General Office 
zoning on property described as;    

Lot 1, EXCEPT the East 140 feet thereof, Atkisson Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, 
Kansas.  Generally located approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of East Central 
Avenue and North Edgemoor Drive, on the south side of Central (5739 E. Central Avenue).

BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use to allow a personal care service on 
0.20 acres of platted property zoned GO General Office (“GO”) in the Atkisson Addition located 
east of North Edgemoor Drive, on the south side of Central.  The request is being made to allow the 
applicant to open a beauty salon at this location.  Currently, this site is a single-family residence, 
but will be converted to allow the intended use.  Personal care services are allowed as a permitted 
use in the NR Neighborhood Retail (“NR”) zone district but require a Conditional Use permit in the 
GO zone district.  

The surrounding uses are mixed in nature.  There are single-family homes to the south and west.  
However, many of the homes on the south side of Central between Brookside Parkway and 
Hillcrest Avenue have converted to office and personal care uses.  Across Central Avenue is a 
variety of commercial, retail and restaurant uses.  The zoning pattern reflects the mix of uses in this 
area.  Property to the south and west is zoned SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-5”).  Property to 
the north, across Central Avenue, is zoned LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) and property directly to 
the east of the subject site is zoned GO.

The applicant submitted a site plan that shows the existing house since the applicant plans to re-use 
the home as the beauty shop.  The applicant proposes to accommodate parking with the existing 
paved parking area on site.  The proposed use and square footage of the use will require four 
parking spaces.  There are currently 7-9 spaces existing on the subject site.  The applicant proposes 
to leave the site as is, and does not foresee any future changes on the property.

CASE HISTORY:  The subject site was platted as the Atkisson Addition in 1988, also the site was 
rezoned from AA, Single-family residential to BB, Office zoning in June 1988.  (AA is the 
equivalent to SF-5 single-family Residential (“SF-5”) and BB is the equivalent to GO General 
Office (“GO”)).  Along with the zone change a restrictive covenant was established that prohibited 
the lots covered under this zone change from being combined or utilized in any way with the 
residentially zoned property to the south.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	“LC”			Fast Food Restaurant(s)
					Retail Strip Store
SOUTH:	“SF-5”		Residence
EAST:		“GO”			Office
WEST:	“SF-5”			Residence

PUBLIC SERVICES:  Sewer and water are available to this site.  Access to the subject site is off 
of east Central Avenue, a designated principal arterial with a traffic count of 22,000 average daily 
trips at the Central and Edgemoor intersection.  

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this area as “Local Commercial” within the Wichita 2030 Urban Growth Area.  “This 
category encompasses areas with uses that contain concentrations of predominately commercial, 
office and personal service uses that do not have a significant regional market draw.  The range of 
uses includes medical or insurance offices, auto repair and service stations, grocery stores, florist 
shops, restaurants and personal service facilities.  On a limited presence basis, these areas may also 
include mini-storage warehousing and small scale, light manufacturing uses.”  

Commercial Locational Guideline #1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that commercial 
sites should be located adjacent to arterial streets or major thoroughfares that provide needed 
ingress and egress in order to avoid traffic congestion.  The proposed development complies with 
this guideline.  Guideline #5 stated that commercially-generated traffic should not feed directly 
onto local residential streets, and #6 states commercial uses that are not located in planned centers 
or nodes (including large free-standing buildings, auto-related and non-retail uses) should be guided 
to other appropriate areas such as: the CBD fringe; segments of Kellogg; established areas of similar 
development; and, areas where traffic patterns, surrounding land uses and utilities can support such 
development.

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning 
staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

1.	The subject property shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site 
plan.

2.	The subject property shall be developed in conformance with all applicable codes to 
include but not limited to:  zoning, sign, building, fire, and health codes.  (This conditional 
use does not modify or void the requirements contained in the earlier restrictive covenant.) 

3.	If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the 
Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set 
forth in the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, 
declare that the Conditional Use is null and void.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The surrounding uses are mixed in 
nature.  There are single-family homes to the south and west.  However, many of the homes 
on the south side of Central between Brookside Parkway and Hillcrest Avenue have 
converted to office and personal care uses.  Across Central Avenue is a variety of 
commercial, retail and restaurant uses.  The zoning pattern reflects the mix of uses in this 
area.  Property to the south and west is zoned SF-5 Single-family Residential (“SF-5”).  
Property to the north, across Central Avenue, is zoned LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) and 
property directly to the east of the subject site is zoned GO.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
subject property could be developed with uses as stipulated by the GO General Office 
(“GO”) zone district.  The Unified Zoning Code (“UZC”) allows for additional uses through 
the application of a Conditional Use permit, provided the applicant and site meet the review 
criteria as stipulated by UZC.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  This 
area is transitional in nature, with a general use shift from residential to office and service 
uses.  The approval of this Conditional Use permit should not have a significant impact on 
the surrounding property owners or the safety of traffic along Central Avenue.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as “Local 
Commercial” within the Wichita 2030 Urban Growth Area.  “This category encompasses 
areas with uses that contain concentrations of predominately commercial, office and 
personal service uses that do not have a significant regional market draw.  The range of uses 
includes medical or insurance offices, auto repair and service stations, grocery stores, florist 
shops, restaurants and personal service facilities.  On a limited presence basis, these areas 
may also include mini-storage warehousing and small scale, light manufacturing uses.”  
Commercial Locational Guideline #1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that 
commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterial streets or major thoroughfares that 
provide needed ingress and egress in order to avoid traffic congestion.  The proposed 
development complies with this guideline.  Guideline #5 stated that commercially-generated 
traffic should not feed directly onto local residential streets, and #6 states commercial uses 
that are not located in planned centers or nodes (including large free-standing buildings, 
auto-related and non-retail uses) should be guided to other appropriate areas such as: the 
CBD fringe; segments of Kellogg; established areas of similar development; and, areas 
where traffic patterns, surrounding land uses and utilities can support such development.

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed use will 
increase the turning movements on this portion of Central, which has a center turn lane.  
There should be no negative impacts or increased use of community facilities.

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

HILLMAN moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

			---------------------------------------------------
12.	Development Trends Update Request Report Distribution and Information  only 

MITCHELL We had a development trends update to be discussed.  Can we defer to another 
meeting?  

			---------------------------------------------------

SCHLEGEL The blue memo passed from the City Attorney regarding changes in the Kansas Open 
Meeting Act.  They do apply to this board.  You will need to be aware of this.  I don’t think it will 
have any practical affect or change on how you conduct business now. 
       
       ---------------------------------------------------

The Metropolitan Area Planning Department informally adjourned at 5:16 p.m.


State of Kansas	)
Sedgwick County	) SS


     I, John L. Schlegel, Secretary of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning 
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing copy of the minutes of the meeting of the 
Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, held on 
_______________________, is a true and correct copy of the minutes officially approved by such 
Commission.  

     Given under my hand and official seal this ___________ day of ____________________, 
2008.



     			    	 __________________________________
     			    	John L. Schlegel, Secretary
     			    	 Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan
				 Area Planning Commission

(SEAL)




 


June 19, 2008
Page 69