METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

May 10, 2001

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, May 10, 2001 at 12:00 p.m., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas.  The following members were present:  Jerry Michaelis, Acting Chair; James Barfield; Elizabeth Bishop; Kerry Coulter; Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; George Platt; Harold Warner; and Ray Warren.  Dorman Blake was not present.  Staff members present were Marvin Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner, Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary with Valerie Robinson for Comprehensive Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee.

1.	Presentation on the Final Report of the Comprehensive Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee by Stan Longhofer, Committee Chairperson.

Following a brief self-introduction, Stan Longhofer presented to the MAPC the findings and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Citizen's Advisory, as contained in their Final Report dated March 2001. Stan outlined the circumstances associated with the Committee's appointment last year by the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, and reviewed the three majors charges assigned to the Committee by the governing bodies.  The Committee's three tasks were: 1.  Identify techniques that would help in preserving prime agricultural land in the county (other than through the use of agricultural zoning); 2. Review possible new requirements for land subdivision in rural areas that would preserve the option for further subdivision when public services are made available; and, 3. Develop a set of overriding principles that can be used to guide and evaluate policy proposals relating to land-use decisions, particularly with respect to new development and redevelopment in urban areas of the county.

Stan explained that the Committee membership represented a cross-section of viewpoints and the goal was to reach consensus on the three charges. Expert presentations on a variety of related topics were made to the Committee. A particular challenge for the Committee was defining what constituted prime agricultural land, and what it meant to "preserve prime agricultural land".  The Committee eventually reached consensus on these issues, and determined that a key issue in this discussion is the impact that 5-10 acre parcels in the rural areas have on agricultural activity.  The Committee evaluated a number of agricultural preservation tools and techniques used in other areas of the country that could be used to help preserve prime agricultural land in Sedgwick County.  

Warren arrived at the meeting at 12:40 p.m.

After much discussion over several meetings, the Committee came up with the following policy recommendations for which there existed general consensus amongst the Committee membership.  Implementation details regarding these recommendations have been left to the MAPC for their consideration. 

1.	As a means of promoting the logical/efficient extension of future urban services and in order to help maintain contiguous farmland, the CPCAC recommends that new subdivision standards be developed that require rural lots throughout the county to meet a 20-acre minimum lot size requirement, with smaller lot sizes permitted only if they are bundled, incorporate a rural plat overlay with specified deed restrictions, or are clustered (Stan then proceeded to explain the concepts of lot bundling, plat overlay and clustering).
2.	The CPCAC feels that agricultural districts, combined with conservation easements, are an attractive alternative for preserving prime agricultural land.  The key concern, however, is how the purchase of these easements is funded.  We are concerned that the broader community is unwilling to provide the necessary resources.  We therefore recommend that the MAPC review financing alternatives to determine the feasibility of these programs.
3.	The majority of the Committee was strongly opposed to doing a study related to the costs of rural development.  However, the CPCAC supports the Metropolitan Area Planning Department in its continued efforts to monitor development trends, key indicators of change and related issues.
4.	The CPCAC also expressed strong support for the overriding principles that land use policies should put a high priority on respecting private property rights, while at the same time requiring those property owners to be accountable for the effects and impacts of their land use decisions on their neighbors and the community as a whole.

Stan then concluded his presentation and welcomed comments from the MAPC members.

MCKAY "Are there any questions? Mr. Warren."

WARREN "I have a couple of questions but, having been on this board and studied these issues, I know how much time you have put into this.  I just want to express my appreciation for everything that that Committee has done.  I think you have done an outstanding job in reflecting those values that some of us here hold near and dear, and I know you spent a lot of time doing this and I want to say thank you for that.  

In your presentation having to do with either the bundled or the overlay concepts in those rural districts I would take it that as a condition of platting a requirement would be made that there would be an irrevocable petition filed at the time so that as soon as services became available they would be triggered by that irrevocable petition that was filed maybe 10 years ago." 

LONGHOFER "That's exactly the idea.  Now what specifically has to be done and written to make that happen, that's where we had to defer to the expertise of this body and certainly then to attorneys to make sure that it is all going to be binding in the future, but that is the idea."

WARREN "That was clearly the intent of this Committee to have some type of irrevocable petition that would trigger the instillation of those services so that we wouldn't have to fight with the property owners."

LONGHOFER "That is exactly right, and that would be explicitly known up front so that the property owner had no reason to be surprised or have no moral ground to stand on to fight it in the future.  They know it, it was there, and it was explicit."

WARREN "Right and it runs with the land.  In your cluster concept what would trigger further urbanization of some of those open space areas that we have left out, that we left open space, and set aside?"  

LONGHOFER "I think you can imagine two different kinds of cluster developments.  One would be the kind that was displayed in the diagram that we saw before.  Now I'm going to speak to my personal impression here and it is to not something we discussed in depth as a Committee.  I think that in that type of case, further urbanizations probably would not happen but that the open space would become either public or private park space or preserved for a green space within the community.  The alternative type of development; which we thought to be really feasible for the technique of preserving prime Agricultural land and preserving contiguous tracts of farmland would be where the development was clustered in a corner of the larger tract.  In that case it becomes very clear, you have all these things set up with an urban level density in the corner, this other land is open for development once urban services become available. Now the landowner can now go sell that land to a developer, and the land can be developed at the higher density.  What creates the boundaries for future urban development is the piece here and piece there that starts to create a holdout problem among the landowners.  Now you have a contiguous tract say of 30-acres out of 40-acre block that is owned by one landowner where development becomes feasible."

WARREN "Again, I would like to say that you have made an excellent presentation and I want to thank you for what you have done."

LONGHOFER "Thank you!"

BISHOP "I would like to ask about the third goal.  As I recall, I think it was about July 11, 2000 when; I'm not sure about the County but at least when the City Council passed the Comprehensive Plan along with those three goals for the Committee.  I think the third goal was originally different."

LONGHOFER "That is absolutely correct."

BISHOP "As you said, that goal was changed as the group began to meet.  I am curious as to how that change came about."

LONGHOFER "Sure, our first meeting was just a get together, an introductory meeting, where we met everyone discussed what our charges were and given a bunch of homework assignments to take home and read.  When we came back for our second meeting, we reviewed that third goal.  I think I have it written down here, paraphrased slightly "to evaluate how Wichita and Sedgwick County finance community development in the urban edges and rural area of the county and investigate whether the cost of growth are equitable distributed".  And as apart of that task if you recall there was a request for proposals that was set out for doing essentially a fiscal impact study of periphery growth in the urban areas, and the relative cost and the burden sharing of that growth.  So, our task was to look at the output of that fiscal impact study and then provide some input to the elected bodies on what was brought back by the consulting report.  At our second meeting, one of the things that were sent out to us was the request for proposals so that we knew what we were going to be looking at.  Several members of the elected body members, members of the County Commission and City Council that were on our body, expressed concern that the request for proposals didn't match up with what they originally thought the purpose of the study was going to be.  They had discussion back and forth, it was something that we just said, wait a minute, this is beyond our scope, the elected bodies need to get together and decide what it is you want, what it is you don't want.  They took it back and in meetings with those groups, this alternative third goal was put together.  I think the discussion was they did not want to pursue that request for proposals."

BISHOP "My question is, was that change done in a formal setting, in a public meeting for instance at the city council or county commission meeting?"

LONGHOFER "I couldn't answer that question.  I know what forums I was involved with, but I don't know what forums the elected officials were involved in."

BISHOP "I am just curious, it is a legal nicety and I'm sure the law departments for either body would keep them in fine form, so probably it is legally accurate, but I wonder if the original charge was done at a public meeting and in the city council minutes.  I just wonder if it wouldn't have been better in the spirit of law if both of those also conducted their change of that charge."

LONGHOFER "I can't speak to that, we simply accepted the charges that were given.  I will state in this third charge as it came about, when it was clear that the elected bodies were not interested in pursuing and paying for a consulting study, then the third charge that we were given didn't make a lot of since, because it was revolving around that consultant study. So, I did offer to the members of the elected body alternative language that they then, through discussion, found acceptable.  How they went through that and what process to formalize, that I cannot say, I venture not to speak on that."

MICHAELIS "Mr. McKay."

MCKAY "To answer part of the question, I think the City Officials that were picked by their piers to be on this didn't want to pay for that study.  Isn't that right Marvin?"

KROUT "They didn't want to pay for the study and they had concerns."

MCKAY "We had a stack of authority studies and one more was going to do what.  I think they made the consensus among themselves; the Committee was kind of out of it as to whether they were going to do it or not going to do it.  There was concern from the Committee as to why do another study and from that, they within themselves took it back to their bodies.  I imagine they talked with their colleague before they came back and said they didn't want to do it.  I would think, don't you?"

KROUT "There were informal discussions; to my knowledge, there weren't any formal discussion. Neither the City Council nor the County Commission formally changed their directions to the Committee, but the people who were represented on the Committee, represented that this was the desire of the conscience of their boards."

MCKAY "Also, Margalee Wright, who is the facilitator sitting here in the middle of those three ladies, was also very responsible for this Committee."

LONGHOFER "I am very sorry Margalee. I had in my notes to recognize you when I did the composition of the Committee, then I was late, I rushed through the composition and I am sorry.  Margalee Wright was really essential, and when I talked about everything we have done on this Committee in terms of finding broad consciences, it was through Margalee efforts in helping us facilitate.   Margalee was our facilitator, and in helping us focus our efforts in on finding points of common agreements, Margalee was an invaluable asset to our Committee.  Please forgive me.  Thank you John."

MCKAY "Also if you remember our Comprehensive Plan, one of the things we did was put the overlay in at the County, for the whole County.  This was just to more or less how it is going to work if we do that.  These are just some of the ideas, because that is already in the Comprehensive Plan, the overlay, how are we going to do that?

LONGHOFER "One of our concerns was whether or not it was appropriate to have these overlays throughout the entire County.  I think the view of our Committee was "yeah that is appropriate, even though okay you know out near Cheney it is going to be a long, long time before we are going to have any urban level services being provided.  That's okay; this actually helps serve the added purpose of helping to maintain continuous tracks of farmland.  So actually, the same technique benefits both the urban development side of things and the rural preservation side of things, which made it a very attractive tool to us.  Did we fully answer your question?  I think part of that has to be deferred to the elected body."

BISHOP "One further comment, I regard this as an opportunity lost.  I think public decision making certainly by the governing body needs to be based on facts and careful research and not on supposition, I think at this point we have too much supposition."

LONGHOFER "I am very sorry that you feel that way.  Let me reiterate one more time, what I really think is sort of the unspoken charge that our Committee had which was to find a point of common ground.  To try to rebuild bridges in the community and demonstrate areas where we all really say "you know that we may have our differences but we can agree on these things".  At that level I think that was a very important element of what we did and I feel very proud of the work that the Committee did and I think it is important to demonstrate that we have a lot more common ground as a community than we do differences.  As important as those differences are we do have a lot of common ground."

MICHAELIS "Any further question of Mr. Longhofer?" 

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

2.	Approval of minutes for March 22, 2001

GAROFALO "I have a couple of corrections.  I will give them to the secretary."

MOTION:	That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes for the March 22, 2001 meeting as amended.

MCKAY moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0).

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

MICHAELIS "Are there any items that need to be pulled from the subdivision committee recommendations?  Need to pull 3/2.  Okay.  Is there anybody in the audience to speak on any of the items 3/1, and 3/3 through 3/7?  Okay."

3.	Subdivision Committee items 3/1, 3/3, 3/5, 3/6, and 3/7 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations COULTER moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0).

3/1.	SUB2001-13- One-step final plat of NW MAIN PUMP STATION ADDITION, located on the Southeast corner of 135th Street West and 21st Street North.

A.	A petition for extension of City water and sanitary services is required. 

B.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

C.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A guarantee for drainage improvements is required.

D.	In accordance with the Conditional Use site plan, the plat proposes a joint access along 21st St. North. The Protective Overlay permitted one opening along 135th St. West if Lot 2 was to be zoned LC, and three openings along 135th St. West if Lot 2 was intended for a government service use.  As the plat proposes three openings, Lot 2 will remain zoned SF-6 and allow for government services. 

E.	The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. 

F.	The access easements platted for the benefit of Lot 3 needs to be established by separate instrument. 

G.	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.

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

I.	County Engineering needs to comment on improvements to perimeter streets. The Subdivision Regulations require paved access between the nearest paved segment and the entrance to the plat. The applicant shall submit a guarantee for the paving of 135th St. West to the south line of the plat.

J.	A Protective Overlay Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved Protective Overlay (referenced as P-O #80) and its special conditions for development on this property.

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 which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

N.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

O.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

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 be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

S.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

T.	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. 

U.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/3.	SUB2001-34 - Final Plat of BELIEVER'S SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION, located on the south side of 21st Street North and west of 135th Street West.

A.	Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A commercial facilities request form is needed. 

B.	City Engineering has required a petition for future extension of City water and sanitary sewer services. 
 
C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

D.	County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. 

E.	County Engineering needs to comment on the need for improvements to perimeter streets. No improvements are required. 

F.	The plat proposes two access openings along 21st St. North. Access controls along 135th St. West need to be dedicated. The final plat shall reference the access controls in the plattor's text. County Engineering has approved two access openings along 21st Street, including one joint opening with the property to the west. 

G.	The joint access opening shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument.

H.	The Subdivision Committee has required a 35-foot contingent street dedication along the south 35 feet of the plat to improve access for future lots.

	The requested contingent street dedication has been platted. 

I.	County Engineering requests that the 50-ft KGE easement should be denoted as a utility easement. 

J.	The applicant is advised that if platted, the building setbacks must be 35 feet to conform with the Zoning setback standard for County section line roads.

K.	The platting binder indicates a party holding a mortgage on the site. This party's name must be included as a signatory on the plat, or else documentation provided indicating that such mortgage has been released.

L.	Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid.

M.	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. 

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

O.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

P.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

Q.	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.

R.	The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

T.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

U.	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. 

V.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/4.	SUB2001-33 - Final Plat of WESTPARK SECOND ADDITION, located on the west side of west Street and south of Harry.

A.	Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs  to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A drainage guarantee is required. 

B.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

C.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved; however modifications are needed. 

D.	The plat proposes access control except for one opening along West Street. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls; particularly any requirements specifying the location of the proposed opening. Traffic Engineering has required the access opening to be located along the south line of the plat. The final plat tracing shall limit the south opening to 30-feet from the property line, and reference the access controls in the plattor's text.

E.	The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. 

F.	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.

G.	The applicant needs to verify the location of the pipeline easement indicated in the platting binder. If this easement is on this site, it should either be shown or verification provided that it is off-site or has been released.

H.	Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid.

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

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

K.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

L.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

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

N.	The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

P.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

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

R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/5.	SUB2001-41 - One-Step final Plat of OSCO ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of Harry and Hillside.

A.	Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs  to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. No guarantees or easements are needed.

B.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

C.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved.  

D.	Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls and the need for locating access openings along property lines to allow for cross-lot access with adjoining commercial properties. The plat proposes one access opening along Harry and two access openings along Hillside. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. In accordance with the Subdivision regulations, any access openings located within 250 feet of the intersection (measured from curb) of Harry and Hillside are limited to right-turns only, and shall be referenced on the face of the plat; or a guarantee provided for the future construction of a raised medial. The final plat shall reference the access controls in the plattor's text. Traffic Engineering has requested that the complete access control along Harry and Hillside be extended to the north and east lines of the plat, respectively. The Subdivision Committee has approved cross-lot access for the benefit of the abutting properties to the south and west at no additional cost to the Applicant. 

E.	The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. 

F.	The plattor's text needs to be revised to reference "a Lot and Block". 

G.	City Engineering has requested that the proposed contingent right-of-way dedication at the intersection be revised to an outright dedication. A minor street privilege permit will be issued if the struicture is remaining on the site. 

H.	The Applicant is advised that in regard to the building and portion of the additional buildings within the contingent dedications and within the building setback, that while such areas of the existing structures may be retained, no enlargement of the buildings in such areas will be permitted and if removed, all subsequent rebuilding shall observe building setbacks.  

I.	The plattor's text needs to be revised to reference access controls as "hereby dedicated to the appropriate governing body". 

J.	Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid.

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 which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations.  (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.)

M.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

N.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

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 be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

R.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

S.	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. 

T.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/6.	SUB2001-39 - One-step final plat of REDDI ADDITION, located on the north side of Second Street, east of Greenwich Road.

A.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lot being platted. This guarantee shall be with the City for service through the Four Mile Creek sanitary sewer system. 

B.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of public water to serve the lot being platted.

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

D.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is needed. An off-site drainage agreement is required.

E.	The applicant shall guarantee the installation of Second Street to a roadway width of 31-ft back of curb to back of curb. 

F.	The applicant shall provide a No Protest Agreement for future improvements to Zelta. 

G.	The paving guarantee shall include the installation of an "L" or "T" type turnaround at the terminus of Second Street at the plat's east line.  

H.	On the final plat, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "J.D. Michaelis, Acting Chair".

I.	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.

J.	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. 

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

L.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

M.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

N.	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.

O.	The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

Q.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

R.	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. 

S.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/7.	SUB2001-42 - One-Step Final Plat of SMITHMOOR TENTH ADDITION, located south of Harry, on the west side of Greenwich Road.

A.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. This guarantee shall be with the City for service through the Four Mile Creek sanitary sewer system. 

B.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of public water to serve the lots being platted.

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording.

D.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved; although revisions are needed. 

E.	The plat should dedicate complete access control along Greenwich. The final plat tracing shall reference the access controls in the plattor's text.

F.	The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. The guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on one side of the through streets. 

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

H.	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 1association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities.

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

J.	The County Commissioners signature block may be omitted as this plat is located within the City of Wichita. 

K.	Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations for Lots 10, 27, 66, 86 in Block 1; and Lots 2, 16 and 19 in Block 2. The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width. The waiver has been approved. 

L.	The City Fire Department needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names are acceptable. 

M.	Various utility, wall and drainage easements that are labelled need to be platted.

O.	The wall easement needs to be referenced in the plattor's text. 

P.	The reference in the plattor's text regarding temporary cul-de-sac easements is not portrayed on the drawing, and may be omitted. 

Q.	The reference in the plattor's text to "repairing public street" needs to be omitted. 

R.	The applicant has platted 20-ft building setbacks which represents an adjustment of the Zoning Code standard of 25 feet for the SF-6, Single-Family District. The Subdivision Regulations permit the setback provisions to be modified by the plat upon the approval of the Planning Commission. The Subdivision Committee recommends that the setback provisions be adjusted. 

S.	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. 

T.	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.

U.	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.

V.	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. 

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

X.	The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature.

Y.	To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

Z.	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.

AA.	The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

CC.	Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

DD.	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. 

EE.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

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

3/2.	SUB200-109 - Final Plat of EAGLE'S LANDING AT NORTH OLVIER ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 45th Street North and Oliver.

MICHAELIS "This item is associated with Agenda Item No. 18, ZON2001-00029 and will be taken at that time."

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

JERRY MICHAELIS, Acting Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases:  
     
Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.  Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience.

The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing.  All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person.  However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote.

All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak.  When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience.  This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item.  Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record.  If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet.

The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items.  However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated.

For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning and vacation items, which is also available at the table with the other materials.  They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items.

I would like to remind the members of the Planning Commission that our bylaws require you to disclose any ex-parte contacts that you may have had regarding any of the applications on today's agenda.  So I would ask you to please remember to disclose the nature of any such contacts you have had before we open the hearing on each case, and what if any impact that information may have on your opinion of the request.
			---------------------------------------------------------
				
LONGNECKER "Just a blanket statement.  These three Vacation cases 16, 17 and 19 were heard and considered for recommendation by the Subdivision Committee on April 26.  On all three of these items, the request to vacate was recommended with the noted conditions in your packets.  Between the Subdivision Committee meeting on April 26 and today, there have been no changes to these conditions.

This is a public hearing, so if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against these items is welcome to do so, but in staff's case, again, there have been no changes to the Subdivision Committee recommendations, as is noted in your packet.  Are there any questions of staff?"

MICHAELIS "Okay, so essentially, we can take 4/1 through 4/3 in one motion.  Before we do that, I would like to ask if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on either of these items.  Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the requests be approved.  MCKAY moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0).



4/1.	VAC2001-16 - Request to vacate a 50-foot Taxiway Easement, located southwest of Harry Street/Eisenhower Avenue.

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

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 20, 2001, 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 50-ft taxiway easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

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

B.	Therefore, the vacation of the 50-ft taxiway easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions.

1.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

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

4/2.	VAC2001-17 - Request to vacate a portion of a drainage easement, located southeast of the Legion Avenue/Bella Road intersection.

The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate a portion of a 20-ft drainage easement. The easement was not dedicated or shown on the plat, but was recorded on a separate instrument.   Approximately 3-ft - 3.9-ft of the north end of the applicant's house currently encroaches on the easement.  The applicant is requesting that the south 6-ft (running the length of the easement) of the easement be vacated.  The 6-ft the applicant is requesting would leave the house clear of the easement by 1-ft - 1.9 ft.  There is a 4-ft drainpipe in the easement.  The 6-ft the applicant is requesting would place the drainpipe approximately 2-ft from the south edge of the easement.   The easement and the drain pipe end at the Little Arkansas River.          

Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council:

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

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 20, 2001, 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 drainage easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

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

C.	Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a 20-ft drainage easement described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions.

1.	The applicant shall dedicate the south 6-ft of the North 11-ft of Lot 141, Van View Add., Sedgwick County, Kansas as part of a 20-ft drainage easement.

2.	The applicant shall verify, via a survey, the location of the 4-ft drainage pipe in the 20-ft easement. 

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	The applicant shall dedicate the south 6-ft of the North 11-ft of Lot 141, Van View Add., Sedgwick County, Kansas as part of a 20-ft drainage easement.

2.	The applicant shall verify, via a survey, the location of the 4-ft drainage pipe in the 20-ft easement. 

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

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

4/3.	VAC2001-19 - Request to vacate two utility easements, one drainage easement and a portion of a reserve, located northwest of the 29th Street North/Ridge Road intersection.

The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate two 10-ft utility easements (one running between Lots 43 & 44 and the other between Lots 51 & 52, Blk 4), a 15-ft drainage easement (between Lots 38 & 39) and a portion of Reserve "E".  This portion of reserve "E" is platted for irrigation systems, landscaping, lakes (retention & detention), drainage structures, walks, docks and utilities confined to easements.  The property as shown on the exhibit is not developed.  The south section of this subdivision is developed with single-family houses.  The applicant proposes to create fewer, larger lots if the vacations are recommended. 

Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council:

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

4.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 20, 2001, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing.

5.	That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described utility, drainage easements & a portion of reserve and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

6.	In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted.


C.	Therefore, the vacation of utility, drainage easements & a portion of reserve described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions.

1.	Applicant will submit a revised drainage plan, for review by Staff.   

2.	Applicant will provide substitute easements for utilities.  

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

4.	Applicant must provide letter stating that all homeowners in the Association agree to vacate a portion Reserve "E", per exhibit, this is currently controlled/owned by the applicant.

5.	All improvements shall be according to City Standards.

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	Applicant will submit a revised drainage plan, for review by Staff.   

2.	Applicant will provide substitute easements for utilities.  

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

4.	Applicant must provide letter stating that all homeowners in the Association agree to vacate a portion Reserve "E", per exhibit, this is currently controlled/owned by the applicant.

5.	All improvements shall be according to City Standards.

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

ZONING:

5.	Case No. ZON2001-00017 - Jack D. & Leslie L. Hale (Owner); James M. & Mary Lou Voegeli (Contract Purchaser/Applicant) request zone change from "RR" Rural Residential to "OW" Office Warehouse on property described as:

A tract of land in the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 26 South, Range 1 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 90 degrees 00'00" West along the North line of said Northeast Quarter for 1663.56 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 46'55" East for 843.71 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00'00" West for 258.17 feet; thence North 00 Degrees 46'55" West for 843.71 feet to the North line of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 90 degrees 00'00" East 258.17 feet to the point of beginning, except the North 30 feet for street condemned in District Court Case C-8172-66.  Generally located south of 53rd Street North and west of Tyler.

SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  He reviewed the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The applicant requests a zone change from "RR" Rural Residential to "OW" Office Warehouse on a 4.8 acre unplatted tract located south of 53rd Street North and west of Tyler.  The property is located within the zoning area of influence for the City of Maize.

The site is currently developed with two agricultural buildings.  The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a small office and an attached garage for approximately 12 trucks for use by the applicant's contractor business.  The Unified Zoning Code defines the proposed use as "Construction Sales and Service" and first permits it in the "OW" Office Warehouse district when the business is not primarily a retail establishment.

The surrounding area is rural in character.  The property in all directions surrounding the site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is used for agriculture with the exception of manufactured homes on large lots to the north.  The nearest non-residential or non-agricultural land uses are sand and gravel extraction located approximately1/3 of a mile east of the site and a non-conforming manufacturing business located approximately 1 mile south of the site.  The nearest urban area is the City of Maize, which is located approximately 2/3 of a mile west of the site.

CASE HISTORY:  The subject property is unplatted.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"RR"		Manufactured homes on large lots
SOUTH:	"RR"		Agriculture
EAST:	"RR"		Agriculture
WEST:	"RR"		Agriculture

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The site has access to 53rd Street North, a two-lane County arterial street with traffic volumes of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. The 2030 Transportation Plan projects that traffic volumes on 53rd Street North will increase to approximately 5,100 vehicles per day.  Municipal water and sanitary sewer service are not available to the site; therefore, on-site water and sanitary sewer service would need to be provided. The property is located within the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District in area where ground water is likely to be within 10 feet of the ground surface.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:    The Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Rural" development. Rural areas consist of land outside the 30 year Wichita urban service area and small city growth areas.  The Rural 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 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan also provide guidance regarding land use.  The Land Use-Commercial/Office section contains a strategy (III.B4) that states, "in those portions of rural unincorporated Sedgwick County outside the projected growth area, limit commercial development to those activities that are agriculturally oriented or provide necessary convenience services to residents in the immediate area, or provide highway-oriented services at interchange areas."  The Land Use-Industrial section contains a strategy (IV.A2) that states, "in those portions of rural unincorporated Sedgwick County outside the projected urban growth area, allow industrial development only when it is agriculturally oriented, dependent upon a natural resource, or, as part of an appropriate expansion of an existing industrial area.  The requested zone change is not consistent the Land Use Guide or the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.  The Amended Comprehensive Development Plan 1980-2000 for the City of Maize does not address the subject property.  However, the City of Maize is currently making major revisions to their comprehensive plan, and those revisions may address the subject property in the future.

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon the information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be DENIED.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Surrounding land is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is used for agriculture or large lot residential uses.  The area is rural in character.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential, which restricts the site to very large lot residential or agricultural uses.  Only two commercial/industrial uses are permitted by right in the "RR" district, those being a kennel for 10 dogs or less and an asphalt plant at the site of a road construction project.  Given the lack of public services and its distance from urban areas, the subject property is suitably restricted.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  Granting the requested "OW" Office Warehouse zoning will set a precedent for this type of zoning at this rural location.  In fact, planning staff has already been contacted by another contractor's business considering relocating in this vicinity if the requested zone change is approved.  The "OW" district permits a wide variety of intense commercial and industrial uses that would not be appropriate at this location.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The requested change is not consistent with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan policies and strategy guidelines.  The requested use is not agriculturally oriented, does not provide necessary convenience services to residents in the immediate area, and is not dependent upon a natural resource.  According to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan recommendations, the requested use should be located within the urban service area of a city.  If future revisions to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Maize indicate that the subject property should be included in their urban service area, then the requested use may be appropriate at that time if the property meets the other criteria for a commercial/industrial use.
	
5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  The requested change would introduce a commercial/industrial land use to an area lacking appropriate community facilities.  Fire and crime protection services cannot be adequately provided to a commercial/industrial business at this remote location. On-site water and sanitary sewer service for a commercial/industrial business at this location would lead to a significant potential for groundwater pollution since the site is located within the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District in a area where ground water is likely to be within 10 feet of the ground surface.

KNEBEL "This site for this request is 4.8 acres of un-platted land located south of 53rd Street North and west of Tyler.  You can see on the screen that the site is currently developed with a couple of agricultural buildings.  The applicant is proposing to redevelop this site.  I guess the intention is to remove (indicating) this barn on the site, leave this particular building (indicating), and to construct a metal building for the storage of vehicles and for a small office.  

The area surrounding this application is rural in character, and most of the land to the south, west and east is still used for agriculture.  You have some manufactured homes on large lots to the north.  There is a single-family residence here (indicating) on a large lot, and then there is some sand extraction to the northeast.  There is some agriculture to the east and to the south, and although it is not really visible, about a mile to the south is a non-conforming industrial business that has existed prior to the county adopting zoning in that particular locale.

The City of Maize is located to the west and to the southwest approximately 2/3 of a mile to a mile depending upon whether you are going straight west or southwest.  The site does not currently have water or sewer service available, so on-site services would be required.  The site is located within the Equus Beds Groundwater Management district and is indicated on the County Engineer's map as an area that is likely to have groundwater within 10 feet of the surface.

The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as appropriate for rural development.  The Comprehensive Plan provides a couple of strategies regarding either commercial, office, or industrial development in rural locales.  Essentially what it indicates is that those types of uses, commercial and office, or an industrial use should be located in areas where there are public services either provided currently or planned to be provided through an urban service area as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan for either Wichita or one of the small cities.

Absent that, if it is outside those areas and in an area that is indicated to be rural for the long term that the use should be limited to those things that are agriculturally oriented that provide convenient services to nearby residences that are located at a highway interchange and provide services to the traveling public or those uses that are dependent upon a natural resource, such as the extraction of sand or oil or something along those lines.

The City of Maize is currently working on updating their Comprehensive Plan.  They have not indicated yet-and  I don't think they have made the decision themselves-the intended use.  There is an attachment that I handed out a minute ago regarding the findings that Maize made on this particular case when they heard it last night.  In that findings statement there is a statement that the Planning Commission sees the development of commercial along 53rd with housing behind the commercial.  I don't know that that is anything that is within their adopted plan, but that was one of the things that they discussed at the hearing last night.

The Planning staff is recommending that this case be denied.  We are basing this on the findings that are listed on Page 3 and 4.  I will go through a couple of those that we think are the most important.  The largest one being that this is in a rural area that is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being rural.  The strategies in the Comprehensive Plan indicate that the commercial and office and industrial uses in rural areas should be limited.  There are no services in terms of water or sewer provided in this particular area.  It is located in an area where groundwater contamination is a concern.

As I mentioned before, the Maize Planning Commission did hear this last night and unanimously recommended it for approval.  Their findings are listed on a separate page.  I will go through those if anyone would like, but otherwise I will just stand for questions."

PLATT "Did the Maize Planning Commission, when they made the statement that they see development of commercial along 53rd Street specifically comment that this size and shape of a lot is considered to be along 53rd Street?"

KNEBEL "Their statements were not that specific, no.  I do believe that the City Administrator from Maize is here.  You might ask that question of her.  Maybe she can give a better answer than I can."

MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of staff?"

WARREN "The lot is not being subdivided, is it now a lot in title recorded of record?"

KNEBEL "It is unplatted at this point, yes."

WARREN "But it is recorded of record as it is described here?"

KNEBEL "Yeah, that's right."

WARREN "So it is not a subdivision."

KNEBEL "Well, were this to be approved and they were to build a commercial building on it, it would need to be platted according to the Building Code."

WARREN "I understand that, but what I am saying is that they are not selling office lots, are they?"

KNEBEL "If you look at it, it looks like it has already been sold off before in that configuration."

WARREN "Okay."

MICHAELIS "Are there further questions of staff?  Thank you, Scott.  May we hear from the applicant, please?"

MARY LOU VOEGELI  "I live in Colwich, Kansas.  We have a concrete flatwork construction company.  We currently operate out of our house.  We have 45 employees or so, and about a dozen trucks or more on the road.  We would just like to locate in another area instead of working out of our house.  

This is very close to the K-96 Highway Interchange.  I don't know exactly how close, maybe a third of a mile or something like that."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant?"

WARREN "Would you be willing to-say where you are going to concentrate a certain area to the storage of trucks and equipment, Bobcats, I suppose and things like that-would you be willing to screen those areas?"

VOEGELI "We were going to build a metal building to put those in."

WARREN "So everything would be inside of a building and you wouldn't have anything outside?"

VOEGELI "Uh huh.  Nothing outside that I would know of.   Because on the north end of the lot there is a building that is open to the south, and we would put form lumber and miscellaneous things like that in there.  But the equipment and trucks and a small office would all be in the building."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions?"

JOHNSON "You said you have 45 employees, do they all show up at this site?"

VOEGELI "That is what we would like to have-currently they don't.  They take their trucks home at night and then just meet on the job.  We would like to get them consolidated.  It would help with the paperwork, it would help with the safety meetings and maintenance of the trucks.  We don't plan on servicing the trucks at that location.  We have two or three mechanic shops that we use.  We wouldn't be storing any gasoline."

JOHNSON "If you had 45 of them show up, they would leave their vehicles there and take your trucks?"

VOEGELI "Uh, huh.  But we don't plan on having all 45 of them show up every day."

MICHAELIS "All right.  Thank you, Ms. Voegeli.  Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item?  Anyone to speak in favor?  Please come forward."

CAROL BLOODWORTH "I live at 107 Washington in Cheney, I am the City Administrator at Maize.  I wanted to come to answer your questions about what the Planning Commission visited about last night and what their thoughts on this were.  One of the things that was discussed at length last night was that within the past 12 months you have sent to us, with your recommendation, two applications for sand and gravel extraction permits, which have storage of fuel that have a much greater possibility of contamination of ground water than an office warehouse use that would have one bathroom flushes occasionally.  We see, with the development that is going on at 21st and Maize Road, a great deal more of traffic that will be generated off of K-96 onto Maize Road, going that direction, and the development of commercial of various sorts around that intersection that would service those kinds of things.

As I stated, what we talked about last night is the numbers of these kinds of uses that are up and down 53rd Street North already.  The Planning Commission did not see that this was incompatible with uses that were already there.  One of the things that most small communities worry about as much as anything is the numbers of large-lot residential areas surrounding their city limits, making economical expansion impossible.  

One of the things that isn't mentioned on here is the location of the City's wastewater treatment plant.  It is north and east of K-96 Highway; north of the intersection of 53rd Street north and Maize Road, so it is already on the other side of K-96.  If it became necessary when the 10 years is up for the sand and gravel extraction, the proposal was to put housing around those sand pits.  At that time, wastewater would be a very important issue.  And at that time is when the Maize City Council will look about providing services in that area.  

There are flood plain issues in that area.  There have been a lot of problems there, but sooner or later, if you develop residential around those sandpits that you already recommended to be done, then that is probably going to have to happen by somebody.  It will probably be the City of Maize.    They looked at this and looked at what the use was actually going to be, and what traffic it was going to generate, and what possibilities of contamination there might be, and they did not see that it was an incompatible use in that area.  Are there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the speaker?"

PLATT "Yes, I will ask the question that I asked before.  Now, did the Maize Planning Commission then decide that they would put commercial all along 53rd Street to the depth of this particular plat?"

BLOODWORTH "Probably it would not be that depth, and they aren't planning on using that entire depth.  The back of that slopes away and is wet.  The front of it drains toward 53rd Street and the back of that lot drains toward the Slough.  My understanding is that this is the size and shape of that lot that they are able to purchase, not that they plan to use the entire area for that use."

GAROFALO "Ma'am, when the Maize Planning Commission was talking about commercial-this is commercial, but it is a heavier use than commercial.  It is not retail or a convenience store, or…"

BLOODWORTH "At the Planning Commission meeting, they had Scott read them the list of the uses that were allowable under Office Warehouse, and they were not concerned about the list of even the manufacturing uses that were listed under Office Warehouse.  They are really quite limited as far as the kind of pollutants or those kinds of things that would be a problem.  

The City of Maize's zoning areas are slightly different than what the county definitions are for those things.  But Scott was kind enough to go through the whole list for the Planning Commission last night."

GAROFALO "So they are taking a real broad look when they are talking about commercial?"

BLOODWORTH "Yes, sir."

GAROFALO "And that includes just about anything."

BLOODWORTH "Maize has Business 1; Business 2 and Industrial--those are its only three designations."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the speaker?  Thank you, Ma'am.  Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item?  If not, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition?"

MIKE NAEGELE "I live at 9220 West 53rd Street North.  We came here in defense of a dream that we had in the second quarter of 1996.  We found an 80-acre tract and my dad, my brothers and I went in on it; took 20 acres and we had a dream of building homes.  We researched the surrounding areas and knew what we had when we bought this land.  In one year from this August, I have plans to build a 3,500 square foot home right across the street from that land that is in question.  It is only 200 feet from that land.  So we do have a major concern here.

I just want to say that I congratulate each and every one of you on this board that researched this because every issue that you touched on, I have notes here that we were going to ask the same questions.  We had the same concerns-the traffic, that this was going to set a precedent as far as other acreages sold off.  The owner currently said that he has a list a mile high of people that are interested in that land.  This is just one thing that we were really concerned about-the area, because we love the area-we love the school district, and we were just really concerned and felt threatened about the aspect of a 5 acre plot sold here and then another one coming in and another one coming in when west of Maize there is this type of activity already.  I am sure that there could be some land bought west of Maize that would be more suitable for this.

But again, I appreciate everybody's efforts on this.  And everything that you guys had on this report as far as denying it, your reasons were exactly what my dad and I put together in the last two days.  That is pretty much all I have to say.  Oh.  I would like to go on to say that the Maize City Council had a meeting yesterday.  We went to the one that was dated on the 3rd, and it was cancelled.  I guess I am irritated or upset with the fact that we weren't notified about the meeting last night and we were unable to attend it."

MICHAELIS "Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Naegele, the comments and everything that you referring to were prepared by the staff, not by us."

NAEGELE "Oh, I'm sorry!  Okay.  I was under the impression that it was you.  Okay.  Then may I touch on a couple of those items real quick?"

MICHAELIS "You have 2-1/2 minutes left."

NAEGLELE "Something I have already touched on was the fact that if someone got in there and then there was a repeated effort of someone else wanting to buy another 5 acres as opposed to going on in that aspect.  The amount of traffic that was going to be imposed in there, the amount of deciding to put in your septic system and your water system, I think the Code specifies that it is supposed to be 5 acres, and there would be a considerable amount of build-up and stuff, so adhering the latest, to today's build-ups and stuff-but there is just a lot in the staff report that really touched on the same thing.   I just want to say that we would much rather that this didn't happen."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions?"

JOHNSON "Sir, you stated that you felt like there was something on 53rd west of Maize that would be more appropriate, so you are saying that a 5-acre tract like this west of Maize is better than one east of Maize?"

NAEGELE "Yes.  There is a place like an agricultural business where they have a lot of equipment sitting out.  That's just between Colwich and Maize currently.  There is equipment outside and great access to all of the highways as opposed to what they are looking at now.  In between, there are some lots right there in Maize that have a lot of equipment and stuff parked on it.  We were just trying to, if that is the way the west part of Maize is going with some of these lots already there, why not develop that that way and keep east of Maize more for residential lots?  We just planted 400 pine trees 2 weeks ago to upgrade the property.  We just have a major concern here as far as what could be going in on the south side of the road."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of the speaker?  Thank you, sir.  Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak  in opposition to this item?  Please come forward."

KEN NAEGELE "I live right across the road from the property that is of concern here.  My biggest issue on this, other than everything that has already been said is the noise issue.  I work third shift and sleep during the day.  This is a real peaceful place right now, and I don't feel that this is going to be a very good thing to have all of these pick-ups and stuff running back and forth there.  

As far as the site of it, that barn was built in 1901 I think, and it is a beautiful site to look out there and see that.  When you tear that stuff down and start building Morton buildings and stuff like that, it is kind of an eyesore to me.  I don't know….I am kind of concerned about property values and everything.  That is about all I have to say."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions?"

HENTZEN "Do you live in the same residence as the other speaker?"

NAEGELE "Not in the same residence.  It is on the same 80 acres, across the road.  I have my own 20 acres."

Barfield arrived at 1:20 p.m.

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of the speaker?  Thank you, sir.  Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to this item?  The applicant has two minutes for rebuttal.  Ms. Voegeli, do you have anything you want to respond to that they said?  You are welcome to, but you do not have to.  Okay."

MOTION:	Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; and taking into consideration that everything is going to be kept inside, and the fact that Office Warehouse has a stringent screening requirement if there was to be something outside, and in that the Maize Planning Commission has given a unanimous approval, I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to platting within one year.

WARREN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion.

MICHAELIS "Is there any discussion?"

BISHOP "Being the new kid on the block I hate to speak up so soon, but I am a little bit troubled by the fact that the neighbors did not have an opportunity to know about the Planning Commission meeting in Maize.  I assume that they have some notification processes that they went through.  They went to the trouble of attending one meeting which was cancelled, and then they were not notified of the meeting where a unanimous decision for approval was made.  I am not going to be able to support this at this point, partly based on that.  I think at least a deferral in order for the neighbors to have an opportunity to give their opinion would be in order."

PLATT "I would like to ask the maker of the motion if the motion includes the condition that no vehicles could be allowed to park outside?"

WARREN "I think that would have to have some kind of a Protective Overlay to enforce, wouldn't it?"

PLATT "Would you put that on?"

WARREN "A Protective Overlay?  I don't know that I want to do that.  I do think, and that is the reason I asked her if she would be willing to screen.  It is not really a question of whether she would be willing to screen, it would be a condition of her storing outside.  She would have to screen it in that zone.  So, I don't think I want to restrict that and say you can't ever store anything outside, knowing that if they did, they would have to screen it because that is a condition of that zone.  I will leave the motion as it stands."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further comments?"

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried with 10 votes in favor and 3 in opposition (Platt, Garofalo and Bishop).  Blake was not present.

KROUT  "This case goes next to the County Commission.  The applicant and all of those who testified today will be notified of the date of the County Commission hearing."
		
			------------------------------------------------

6.	Case No. CON2001-00024 - Messiah Evangelical Lutheran Church, Wilson, Darnell, Mann, PA/Wes Darnell request a Conditional Use to allow a day care, general on property described as:

Lot 1, Block 1, Messiah Lutheran 2nd Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Located on the southwest corner of the 12th Street North-Ridge Road Intersection.

BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff, Senior Planner, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  He reviewed the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The applicant is requesting consideration for a Conditional Use to allow a "Day Care, General", facility on property zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential. The site (4.66 acres, Lot 1, Block 1, Messiah Lutheran 2nd Addition) is located southwest of the 12th St N and Ridge Road intersection. The applicant proposes to construct a 5,900 sq-ft building of which 5,666 sq-ft is designated for day care, the remaining square footage is kitchen.  Ages of the children will range from 12 months to, but not including, kindergarten.  The days of operation are Monday through Friday.  The hours of operation for the day care are not set, but discussion indicates 7 AM to 6 PM.  The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the proposed use of the subject property.  The site plan shows the proposed day care as a southern addition to the existing church (4,857 sq-ft).  The proposed day care building has 3,507 sq-ft of playground attached to its south and west sides.  The playground area is divided into abutting 2 sections.  The largest is the preschool section (2,736 sq-ft), located on the south side of the proposed facility, with the smaller (771 sq-ft) toddler section on the west side of the proposed facility.  The playground is shown with a 6-ft high wood fence around it.  The playground hours will be from 8 AM to 6:30 PM.  The site plan shows a new parking lot and ingress/egress on the northeast side of the buildings.  The new parking lot combined with the existing parking, on the west side, provides a total of 40 spaces (with 2 handicapped lots), which exceeds the required parking of 14 spaces for the Day Care (9 staff + 54 kids = 14 spaces), as presented on the site plan.  The applicant has verbally noted that there are 20-30 trees scattered throughout the 4.66-acre site.       

Currently this site is developed as a church.  The properties to the east, west, south and north are zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential and are developed with single family residential.  The site is separated from the residence on the north by W 12th St.  The site is separated from the residence on the west by N Brunswick Lane.  The site is separated from the residence on the east by N Ridge Road.  There are residences abutting the site on the south.    
 
The proposed day care will have approximately 50- 60 children using the facility, thus meeting the Unified Zoning Code's (UZC) definition of a Day Care, general.  The Unified Zoning Code requires a Conditional use for "Day Care, General" in all zoning districts.  The expansion of the existing church with day care facility will trigger the landscaping, parking, and supplemental standards, per the Unified Zoning Code, for Day Care Centers as a Conditional Use.   

CASE HISTORY: Messiah Lutheran 2nd Add was recorded in Sedgwick County 02-08-01. 

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	SF-6 Single Family Residential		Residential		 
EAST:	SF-6 Single Family Residential		Residential		
SOUTH:	SF-6 Single Family Residential		Residential
WEST:	SF-6 Single Family Residential		Residential


PUBLIC SERVICES: N Ridge Road is a minor arterial.  Average Daily Trips (ADT) at the intersection of N Ridge Rd and W 13th St (2 blocks north of this location) is 14081 ADTs on the north side, 18576 ADTs on the south side, 15892 ADTs on the west side and 13275 ADTs on the east side.  There is gas, water, sewer and electricity for the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Low Density Residential.  Low Density Residential includes single-family homes, zero lot line units, cluster subdivisions and planned developments with mixed housing. Schools, churches and similar uses can be located in this category.  The Unified Zoning Code requires a Conditional Use for "Day Care, General", in "RR", "SF-20", "SF-10" and "SF-6" residential zoning districts, plus the "MH" and "GI" non-residential zoning districts.   

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the application be APPROVED, with the following conditions.

1.	The Day Care Center shall comply with all applicable local and state regulations, including the Supplementary Standards for Day Care Centers.
2.	Development shall be substantially in conformance with the Site Plan and Landscape Plan. 
        3.		Any violation of the conditions of approval shall 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 applicant's site and the surrounding area is zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential.  The immediate surrounding area is developed as single family residential.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: Residential development on the proposed site is unlikely as long as the church remains.  If the church leaves, it is conceivable that the property could develop into residential.  The 12th St - Ridge Rd intersection is a T, rather than a 4-way intersection, this makes the development of this site less attractive for commercial development. 

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property.   Any detrimental affects would be mitigated by the recommended condition of approval and code required development standards.  The proposed development, as shown on the site plan, puts the development in the middle of the 4.66 acres thus providing open space between it and the existing residences.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized
Comprehensive Plan and Policies:  The request for a Day Care, general, on "SF-6" Single Family Residential is a Conditional Use per the WSC Unified Zoning Code.  The Comprehensive Plan sights the best use for this area as low density residential.    

5	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  The impact of this development on the community facilities will be minimal.

LONGNECKER "This item is a Conditional Use request for a day care facility in 'SF-6' Single-Family Residential zoning.  This is Day Care, general.  The site is located at the southwest corner of 12th and North Ridge Road.  The applicant has submitted a site plan, which shows the proposed 5,900 square foot day care facility, which is shown right here (indicating).  It is attached to an existing church, which is approximately 4,800 square foot.  The applicant is looking to have 50 to 60 children using the facility.  The hours of operation have not been set yet, but discussion indicates 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the playground area-which they have also shown on the site plan attached to the Day Care-open from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

The playground area itself is approximately 3,500 square feet and the site plan shows a 6-foot high wooden fence around it.  The sight plan also shows some new parking for the facility.  That parking is coming in off of 12th Street.  It is providing an additional 14 spaces for the church and facility, which will exceed the required parking for that combination of uses, the church and the Day Care.

The applicant has verbally noted that there are 20 to 30 trees scattered throughout this 4.66 acre area.  It is noted in the staff report that a Day Care, general is a Conditional Use for residential zoning.  The property across Ridge Road to the east is zoned Single-Family 6, and is developed as such.  There are some existing trees and bushes on the property.  The property across the street off of 12th Street is also zoned 'SF-6' and is developed as residential.  (Indicating) This area is where the expansion for the would occur.  This is some of the existing playground equipment that the church is currently using.   We have single-family zoning and single-family uses abutting the church property on the south side.

Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use with the conditions that are noted on Page 3 of your staff report.  We are basing this on the 5 criteria we are looking at.  The zoning uses and character and the neighborhood.  The applicant's site and the surrounding area is zoned 'SF-6' Single-Family Residential.  

The suitability of the subject property for the uses which has been restricted:  Residential development on both the proposed site is unlikely as along as the church remains.  If the church leaves, it is conceivable that the property could develop into residential.  That goes back to the Conformance to Plans/Policies.  The Comp Plan identifies this property as low-density residential and the surrounding development in this neighborhood certainly reflects that type of development.

Again, going back to the suitability of such property, as long as the church stays, it is going to remain a church.  It is conceivable that the property could develop into residential if the church leaves.  Also note that 12th Street ends in a 'T' on Ridge Road, which makes it less attractive for any kind of non-residential development.  

The extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property, staff feels that the conditions that are normally applied to a  center general would minimize any detrimental affect on this property.  It is also noted and is shown on the site plan that the current location of the existing church and the proposed  pretty well puts this development right in the middle of this 4.6 acres.  We have ample green open space between it and the residential areas, plus we have roads on three sides that serve as a barrier, too, from the residential areas.

No. 4, conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comp Plan and Policies-again a Conditional Use is required for a , general in this particular zoning.   On No. 5, because of how it is located on the site plans and the conditions associated with the development of a , general.  Staff feels that the impact of this development on the community facilities will be minimal.  Are there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?"

BARFIELD "Could you tell me, once again, what the hours of operation would be, that have been discussed?"

LONGNECKER "Yes, the hours of operation, when the report was being written, the discussion was for between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. This is for children 12 months up to kindergarten, but not including kindergarten.  Now, the playground hours being discussed are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.  Currently, the Zoning Code allows it to open at 7:30 a.m. and operate to 6:30 p.m."

BARFIELD "I guess my concern is that if the is going to close at 6:00 and the playground is going to close at 6:30, we are going to have half an hour on 'unmanned' playground activity.  Is that correct?"

LONGNECKER "That is the way it is reading right now.  You are right.  Again, the discussion indicates that the time it was going to be open was 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.  I will let the applicant address the hours of operation because at the time the staff report was written, it was not set."

HENTZEN "Did the DAB look at this?"

LONGNECKER "No, sir."

HENTZEN "Is it going to be, or is it supposed to be?"

LONGNECKER "It is not supposed to be, no, sir."

KROUT "You asked if is it supposed to be, I am not sure that we have a perfect process, but I want to let the Planning Commission know what the current process is.  We take a look at a case and say 'do we think this is going to be controversial or not?'  If we think it is, we will send it to the DAB.  If we don't, we don't.  But we do send a notice, an early warning of all cases to the District Advisory Boards and to the City Council members and then if they think we are right or we are wrong, then they will either add it or subtract it from the DAB meeting."

MICHAELIS "Any further questions?  Thank you, Mr. Longnecker.  Could we hear from the applicant, please?"

JENNIFER LUDIKE "I live at 1985 Amidon, Apartment #701 in Wichita.  I am the Program Facilitator for the Child Care Center.  A couple of changes that we did have is that we are going to change the fence from the stated wood fence to a wrought iron fence with some bushes around it to improve the aesthetic appearance of it.  

On the hours of operation, we decided last night that they are going to be from 6:30 a.m.-that is so any employees in the area who need to be to work at 7:00 will have time to drop their children off-and we will close at 6:00.  The reason we expanded our playground time to 6:30 is to include if parents are late in picking up their children that we can spend the time outdoors if it is nice.  It will not be 'unmanned'; it will always be supervised and locked so that no one will be able to enter."

MICHAELIS "Okay.  Are there any questions of the applicant?  Thank you, ma'am.  Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this item?  Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition?  Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood.  The applicant's site and the surrounding area is zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential.  The immediate surrounding area is developed as single family residential. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: Residential development on the proposed site is unlikely as long as the church remains.  If the church leaves, it is conceivable that the property could develop into residential.  The 12th St - Ridge Rd intersection is a T, rather than a 4-way intersection, this makes the development of this site less attractive for commercial development. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Any detrimental affects would be mitigated by the recommended condition of approval and code required development standards.  The proposed development, as shown on the site plan, puts the development in the middle of the 4.66 acres thus providing open space between it and the existing residences. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies:  The request for a Day Care, general, on "SF-6" Single Family Residential is a Conditional Use per the WSC Unified Zoning Code.  The Comprehensive Plan sights the best use for this area as low density residential. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  This is an unmanned structure, 167 sq. ft. and 10-ft tall, that will house electronics for Cox Communications.  The impact of this development on the community facilities will be minimal.)  I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following:

1.	The Day Care Center shall comply with all applicable local and state regulations, including the Supplementary Standards for Day Care Centers.

2.	Development shall be substantially in conformance with the Site Plan and Landscape Plan.

3.	Any violation of the conditions of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void.

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

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

7a.	Case No. ZON2000-00022 - Kiser Properties LLC c/o John L. Kiser (Owner); Ritchie Associates, Inc. c/o Rob Ramseyer (Applicant); MKEC Engineering Consultants, Inc. c/o Greg Allison (Agent), request zone change from "LC" Limited Commercial and "AF-20" Single-Family Residential to "LC" Limited Commercial; and

7b.	Case No. CUP2000-00021 - Kiser Properties LLC c/o John L. Kiser (Owner); Ritchie Associates, Inc, c/o Rob Ramseyer (Applicant); MKEC Engineering Consultants, Inc. c/o Greg Allison (Agent) request the creation of the Kiser West Community Unit Plan.

SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff "The applicant is requesting a deferral on this case.  I think it might be best to hear from the applicant to let them give you the time frame that they would like.  I will make a presentation if necessary."

MICHAELIS "Is the applicant here?"

KNEBEL "Yes."

MICHAELIS "Is there anyone here to speak on item 7a and 7b?"

LISA BECKINGHAM "I am with MKEC Engineering Consultants.  I just want to state that we wish to defer on this item."

HENTZEN "How long?"

BECKINGHAM "I am not sure."

MOTION:	That the item be deferred for 2 weeks.

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


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

8a.	Case No. ZON2001-00019 - Ritchie Investment Company, c/o Rob Ramseyer, and Ritchie Associates, Inc. (owners); Baughman Company c/o Terry Smythe (agent) request a  zone change from "LC" Limited Commercial; "SF-6" Single-Family Residential; "SF-20" Single-Family Residential to "LC" Limited Commercial; and

8b.	Case No. CUP2001-00013 - Ritchie Investment Company, c/o Rob Ramseyer, and Ritchie Associates, Inc. (owners); Baughman Company c/o Terry Smythe (agent) request amendment and expansion of the Community Unit Plan on property described as:

	Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Reserve A, Starwest Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, TOGETHER with that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 26 South, Range 1 West of the 6th P.M. Sedgwick County, Kansas described as follows:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 2, in said Starwest Addition; thence North 89 degrees 36'35" West along the North line of said Starwest Addition, 1440.09 feet to the Northwest corner of Reserve A in said Starwest Addition; thence North 25 degrees 44'17" West, 801.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the North line of the South Half of the South Half of the North Half of said Southeast Quarter; thence Easterly along the North line of the South Half of the South Half of the North Half of said Southeast Quarter, 1846.00 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the South Half of the South Half of the North Half of said Southeast Quarter; thence Southerly along the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 722.32 feet to the intersection of the North line of said Starwest Addition, as extended East; thence North 89 degrees 36'35" West along said extended north line 59.90 feet to the point of beginning, subject to road rights-of-way of record. Generally located on the northwest corner of Ridge Road and 37th Street North.

DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  She reviewed the following staff report:

BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting to amend DP-250 Starwest C.U.P. and expand it to include 26.97 additional acres to the north.  The additional land consists of 11.45 acres to the north that was approved on March 30, 2000 by MAPC as DP-253 Kaylor C.U.P. and 15.52 more acres farther to the north and west.  The expanded C.U.P. would be renamed DP-250 Northridge Plaza Community Unit Plan, and would be 55.47 acres in size.  It would extend for over half the distance from 37th Street North to K-96 and would include a portion of the Big Slough North as its western boundary.

The C.U.P. is associated with a zone change request from "SF-20" Single-Family and "SF-6" Single-Family to "LC" Limited Commercial for the additional 27 acres.  Proposed uses are all those allowed in the "LC" district except adult entertainment establishments, group homes, group residential, halfway houses, correctional placement residences, private clubs, taverns, and drinking establishments.  Restaurants that serve liquor would be allowed as long as food was the primary service of the establishment.  

The C.U.P. has two major parcels and nine outparcels: Parcel 1 - 16.01 acres, Parcel 2 - 20.29 acres, Parcel 3 - 1.45 acres, Parcel 4 - 1.01 acres, Parcel 5 - 1.11 acres, Parcel 6 - 1.11 acres, Parcel 7 - 1.34 acres, Parcel 8 - 1.14 acres, Parcel 9 - 1.51 acres, Parcel 10 - 1.53 acres, and Parcel 11 - 1.30 acres.  Reserve A (7.69 acres) is reserved for drainage and open space.

The C.U.P. proposes a maximum building coverage of 30 percent, total floor area ratio of 35 percent, and maximum building height of 35 feet.  Three buildings would be permitted on the two large parcels; the outparcels would be limited to one building each.  Setbacks are generally 35 feet from the property line along 37th and Ridge, and 60 feet for the two large parcels along their boundaries with the outparcels and the property to the north.

All freestanding signs would be of a monument type, have a maximum height of 30 feet for Parcels 1-2 and 20 feet for Parcels 3-11, be spaced at least 150 feet apart.  Proposed signage is as follows: Parcel 1 - 395 sq. ft., Parcel 2 - 300 sq. ft., Parcels 3-11 - 150 sq. ft.  Signage restrictions would prohibit flashing signs (except showing time, temperature and public messages), portable signs, signs on the rear of buildings, and window display signs in excess of 25 percent of window area.

The applicant proposes all parcels share a uniform architectural character, color, texture, and the same predominant exterior building material, consisting of predominantly earth tones, and must employ materials similar to surrounding residential areas.  The applicant proposes similar or consistent lighting elements, with the height of light poles to be 24 feet.  Extensive use of backlit canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings would not be permitted.  

The application area is undeveloped.  Three residences are being removed from the northern portion of the proposed development.

Several new developments are located to the south of the proposed application area.  DP-237 Ridgeport North C.U.P., is being developed at the southeast corner of 37th and Ridge.  Medical offices, a hospital (Via Christi) and assisted living are under construction.  The property immediately to the south of the application area, DP-242 Ridge Centre C.U.P. is being developed with office/commercial uses.  A day care and an office building are under construction.  DP-245 Catamaran Cove C.U.P. is immediately west of Ridge Centre C.U.P.  This area was approved for "B" Multi-Family zoning for up to 775 apartment units. 

The property north of the site has been approved for "NR" Neighborhood Retail.  It is being platted as Rush Farms Addition.  Another application has been filed but deferred for "LI" Limited Industrial and "LC" uses for the property that abuts K-96. The property to the east of Ridge Road is still in agricultural use except for a cell tower.

Virtually all the parcels of Northridge Plaza except three outparcels, Parcels 3, 4 and 5, are in the 100-year floodplain.  (Parcels 3, 4 and 5 are in the 500-year floodplain.)  The "Reserve" shown on Northridge Plaza is part of the floodway for the Big Slough North. The land west of the Big Slough North is under the same ownership as Northridge Plaza C.U.P.  According to the applicant, they intend to develop this land into low-density residential use.

CASE HISTORY: The original portion of DP-250 Starwest C.U.P. was platted as Starwest Addition on April 17, 2000.  The remainder is unplatted.

All of the original property in DP- 250 Starwest and most of the land located west of DP-253 Kaylor C.U.P.  already has been annexed.  However, the land included within the original DP-253 Kaylor C.U.P. application plus the additional 330-foot strip of land along the northern edge of the proposed C.U.P. have not been annexed.  The applicant has advised that the remainder of the property will need to be annexed prior to Wichita City Council taking action on the case. 
  
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"SF-20"	Large-lot residential, agricultural, greenhouse/florist
SOUTH:	"LC"; "SF-20"	Day care and office under construction; vacant
EAST:	"SF-20";		Agricultural
WEST:	"SF-20"		Agricultural

PUBLIC SERVICES: The property is located along Ridge Road, a four-lane suburban arterial street with open drainage.  37th Street North is still an unpaved road.  Traffic volumes along Ridge Road in 2000 were 9,354 ADTs (average daily traffic).  This was projected to increase to 23,000 ADTs in the 2030 Transportation Plan, but this level will probably be reached well before 2030 if all the projected development already approved for the vicinity occurs (Via Christi, Ridge Centre, Starwest, Catamaran Cove, etc).  In fact, if fully developed with 728,000 square feet of shopping center type of uses, Northridge Plaza alone could be projected to increase traffic on Ridge Road by as much as 22,500 vehicle trips per day, based on an assumed trip generation rate of 31 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area.  This is significantly more traffic than was anticipated by the 2030 plan.

The C.U.P. proposes two major openings onto Ridge Road and one major opening onto 37th Street North.  There are two joint access points onto Ridge, and one joint access point and one additional opening onto 37th.  The C.U.P. would provide cross-lot circulation between parcels and at two points of access to the property to the north of the C.U.P.  A pedestrian walk system is proposed to link sidewalks along Ridge with the proposed buildings. 

Water and sewer services are not currently available to the property.  The applicant will need to guarantee extensions for water and sewer services.
 
CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:

The Wichita Land Use Guide in the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for "commercial" use.  The proposed development plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: 

The Big Slough North is a major factor that will impact the drainage plan during the platting process and will affect the use of the properties.  

Ideally, development occurring in the area between K-96 and 37th Street North should be coordinated to provide a smooth traffic circulation.  The area could be compared to the stretch of Rock Road between K-96 and 29th Street North, where concentrated commercial development with many points of access have led to congestion and traffic hazards.  This stretch of Ridge is the same length, one-half mile, and in the same relative position, immediately south of K-96.  If all the potential developments, Via Christi, Northridge Plaza, Ridge Centre, Catamaran Cove, plus additional residential development in the area materialize, it is possible to imagine a replication of traffic conditions on Rock Road.  

However, there is an opportunity to avoid problems that have beset Rock Road by refining the traffic circulation pattern for the area, with an eye to limiting access points and placing the points of signalization at the most beneficial location.  In terms of a circulation system, this would require north-south connections serving as an internal collector system to Ridge and 37th at strategic locations.  This alignment of private roads within Northridge Plaza is important to provide a smooth internal connection to the properties to the north because of the barrier of the Big Slough North on the west, forcing all links to Ridge Road and 37th Street North.  The revised C.U.P. drawings submitted stipulate provisions for the internal connections (1) on the rear of Parcels -10 and (2) another private drive at least 500 feet farther west.  This provides two access points to serve the properties to the north.  It is important that the drive farther to the west be a smooth-flowing drive with no parking spaces taking direct access from the drive.  Otherwise, it would be difficult to maneuver through ¼ mile of continuously interrupted travel.

The quarter-mile point on Ridge Road is a logical point for signalization and is also a proposed major opening into the site.  Between this signal and the one proposed at 37th and Ridge ¼ mile to the south, the applicant has requested an additional major opening plus two joint openings.  Access management principles would suggest that this is in excess of the needed openings.  Perhaps the joint access between Parcel 5 and 6 could be eliminated.  Staff originally recommended the joint opening between Parcels 7 and 8 on Ridge and the joint opening between Parcels 8 and 9 on 37th should be limited to right-in/right-out only.  The revised C.U.P. guarantees to provide raised medians in the future should the Traffic Engineer determine that left-turns are a hazard. 

Based on these comments, plus the information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to platting within one year, subject to annexation of the unincorporated portion of the tract, and subject to the following conditions:

A.	APPROVE the zone change (ZON2001-00019) to "LC" Limited Commercial, subject to platting of the entire property within one year.

B.	APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-250), subject to the following conditions:

1.	The following transportation improvements shall be provided:

A.	Cross-circulation access shall be provided within this C.U.P. and the property to the north.  One access opening shall occur along the rear line of Parcel 3 and continue south along the rear line of Parcels 3-10.  The second point of access shall be located no closer than approximately 500 feet west of the west line of Parcel 3.

B.	A continuous right-turn decel lane and a northbound left-turn storage lane shall be provided at the northern major opening along Ridge Road.  The joint openings and the southern major opening along Ridge Road shall operate as full access for all turning movements until the Traffic Engineer determines their closure to left-turns is necessary.  A guarantee of the future construction of raised medians and improvements will be provided.  A pro rata share of these improvements will be assessed to this C.U.P.

C.	The major opening on 37th Street North shall be separated by at least 400 feet from the joint opening between Parcels 8 and 9.

D.	The applicant shall guarantee 12.5 percent of the cost of the signalization of the intersection of 37th Street and Ridge Road and 30 percent of the cost of signalization of the major opening of Parcel 2.

E.	A guarantee shall be provided for paving a pro rata portion along the frontage of 37th Street North.

F.	A continuous right-turn decel and a left-turn storage lane shall be provided from the intersection to the major entrance on 37th Street North and the major entrance on Ridge Road.  (This is not included on the C.U.P. but was an existing condition of the DP-250 Starwest C.U.P., as approved January 19, 2000). 

2.	No development shall occur until such time as municipal water and sewer services are provided to the site.

3.	Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration.

4.	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.

5.	All property included within this C.U.P. and zone case shall be platted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. by the Governing Body, or the cases shall be considered denied and closed.  The resolution establishing the zone change shall not be published until the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds.

6.	Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-250) includes special conditions for development on this property.

7.	The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. 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 character of this area is changing.  Office/medical uses are being developed to the southeast, and limited commercial, office, and neighborhood retail uses are approved for development to the south.  Multi-family development has been approved to the south.  The tract to the west is separated from this site by the Big Slough North and remains agricultural in use.  The tract to north is large lot suburban, agricultural, and a neighborhood retail use, but could be anticipated to be developed more intensively northward to K-96, as could the land east of Ridge between 37th and K-96 which is still in agricultural use and approved for a commercial communication tower.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property could remain agricultural, but would more likely be developed with urban-type uses.  It's location along a major arterial near a freeway interchange and the presence of office/commercial activity nearby makes low density "SF-20" and "SF-6" residential development seem out of character and below desirable density levels for orderly urban expansion.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of this C.U.P. will increase the likelihood that other properties to north, and east would seek to be developed more intensively.  Approval probably would not influence the property to the west as significantly due to its separation by the Big Slough North.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The proposed development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The site will have a significant impact on community facilities and significantly increase traffic volumes.  However, through the required guarantees for street and other infrastructure improvements and provision of a circulation network, this impact should be reduced.

GOLTRY "This map (indicating) shows the existing Starwest CUP.  What the applicant is requesting is that they incorporate an area that you heard before, a case called DP-253 Kaylor about a year ago, and that that be incorporated as part of Starwest.  They have also acquired the property to the north and would also include it as part of the new Northridge development, which would be an integrated development.  It will be a development that stretches from 37th Street North and Ridge Road more than half the distance to K-96.  This would be the half distance point and the potential signalization point.

I won't go into detail on all of the fine points of it except to mention that there are two major parcels for 'big-box' type users and nine out parcels.  All of the information regarding architectural control, pedestrian walks, etc., is all the same as from Starwest before, so we don't need to reiterate that.

The property immediately north of the site probably bears a little discussion.  This area is part of an 'NR' Neighborhood Retail greenhouse site that was approved about a year ago.  It is the 'Rush Farms Addition'.  It has now been purchased instead by a bank, who is hoping to build as a bank site.  Initially, when this case was pulled for two weeks-one of the reasons it was pulled was working out issues between the two properties-they had about a 350-foot deep site.

Originally, the applicant wanted to have a frontage road along the backs of the out parcels for internal circulation, which is a good plan.  Then I called that it swing around back (pointing to the rear of the Rush Farm parcel) to accommodate the site depth for the Rush Farms Addition to the north.  Upon reconsideration, we are recommending that this road dead end right here (indicating) at about 220 feet back from Ridge Road in correspondence with the rest of the out parcel ring road.  I have spoken with the gentleman who owns the property to the north.  I don't know if he submitted any testimony today in behalf of that, in favor or in opposition.  I didn't sense that he had a tremendous amount of opposition to this change in staff recommendation when I spoke with him this morning, but I hesitate to speak in behalf of someone else.

Virtually, all of the property in Northridge is in the flood plain.  Most of it is in the 100-year flood plain.  That portion that isn't, which is some of the out parcels, is in the 500-year flood plain.  I think we are pretty much familiar with the surrounding land use.  In terms of recommendations, it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use.  If you all remember the discussion-and there was extensive discussion of transportation issues on the Kaylor CUP a year ago-we did make the analogy between this parcel, which represents that half mile stretch between K-96 and 37th Street that would be analogous to the Rock Road corridor.  

To try to avoid the types of congestion that we have had along Rock Road, there is a much more limited number of access openings that are recommended on this parcel with respect to what you see on Rock Road.  They have basically two major openings on Ridge, plus one major opening on 37th Street.  They also have some joint access openings between two of the little out parcels, positioned between the little out parcels as you come back from the intersection (Parcels 7 and 8 and between Parcels 8 and 9).  The Traffic Engineer would have liked to have reduced even one further on the access openings along Ridge Road between Parcels 5 and 6).

To supplement this, internal circulation is predicated on the private road I already mentioned that runs along the back side of the out parcels, plus another internal connection that will connect from the two large out parcels and go forward here to be stubbed out.  It can go through the Rush Addition and go on up to the last parcel to the north so that it will be at least 500 feet back from the first internal road, so we will have good internal circulation.

Staff recommendations are the same as what are shown on your CUP, with the exception that I have added one condition-Condition F-that a continuous right-turn decel and left-turn storage lane be provided from the intersection to the major entrance on 37th Street North, and the major entrance on Ridge Road.  Those were conditions that were originally contained in Starwest a year ago, and I felt that they should be maintained as an important part of the CUP.  Other than that, we are in agreement with what is shown on the CUP, which is 12.5% of the cost of the signalization of 37th Street North and Ridge and 30% of the cost of signalization of the major opening on Parcel 2 and the other details that are given in the staff report.  I think I will go ahead and stand for questions now."

GAROFALO "I am a little confused on all of this access stuff. I would like for you to explain that to us again.  Are there four accesses on Ridge Road; three on 37th Street?"

GOLTRY  (Indicating) "On Ridge Road we have a joint access here, a major opening here between Parcels 6 and 7); joint access here (between Parcels 7 and 8); a major opening here between Parcels 3 and 4; and there is also an access there.  There are only four.  That is right.  (Indicating) This one up here was removed."

GAROFALO "And what about 37th Street?"

GOLTRY "One between Parcels 8 and 9, two between Parcels 10 and 11; and, three, west of Parcel 11."

GAROFALO "Okay.  And you said something about the Traffic Engineer wanting to take out another one on Ridge?"

GOLTRY "That is the one they have removed?  I stand corrected on my staff report on that. (Note:  Goltry was incorrect-the request would have been ro remove the access between Parcels 5 and 6)."

GAROFALO "So in other words, there was going to be five?  Okay.  Then, on Page 5, Item 1A, the cross-circulation, and in the last sentence 'the second point of access shall be located no closer than approximately 500 feet west of the west line of Parcel 3."

GOLTRY "I think the easiest way to explain that is to back up to the map-in other words, you are going to have a road along in this area (indicating)-and what they are saying is that they want to have a second point of access at least 500 feet back from there, so you don't have one on top of the other and you do get some good circulation within the CUP.  That is as it is stated on the revised CUP that was submitted that you have."

MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of staff?  Thank you, Ms. Goltry.  May we hear from the applicant, please?"

TERRY SMYTHE "Good afternoon.  I am here on behalf of the applicant.  We have worked with staff for many, many months on this.  We deferred it two weeks ago to firm up some other details that came up in the staff report.  We have met those conditions and we are in agreement with staff comments."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant?"

WARREN "We have had a lot of talk and concerns about the possibility of doing 'U-turns' at intersections.  With this decel lane that you have in there, would that, in any way, in the future, give us a possibility of doing a 'U-ie' at the intersection.  Is that enough room, or would we need more room to do that?"

SMYTHE "I am surrounded by experts, and I am going to tell you, from a traffic engineering standpoint, I think we are going to have to ask the traffic engineering people on that.  I would think, with 150 foot of right-of-way at that intersection, there would be enough room, but you are out of my expertise."

WARREN "It seems like we are moving more and more towards eventually a center divider and right-turn only, which is going to dictate that we figure out a way to get those cars turned back to where they want to go."

SMYTHE "And I think on some of the conditions that we worked with staff on, the north/south connections, that if those raised medians along Ridge Road were to pop up tomorrow or a year from now, that there would be enough internal circulation that once you got the major entrance that you could work your way back down.  It is going to be a training process, there is no question about it.  But we are comfortable with