METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

July 19, 2001

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Planning Commission was held Thursday, July 
19, 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; Don Anderson; James 
Barfield (late arrival); Dorman Blake; Kerry Coulter; Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson (late arrival); Ron 
Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; and Ray Warren (late arrival).  Elizabeth Bishop, Harold Warner and David Wells were 
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; Jess McNeely, Associate Planner, 
and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary.

1.	County Capital Improvement Plan presentation/finding of consistency with Comprehensive Plan.

PETE GIROUX "I am a Senior Management Analyst for the County and I am accompanied today by the 
distinguished Deputy Director for the Public Works for the County."

MCKAY "Are you talking about Weber?  Are you new on the job?"

GIROUX "I am new on the job, and sort of the ringmaster between the Public Works Department and the Project 
Services people.  It is a new position and I have been on it about 6 months.  We are here today to brief you on the 
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that we have included in the recommended budget hearings to be held on the 
25th of this month and the 8th of August.  We anticipate the approval of the budget on the 8th of August.

(Indicating) Here is our Oversight Committee—you can see Mr. Krout's name on there.  He tries to keep everything 
well integrated.  I sit here in the middle between Jim and Stephanie Knebel, who runs our project services.  

Our objectives this year were to focus on continuing to maintain sound plans; identify the future needs, and try to 
improve a systematic approach to our maintenance and repair—most of all a long-term fiscal prudence.

In the past, we have had some limitations on some of the project execution.  Typically most of the facility projects 
have been cash funded, and with a limited amount of dollars, it doesn't allow everything that ought to be done.  
There has been some discussion in the past about using bonds for appropriate, and this year we have implemented 
that in the proposal to the County Commission, and we intend to focus where appropriate on projects that have 
long-term life that is consistent with the bond.

This year, we have a total of $218 million proposed and you can see how it is divided with a preponderance in 
infrastructure.  We have some major facility requirements and I will highlight those here in a little bit.  We started 
this year into a drainage program for the unincorporated areas.  The County will continue that next year.

(Indicating) Here is where we get money.  Right now there is a limitation on our bonding.  If we execute all of the 
planned projects, we might have to adjust that 5% of taxable assessed valuation limit.  We will see what happens.  
In 2002, we are going to invest about $25 million in the juvenile justice complex.  We are still discussing locations 
for the 911 dispatch emergency operation center combination, but for those of you who are familiar with the 
current location, you know that there are some serious limitations there.  Depending on the discussions that you 
saw highlighted in the paper yesterday on the downtown arena, we have included the plan and design component 
of a re-model for the arena at the Kansas Coliseum.  

The court house projects are the ones I touched on earlier with the use of the bond, and we are going to go in and 
do a variety of different things.  The District Court has been clambering for more space.  We are going to work in 
the former jail area on the 5th floor.  We are going to be doing a variety of projects to upgrade the infrastructure in 
the facility.  

We are also going to work on the front end of the building.  As you are probably aware, it is quite congested now 
with all of the security equipment.  We want to extend the front of the building a little bit and refresh the jury room 
and some of the configuration in the facility and do that in a prudent manner.  We are going to capture some 
unused space on the 12th floor and integrate all of the computer controls in the jail into a system that has the same 
general system architecture.

Across the street in Monger, we are going to be moving EMS out to the Stillwell area.  We are going to be doing 
some remodeling when they clear out and consolidate some of the operations there.  The corrections area up the 
street will be included in the bond to do some required work there.  It is a heavily used facility and it needs some 
attention.  

For those of you that go to the Murdock tag office when it is raining, you will know what I am talking about when 
we talk about the parking lot.  We are going to get some engineers to investigate that and propose some fixes.  
(Indicating) this is a list of the remainder of our 2002 projects, we are going to add a couple more courts.  We have 
renovated a couple of courts in the Sedgwick County park and we are going to do two more this year and then 
follow that in the next year.  The ones we have just completed are pretty impressive.

Again, there is the Kansas Coliseum, and again, it is dependent on where the discussions on the downtown arena 
go.  I will now turn it over to Jim and he can have at it."

Barfield arrived at 12:15 p.m.

JIM WEBER "Briefly—Pete has asked me to go through the Public Works infrastructure projects—one of the things I 
feel that I need to tell you is that if you are going to compare the C.I.P. that is being proposed to one from last year 
or two years back, you are going to see some differences.  What has happened is that because of the short falls in 
sales tax, we have had what I would call a major reconciliation between the amount of cash that is available and 
the projects that we had previously listed in the C.I.P.  So what we have essentially had to do is to take our C.I.P. 
and stretch it, so when we add a year to the new C.I.P.—the last year—essentially every project in there has come 
out of a prior project as we try to get all of those.  I think we have it all balanced up now and we are comfortable 
with the sales tax estimates and things are rolling, but you will find some major projects that did move.

One of the things that Pete had mentioned was the drainage, and for those of you who don't know, the County did 
create a Stormwater Management Department in March of this year.  As we went out of the sewer business we 
got into the drainage business.  They have several projects down in the southern part of the County that they are 
working on this year—2002 will be the second year of the program.  They are going to cash fund some projects.  
The significant ones that are coming on in 2002 would be the Cowskin Diversion channel and this would be south 
of Haysville, to try to start bypassing some of the major flows around the existing development that is down in and 
around the Cowskin.  This would be some design and construction going on.  And then, we identified a couple of 
projects in the Oaklawn area in 2002.  The significant one that we will be doing will be to reconstruct Idlewild.  
Idlewild is the far southern street in Oaklawn and it has significant drainage problems, so we think this will be a 
good project for them down there.

As we look on out, the southern Sedgwick County drainage study has identified a number of major projects.  Some 
of these are shown out in the future and are going to be driven by development that might occur down in that area 
when we talk about detention bases and pump stations and those things.  There are some things along Clifton and 
down along Hydraulic that we are working to implement in a shorter time frame.

In 2002—of course every year we do some latex modified slurry seal, which is a seal coat on existing roads for 
probably the last 15 years the County Engineer has had a good program of building roads and coming back in 5 
years with a slurry seal, and then coming back in another 5 years with a BM1 overlay, which is the second thing 
you see there, trying to extend the life of the infrastructure once we get it down.  So every year as you go out you 
will see those two projects in there.  They are basically $1 million per year.  They are pretty significant. 

We are working on Rock Road down by Mulvane.  That is a project that had previously been shown in the 2001 
C.I.P.  This is one of them that we have had to adjust to get the cash all balanced up.  Another big one that we 
have going on in 2002 is the Haysville grade separation, a railroad project down there, which is all related to the 
C.O.R.E. railroad thing here in Wichita.

In 2003, again the BM1 overlay—the latex modified slurry seal is in there but it is probably a little bit smaller and 
didn't show up on our highlight slide.  We are working to improve the corridor along 63rd Street South from 
Hydraulic, working our way back east.  We have quite a bit of activity in there south of McConnell, south of 
Boeing, north of Derby and K-15 coming together.  This would be the piece picking it up from Hydraulic to K-15.  It 
appears that we are going to recommend contributing $10 million for the Kellogg/Tyler/Maize Road interchanges.

Again, in 2004, we have the slurry seal and the BM1 overlay.  We have been working on Central for a while.  We 
have been improving all of the main corridors out there on the east side of town.  This would be the last piece of 
Central from 143rd to the County line running you right into Andover, and it connects up with the K-96.  On 125th 
Street North, right up there on the County line, there is a bridge involved in this recondition job on Meridian—from 
Meridian to Broadway.  

Then 71st Street South out to the Kingman County line.  This would be one of the few major corridors out there, 
and I say major—though people will tell you that there isn't much traffic, and Marvin will tell you that it probably 
doesn't justify it based on traffic, but this is like a major collector out there and it is an important corridor, so we do 
have KDOT funding lined up for that project.

In 2005, again, we are on the east side of town with 13th Street.  We will have Central done and we are going to 
move up to 13th Street.  This goes from K-96 to the Butler County line.  The east mile of that is currently a sand 
road, it is not paved.  You may think of it as being next to Savannah Castle Rock Ranch.

Then in 2006, again, the maintenance projects.  We are going to be doing some work on West Street.  We have 
had to slide this one out because of the funding also, but we are going to get from the city limits down at 47th 
Street South, there is a pretty good sized industrial commercial corridor down there and some residential 
development occurring at the far south end of that.  It looks like Pete needs to talk some more."

GIROUX "We think we have captured most of our facility requirements with the Court House bond.  I won't belabor 
the discussion on the downtown arena.  We still, as Jim indicated, have limitations, both policy and fiscal 
limitations on the amount of available sales tax, and how we pay for contributions like that $10 million contribution 
to the Kellogg/Tyler/Maize is a subject of internal discussions and of course, circumstances of how the budget 
continues to proceed.  We are going to pursue that in a right way if we choose to let sales tax pay for some of that 
bond, that of course, reduces the amount of work that Public Works can do.  They aren't happy about that.  In any 
case, we will make prudent decisions.  It is still going to be a subject of long discussion.  

We have been able to put the recommended budget on the Internet—it was on last year.  It is on Sedgwick 
County.org and is highlighted on the first page.  I sent you a worksheet that I built over the last couple of weeks to 
show the project phases, and I inadvertently made an error in there.  The fact that the $10 million contribution to 
the Tyler/Maize interchange would be in 2003, and I inadvertently put it out there in the future on the worksheet.  

We thought that would be a lot more user-friendly if you could look at it in that manner as opposed to looking at 
the funding source which doesn't have a lot of value to you.  We are happy to accept questions at any time, but 
probably the best way to do that would be to shoot them to Mr. Krout and he will send them on to us and he can 
see the answers when they come back through.  We will publish a separate CIP booklet that matches up with the 
approved budget.  We will include a map this year that shows all of the various projects around the county.  They 
will be available to you through Mr. Krout also. Again, we anticipate the county budget approval on the 8th of 
August and I would be glad to entertain any questions."

GAROFALO "I have a few.  In the pie chart, on Page 282, on the infrastructure, under 'others', is that bridges?  It 
says 'infrastructure roads' and then 'infrastructure other'. I was just wondering what that included."

GIROUX "I think it included drainage.  I was trying to highlight the factor that there was a substantial investment, 
first in the Coliseum. In the 'infrastructure others' would include the drainage, intersections, and bridges. We were 
just trying to highlight the major factors."

GAROFALO "Okay.  I didn't see the bridge on North Broadway that is a problem.  Jim may want to answer that."

WEBER "That has not been included in the CIP.  We have submitted that to KDOT and our intent would be to bring 
that into the plan in the next cycle.  You are talking about the one up by KFDI aren't you?"

GAROFALO "Yes.  And the only other question I think I had was that I didn't notice, or maybe I missed it, but the 
Hydraulic project, you know, where the City is going to go from MacArthur to the city limits.  Is it in there?  The 
county is part of it, I think."

WEBER "It is in there.  I don't think it is reflected in the plan, but we are participating in that project, bringing it 
down to 63rd Street South."

GAROFALO "Why wasn't it in here (indicating)?"

WEBER "I am thinking because it is showing up in 2001 or 2000."

Warren arrived at the meeting at 12:25 p.m.

HENTZEN "Mr. Chair, I don't have an individual question, but I would like to, if I could, share with all of the other 
people, what I felt as I went through the whole thing.  I am not asking you to change it, but I just want you to 
know—I just want to present some general questions if I may do that.  

I do want to tell you that the Capital Improvement Program at the County, I believe started in about 1982.  I believe 
Tim Witsman was the County Manager at the time.  They started on an 8 year program, I think, and I happened to 
be there from 1985 to 1993 and we worked on and approved much of the C.I.P. of the County.  In addition to 
that, that was the time that we got the public vote and approval for funding 50% of the mil levy increase—the 1 
cent sales tax that had been proposed for 5 times and it failed every time.  But in 1995, the citizens approved the 1 
cent sales tax with the understanding that half of it would be spent on County improvements and the other half 
was to relieve the property tax increases.  That has been in operation since then.

The first thing that I would like to point to of the things I saw as I went through this thing was on Page 282, which 
is the second page of the summary, was $53 million, and included with that are the improvements at the Coliseum.  
What my thoughts were on that is that we got WSU out here making an extensive improvement on their field, and 
then we have Sedgwick County with programming extensive of our Coliseum, and then we have somebody here at 
the City of Wichita who thinks we should build another arena.  I just wonder if we need that many public buildings 
all at the same time when the school board has already has already got us to pass a major capital program for 
schools.  In fact, now we are talking about another vote to raise taxes for some salaries or something, and in fact, 
the downtown people got that little TIF approved for whatever that was on the downtown building owners.  It just 
seems like there is an open end on what everybody wants.  I think it is going to get to the place where we can't 
afford it.

Now on your recommendation or observations that we can't do all of this stuff because our self-imposed debt limit 
at the county was 5% of the taxable property in the county.  So, we run up to that debt limit and then we just 
wrote it in at a higher level.  Now they are suggesting 7%.  Well, I just want to ask when is enough enough of 
borrowed money to do everybody's wish list?"

KROUT "Maybe this would be a good time to say this while it is fresh.  I think that he was thinking that maybe 
there was some clarification about the Coliseum money that he wants to explain."

GIROUX "We were simply—by including the planning and follow-up construction, we wanted to keep it visible 
within the C.I.P. rather than having to re-enter and protect that option for future action rather than not include it or 
wait until the decision was made on the downtown arena.  I expect that will, of course, be a vote."

KROUT "In other words, there wouldn't be a $50 million expenditure on the Coliseum if the referendum passes and 
a downtown arena is built.  I think there is still some amount of remodeling that they would do to the Coliseum."

GIROUX "The Coliseum is over 20 years old and there are certainly some requirements and there has been previous 
discussion on what level of remodeling.  We do need to continue to address ADA compliance there."

HENTZEN "I appreciate the clarification, but I can tell you that you will have some remodeling up there regardless of 
what happens, and as long as you have that in the budget, the city would say 'well, now that you have that in the 
budget, we would like to put the rest of it into the downtown arena'.   In other words, you are going to be 
spending it.  That is the case.

Now, on Page 2 of the spreadsheet, I see some expenditures in the Health Department building study for 2002.  
Did I not see in the local paper recently that the City of Wichita is spending some money on a study to decide 
whether the cooperative effort of the county and the city at the Health Department is going to continue?"

GIROUX "It is a joint effort, sir."

HENTZEN "I know it is a joint effort, and it has been that way for years and years.  Now, all of a sudden, the city is 
trying to make a decision if they are going to continue it.  But let's don't address every point.  I just wanted to tell 
you what things I saw.  When I get done, if you will tell me if I have the whole thing wrong.

I just am saying that they are in fact doing the same thing, if I understand it correctly, and you've got some funds 
in here for EMS facilities, but didn't I see where the city has a study is having a study made right now to determine 
whether the EMS arrangement should be continued as it is, or should they go out on their own.  I don't know what 
they are thinking about that.  In fact, at the bottom of Page 3, we have the dispatch center and emergency 
operations center and a whole bunch of money for 2002.  What is the next proposal if they do the EMS change 
that they are now considering?  What is the next proposal, a separate facility for the dispatching of the city?  God, 
I hope not.  I just hope not.

There is some more stuff there on EMS, but on Page 4, down at the Treasurer's office, there is a bunch of money 
for 2002 and 2003 for the tag office.  I am not real sure, but I think the county bought that.  Did they?  We aren't 
leasing it.  I think we own it now.  Okay.  That was the only question I had there.

And I would like for you to help me with this—I think it is drainage—on Page 6, construct the north Waco detention 
basin pump station.  And then the south Waco detention pump station.  There is considerable money scheduled for 
that, except it is stretched out until 2006 and the future.  Then down to the bottom of that page, the last two are 
saying to enlarge those things that you just put at the top of the page.  Couldn't we do it all at the same time?

Then on Page 10, the third project up from the bottom is the right-of-way acquisition for the Northwest Passage.  
That is kind of put out there in the future.  I want to ask Jim if he can tell me where, if we have described enough 
of where that Northwest Passage ought to be.  Does it start east of Goddard—does it start west of Goddard, does 
it go around Goddard?  In fact is that the map I saw the other day that one of the staff people gave me, and it was 
a good map, it has that big pink Northwest Passage on it.  It may not be in here, but I will show it to you—it shows 
it in a different location.  The two maps do not agree.  I am wondering if we ought to be more specific as to which 
map we are talking about.  Thank you, Mr. Chair."

WEBER "I just want to hit a couple of those real quick.  On the drainage projects down south, we have shown 
every project identified in that southern Sedgwick County drainage study in the C.I.P. just to track them and keep 
them on the list.  Those detention ponds are showing in two phases because they are essentially going to be 
potentially done through some cooperation with the private sector—basically sandpits that would get pumped out 
over time and utilized for drainage on purpose.  Not like we do it now, which is go capture everybody that does a 
sandpit.  So they wouldn't need all of the capacity at any one time, so they are being phased out.  They are shown 
in the future because we really don't know.

The K-96 Bypass—we were looking at the spreadsheets and we do have an error there.  That should be in  2005, 
not in the future.  There was an agreement on the agenda yesterday between the county, the city and KDOT that 
created some funding for a study.  It actually started that process of doing the right-of-way thing.  I can't answer 
the question of where it is, but I think the process has begun to nail that down as recently as yesterday."

GIROUX "Both the Health Department and the EMS are jointly funded discussions and are as even-handed as we 
can make them, I think."

ANDERSON "I have a couple of questions relative to the preparation of the Capital Improvement Program.  Were 
there any policy guidelines established by the County Commission relative to the projects that were included in this 
proposed program? For instance, you've got a question relative to the City's Coliseum proposed project.  Was that 
discussed in any way, or is there any kind of a stated policy on the county's position relative to that project?"

GIROUX "Again, I have been with the program about 6 months.  The Coliseum, I believe, was included in last 
years' C.I.P."

ANDERSON "At $50 million?"

GIROUX "I'm not sure.  I would have to look and give you an answer."

ANDERSON "What is the impact on the County's tax levy on this proposed program?  Do you have that information 
available?"

GIROUX "Not immediately available.  We can get you that answer.  The recommended budget does not include a 
tax increase."

ANDERSON "Even with the County's improvements to the Coliseum?"

KROUT "I think that is for 2002."

GIROUX "Yes, that is for 2002."

ANDERSON "Yes, but you can make projections of tax levies beyond next year.  I would be very interested to see 
that because you are showing a definite curve off of the chart with the proposed program in terms of raising the 
debt limit.  The debt limit wasn't increased until 1991 the last time.  Is it the County's intent to raise that debt 
limit?"

GIROUX "What is shown in that chart is a worse-case scenario."

ANDERSON "The problem I have with this is that from a supposition standpoint this program can't be financed 
within your existing debt limit.  So until you do make a commitment to make that kind of change, you are not really 
able to make any kind of a decision relative to a capital improvement program."

KROUT "To the extent that this is a C.I.P. beyond this year's planning document, all it does it state intentions.  I 
suppose you could read into it that there is an intention that the Coliseum project is important enough that if they 
need to, they will seriously consider raising that limit.  But they are not making that decision because that decision 
won't come up until about the same time next year.  This is a planning document, so it indicates that this is 
important enough for them to include it in the C.I.P."

ANDERSON "I think it is excellent.  I think we should do that.  In order to have some kind of guideline for the 
submittal of projects and what is going to happen in terms of improvements in the county.  But again, in terms of 
planning, I think that you can go ahead and make some commitments to do certain things or else you are just 
operating from day to day, and whatever happens to come up next week, we will do.  I think that the whole 
planning process is corrupted as a result of that."

MCKAY "Jim, I have a question (unable to hear here) go on a drainage basis that you are going to dig sand pits and 
run water into it and everything.    Does that have any effect on the NPDES regulations?  Because they are telling 
developers now that they can't drain the street water into the sandpits when you build your houses around a 
subdivision."

WEBER "I am sure we will have to use an integrated approach on that, I don't know.  We are just getting into 
that."

MCKAY "That is all I am saying.  If they are going to spend the time to do that and that is their game plan—if it is 
good for the goose, doesn't make it good for the gander also."

WEBER "Our people who are doing storm water management and would do these projects, are the same people 
who would be working with the NPDES stuff.  So all of our efforts would be coordinated and if there is something 
required we will figure it out."

MCKAY "Sooner or later, because this is a major, major concern in the development community right now."

WEBER "Probably sooner and later.  We would be dealing with the development community on them in the near 
future, but the things that we are talking about in the plan are beyond 2006.  So we will have an opportunity to 
work with the development community on the things they are doing and figure out what can and can't be done.  By 
the time we are actually ready to do these things, we should know how to handle them."

MCKAY "I am saying that if in the process between now and 2006 or whenever it is, do we maybe need to sit 
down with the development community and try to work out some kind of standard that with your help can be 
developed through KDHE or somehow let the developers utilize the sandpits that are basically there now instead of 
saying that they can't dump water into them because of the pollution problems."

WEBER "I definitely think that we are interested in that because whether they are going to be privately created 
ponds or publicly created ponds, we need those ponds out there and we need them to function in the storm water 
detention facility."

HENTZEN "Another thing that comes to mind while you were speaking was  that the County has generally always 
had a very favorable bond rating.  One of the factors that goes into that is what kind of a debt limit do you have on 
your borrowing?  If we put all of the future stuff in, we would probably have to raise that debt limit to 3 or 4 times 
what it is,  and that would hurt the bond raising that the County has when the issue bonds.  So I don't know 
whether this 2% raise in the debt limit will punch into that, but I darn sure think before we do it, we ought to look 
at that.  I don't know what the County bond rating is now, probably double AA or something.  It was variable for a 
number of years.  This has been a conservative county and they kind of know where the money is coming from in 
the C.I.P."

GAROFALO "I was just wondering whether the paying station where people go in and pay their tickets, etc.—it is 
almost like a million dollar project.  Is that included?"

GIROUX "That is the first floor pay station in the county, and it is in the neighborhood of $740,000 and is a 2001 
project.  We used prior project funds to fund that."

GAROFALO "So that already has been funded basically so it is not included in here."

GIROUX "Yes, sir."

MICHAELIS "Is there any further discussion?"

KROUT "Just to remind you that there are a couple of reasons why you are reviewing the C.I.P.  One is the 
statutory reason that the state law requires the Planning Commission to review capital improvements before they 
are constructed and to advise the governing body, both the City and the County as to whether or not something 
that is in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to an item in the C.I.P., whether there is anything that is inconsistent 
between the two, so one of the things that we are asking you to do today is to find that the proposed projects are 
consistent, unless you feel otherwise.

The County Commission can go ahead and do a project that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in 
fact, in doing that, what that does is automatically, according to the state law, amend the Comprehensive Plan to 
include that item as part of the plan.

The second thing is to give the County Commission and the City Council—when the City C.I.P. comes—your best 
advice on priorities and on living within a budget and other issues that you think are important.  So everything that 
you have said is being captured informally through the minutes and will be transmitted to the County Commission.  
If there is anything that you want to single out for special attention and actually vote on, the Planning Commission 
voted as a group, as opposed to individual comments, then you are free to also make a motion this afternoon to 
that effect, and if it passes, I will transmit that on to the County Commission.

I asked our staff—the Transportation and Land Use people—to look again, although we looked earlier at the County 
C.I.P., and I just wanted to point out to you a few projects that came to our attention.  We did not find any 
projects that are in the funded years of the C.I.P. 2002 to 2006 that were inconsistent, so I think you can make a 
motion that all of those projects in the 2002 through 2006 we believe are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 
and we would like a motion to that effect, or with any exceptions that you think are appropriate.

There are a number of projects that are identified in the County C.I.P. in future years where the County Public 
Works Department identifies that these may be projects that may be worthy of funding in the future, so they are 
going to keep tabs on them.  They are projects that in our 2030 Transportation Plan, we could justify that there 
would be enough traffic to warrant the improvements to four lanes.  Those include—I won't name them all, but I 
remember like Meridian from 71st to 79th Street.  

There are some projects that because they are in future years and they are not funded, I don't think that you need 
to talk about inconsistencies on them.  There is a new project that is in the C.I.P. under 'roads and bridges' this 
year called 'ITS' Intelligent Transportation Systems.  I don't think we have given the Planning Commission a 
briefing on that, but since Jamsheed has prepared one for a City IT Committee, it would probably be a good idea 
for us to come back to you in a workshop and talk about 'ITS'.  It is basically the use of current technology to try 
to get efficiencies and solve problems in the surface transportation system.

There is about a 10-year history of development of some of these techniques.  There are lots of new techniques 
that are being invented every day.  There are whole new industries that are being spun off every year to look at 
these issues.  So it is something that you ought to be aware of because if this partnership that we have been 
talking about between the City and the County and KDOT goes through, there is an estimated $5 million or so over 
the next 5 years that would be spent on technology related improvements so that you can have a safer, more 
convenient transportation system without necessarily having to widen all of our freeways, let's say, from 6 lanes to 
8 lanes in the future.

There was one project, and maybe I will let Jim comment on that.  It is not in the C.I.P., but we know that there 
has been some recent discussion about the need to give this some quick attention, and that is the north Broadway 
bridge over the railroad tracks north of Broadway and in the area at about 45th Street North of I-235.  You will be 
talking about that shortly as the Metropolitan Planning Organization in terms of the possibility of trying to find a 
place in the federal scheme of things to find some money to deal with that bridge, which is in real need of 
attention.

Outside of roads and bridges, there were a couple of projects where there is something in the Comprehensive Plan 
that kind of relates to a couple of issues.  One is the issue of the sports arena.  The plan recommends the 
construction of a downtown sports arena.  That was in the adopted plan that the Planning Commission passed and 
both the City Council and the County Commission adopted.  I don't think it is inconsistent that the County has 
money in here to build a substitute larger facility if the referendum does not pass, but I just want to bring that to 
your attention that the current plan does recommend the downtown sports arena.  I don't think that by doing this 
that the County is saying that they are not in favor of that either.

Second is that with regards to the 911 Center, the emergency communications center that does need to have a 
new and larger place to locate—Dave brought it to my attention that the plan talks about the need for functional 
consolidation and approved coordination between service departments, both City and County in emergency 
services.  I think that the 911 money is set aside to build a building and for equipment.  It doesn't say where 
exactly it will be built and it doesn't say exactly what functions it will house.  

As Pete said, there have been a lot of discussions about where to locate it and what functions.  It might house in 
terms of intelligent transportation it might house some of these technology-related transportation functions.  There 
has been a new discussion about the Rounds & Porter Building that has been sitting there for a number of years 
and whether or not there should be some consolidation of some departments together so that there could be face-
to-face contact as well as electronic contact.  

So I guess I would say that there is nothing inconsistent about 911, but exactly how that is built and who it would 
include I think is important in terms of the goal of are we trying to coordinate emergency services as well as we 
can.  

I did want to mention one other project.  I think it is a new project.  I'm sure this is not that Jim has relatives in 
Rose Hill, but there is a fairly significant project—a $12 million project to take 63rd Street from the Butler County 
line to probably Rock Road."

WEBER "There are a couple of different phases to that."

KROUT "It is a $12 million project to widen from two lane to four lane, and there is a fair amount of traffic.  There 
are about 5,000 to 6,000 cars a day and it will increase as Rose Hill increases.  But my personal suggestion would 
be that we build that as a toll road so that the only beneficiaries of that road, which are Rose Hill residents can pay 
their fair share of the cost of that pretty large improvement.  But we do want you to deal with the issue of 
consistency before we do decide."

BLAKE "I want to go back to Mr. Garofalo's question.  On the street called Hydraulic, and originally I think they 
planned on going from 47th Street to 57th Street for the City and the rest was going to go for the County from 57th 
Street to 63rd Street."

WEBER "That is correct."

BLAKE "Okay.  Now that is not in this plan either?"

WEBER "It is in there.  We may not have it properly reflected in there, but it is under design right now.  We had 
63rd from Hydraulic over to K-15, and all of that will tie in together because 63rd Street is a major arterial in that 
part of the County.  It is the best way to get to Rose Hill.  And no, I don't have any relatives over there."

ANDERSON "Mr. Chair—not being on this board that long, I have had no real knowledge about what is in the 
Comprehensive Plan—and I am not, and I will just say this publicly—that I am not in favor of a downtown arena.  I 
haven't been for a long, long time.  I think what we should do is to treat the County's efforts to try and rehab that 
Coliseum in a meaningful way.  I think that is what the County Commission should do then in terms of planning for 
the future, the operation of that solely out there.

The problem I have today in trying to approve of this action here if it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 
is, is that the Comprehensive Plan includes the possibility of the City building a downtown arena.  Therefore, I 
couldn't vote for the approval of that.  I don't know when it was included in the Comprehensive Plan, whether it 
was done recently or whether it was done prior to the referendum we had before.  It was denied by the public then.  
That is kind of my position on this.  I have no problem with the County's proposed program at this juncture, but I 
feel like it is going to be difficult for me to include any kind of an action which is contingent by the County on that 
City project of the downtown arena."

MICHAELIS "I would like to say that we are not really here to discuss all of the different elements of this.  We are 
here to basically decide whether this is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and rather than debate that, I 
wish that someone would make a motion to that effect."

MOTION:	That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission find that the 
County Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

MCKAY moved, MARNELL seconded.

BARFIELD "I came in late and I would just like to be sure that I have a clear understanding.  Under the 'facilities to 
expand and remodel the Coliseum,  are we talking about $53 million?"

MICHAELIS "Well, yes and no."

BARFIELD "It is in the report."

MICHAELIS "It is in there just to have it in there just in case."

BARFIELD "I would feel uncomfortable going for that until I had a better knowledge about what we are talking 
about.  The way it looks here, that is $53 million for the Coliseum and I certainly wouldn't support that at all."

MICHAELIS "Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Krout, but I don't think we are voting for any of these projects.  We are 
just voting to determine whether this C.I.P. is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  We are not voting for any 
of the projects that are listed there."

ANDERSON "I can advise this board that future policymakers who will be considering actions at this time will look 
to this Planning Commission's decision relative to your approval of this program in that there is no conflict with the 
Comprehensive Plan.  It is going to be interpreted as an approval by the other policymakers.  I can assure you that 
it has been done in the past that way and that it will be done so again.  If you have a $50 million project in there 
that we have said there is no problem with and that it doesn't conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, they are going 
to take that as an approval."

MICHAELIS "All right.  We have a motion on the floor.  If there is no further discussion, we will take a vote."

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried with 7 votes in favor 
(McKay, Michaelis, Marnell, Garofalo, Warren, Coulter and Johnson) and 4 in 
opposition,  (Blake, Barfield, Anderson and Hentzen).

KROUT "If you have any individual motions that you want to make to pass on to the County Commission about the 
C.I.P., I would say that this is the proper time to do that.

The other thing I want to say is if you want to revisit issues and policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan like the 
downtown arena, we are planning to bring you a review of the plan and the advertised public hearing in a month or 
two.  That would be the proper time to make recommended changes to the plan."

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

2.	Approval of MAPC minutes for June 21, 2001

MICHAELIS "I would like to suggest that if you have any corrections or changes, you will just get them to the 
secretary later."

GAROFALO "Mr. Chair, I think this is important.  On Pages 42 through 47, there was some kind of mix-up.  I 
contacted the secretary during the week and she has made those corrections."

MICHAELIS "Okay."

MOTION:	That the minutes for June 21, 2001 be approved as amended.

MCKAY moved,  COULTER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(11-0).

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

3.	Approval of Hoover-Dugan Improvement Project using KDOT's Economic Development funds.

JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff "Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I am going to talk to you about an 
application process that we go through each year.  The state provides us with the opportunity to partner with them 
on three types of funding projects.  These are state funded projects, not federally funded, but they still recognize 
you as the coordinating body and therefore all applications within the urbanized area of Wichita/Sedgwick County 
would go through you.

Those projects which are outside of Wichita's urbanized boundaries  will not go through you, but just for the 
purpose of information, I will mention that the City of Valley Center is interested in pursuing the economic 
development funding project to do something associated with their industrial park.  But that is not for your decision.  
The purpose we are here for today is to endorse three projects, all three submitted by the City of Wichita.  We have 
just handed you a new memo on blue.  What we are doing here, since in the package we only mentioned one 
project, but since that project there are two additional projects in the same vicinity and we have combined all of 
these together here.

The first project is going to be using what is called Geometric Improvements funds.  It is primarily to improve the 
intersection of K-42 and Hoover.  You can only use this funding type on designated state highways in the urbanized 
area.  It is costing about $1.3 million.  The local share of that is going to be about 25%.  Then everything else on 
Hoover from south of 31st Street all the way across Cessna's frontage on Hoover Road to about Harry Street—and 
on this project and the one that I just talked to you about the intersection at K-42, the city, through this M.P.O. had 
applied for this last year and it did not get funded.  We are resubmitting it.  In our re-submittal last year, we had 
applied for only $3.5 million worth of improvements, and there is actually nearly $11 million here.  It takes into 
consideration some massive drainage issues that are associated with Hoover Road.  It goes under water every time 
it rains and some parts of it are really drenched, and it turns into lakes over there.  So there will be a significant 
drainage improvement associated with the widening of Hoover Road to a fairly decent standard, probably four lanes 
all of the way.

And then a new concept that has been identified for the first time this time—and that is taking that point from 
Harry Street, taking Hoover and connecting it to Dugan.  Right now, you can get by doing that using a street called 
Pueblo.  It has some turns associated with it—some turning movements that trucks and other vehicles couldn't 
maneuver it as well if you improved on that same alignment.  The engineer for Cessna, P.E.C., and the engineer for 
the City of Wichita proposed this real tight 'S' curved alignment, and they think that this would be an opportunity 
or a way to bring in a lot of employment related traffic from Cessna and there are so many other major employers 
along Hoover in this part of town who could take advantage of accessing from the frontage road of Kellogg rather 
than just having Hoover Road connect to K-42 on the south.  This would be an opening up of the street network 
system onto Kellogg at Dugan.

At this stage, we are putting in an application for the year 2005.  For example, if this were to be approved, what 
we would be doing at a later time is to come back to you and ask you to amend the transportation plan.  
(Indicating) this section over here is not in your transportation plan, either for widening or for improvement, etc.  
We will have to do some studies and then we will come back to you and tell you what the total impacts, etc., are, 
but at this stage, because there is a funding opportunity available, we are putting in an application anyway.  If it is 
a good idea we will come back to you for an amendment to the Transportation Plan.

So these three projects put together would take you from Kellogg all the way down to south of K-42 to the 
entrance of Case, south of 31st Street.  These are the only three applications we have received from within the 
cities and Sedgwick County for this year's funding site.  What we ask of you is the endorsing of this project—it still 
goes to the City Council because they are the ones who will be providing the local match for these projects, and by 
resolution, when they do that, staff will prepare the application and try to meet their deadline, which is the end of 
this month.  Are there any questions?"

WARREN "This Hoover, as you are showing the dark lines as it goes on over towards Dugan, it is already there, 
isn't it?  All we are talking about is improving it."

MEHTA "There is a street called Pueblo there."

WARREN "Does it run right along the railroad track there?"

MEHTA "Yes.  This is a new street.  It would do what Pueblo does only the railroad track in that section might be 
the one that is being abandoned and there are some improvements associated with it.  There are also some 
drainage improvements that would happen in conjunction with these street improvements.  It opens up some more 
area for development and handles drainage a little bit better."

WARREN "So it is an existing street now as it runs up to that curve that goes west and that would be new then, 
huh?"

MEHTA "There is Dugan and then there is Hoover that goes straight, and this 'S' curve that links those two.  They 
are connected today through the street called Pueblo, but this would allow for more significant movements."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions?"

ANDERSON "Do these projects require an amendment to the current Capital Improvement Program?"

MEHTA "I would guess (indicating) this section, yes and there is some C.I.P. funding, I believe, identified in the 
existing C.I.P. for this section here.  Now, as you can see, what is the local share in each of these projects—the 
intersection to the south, the local share is $315,000; and the rest of it from 31st Street or from Case all the way 
to about Harry, the local share is $4.7 million.  I am not sure that we have the full $4.7 million in the C.I.P.  All of it 
is not there, but some of it is.  Maybe about half to a little more than half might be there.  So when they amend the 
C.I.P. sometime in the next couple of months, they would obviously have to take care of this.

Also, this is subject to the state's approval of these applications.  This is not guaranteed monies.  It is discretionary 
funding state-wide, and if approved, the City Council would have to amend the C.I.P. if they don't have it already."

ANDERSON "How does the City Council do that?  Do they then have to take a project out of the C.I.P. to 
accommodate some new project?  If you have a current Capital Improvements Program, do they have to deduct 
something?"

MEHTA "If they want to keep their bottom line constant, yes."

ANDERSON "Well, that has been the practice for the last few years, I know."

MEHTA "They could identify other sources as well.  There is always certain elements of federal funding.  You can 
mix and match federal funds.  For example STP funding, and this body has a lot to do with those kinds of funds, 
and add to that list as well."

MICHAELIS "Is there any further discussion?  If not, I would entertain a motion."

MOTION:	That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission endorse the 
projects.

GAROFALO moved, BLAKE seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(11-0).

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

4.	MPO's Recommendation for KDOT's proposed route changes on Highways US54/400.

JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff, "This item is a proposal by the state once again.  In February of this year, the 
Bureau of Planning at KDOT requested our assistance in seeking input from all affected cities and counties 
regarding their intentions to make some route changes in Sedgwick County and in Butler County.  You have 
received in your packets our findings after an extensive effort to get input from communities that may be affected.  
This matter is before you because again, you are the designated MPO, and although your jurisdiction is only within 
Sedgwick County, as staff we have assembled information from both counties in order to address all of these 
issues. At the end of this brief presentation, you have the option to recommend your preferences regarding KDOT's 
proposal or you may ask us to simply assemble the information we have gathered to date and submit it to KDOT for 
their consideration.  We do have the individual letters and we will send them out to KDOT as our 'work done' for 
collecting information on their behalf.

There is a colored graphic that you have.  If you will look at your handouts on this subject, what we are talking 
about is the Northwest Bypass that really triggered all of this.  It all started at that time.  As you know, the major 
investment study, which concluded about two years ago to identify and to preserve the corridor, and we just briefly 
talked about even that in passing in approving, or at least endorsing the County's C.I.P.  The question was what 
happens to that particular corridor and what kind of a name or number do you want to give to the Northwest 
Bypass?  About the same time last year, the state also approved the Goddard Bypass in conjunction with the 
Northwest Bypass.

Mr. Hentzen, to answer your earlier question about where is the touch-down point, and you mentioned two or three 
locations, it is all of the above.  The Northwest Wichita Bypass is east of Goddard at Kellogg.  The Goddard Bypass 
does go north of Goddard and touches down somewhere west of Goddard.  These two bypasses when put together 
make up what KDOT assumes is the greater bypass, and therefore Highway 54's question comes up, what number 
do you want to give to these two new facilities?

So that is what the state wants to do and they are asking us if it is a great idea or not.  The first inclination; 
however, was to use K-254, so on your map, if you can identify where K-254 is from El Dorado and it comes all 
the way up to I-135.  The first inclination was to extend that from I-135; go over that part of K-96 on the west 
side and then start coming down towards Goddard.  It will be an extension of K-254.  On the other hand, they 
thought why not take Highway 54, which is our Kellogg, which is at the point of El Dorado anyway, and instead of 
coming down Highway 77 towards Augusta, then through Andover, and through downtown Wichita, extend it 
straight.  By doing that, they claim they have some savings in that there are some signage issues and you won't 
have so much duplication of US54 signs as you will be taking out 52 miles of Highway 54 and putting it on 
exclusive highway and then eliminating K-254 completely.

Now, let's talk about just US400 which is mainly a south Kansas Highway.  They call it a US highway, but it is a 
multi-state highway.  It is multi-state to the extent that it is one mile into Missouri and it is 14 miles or so into 
Colorado.  On the Missouri side, it is just south of Joplin and it interchanges with I-44.  That is significant.  On the 
west side in Colorado, it is a place called Grenada, which does intersect with another US Highway 300 something.  
But in terms of significance, Wichita is probably the most significant city on the entire route.  

The thing about US400 is, and this is also something to consider—every highway system—the US Highway system 
initially has either a one-digit parent highway or a two-digit parent highway.  For example, you have Highway 54 
and you can have 254 out of that as a sub-set of 54.  Or you have I-35, so you can 135 and 235.  In the case of 
400, it doesn't have a parent it belongs to; it was a hybrid created only about 6 years ago in conjunction with what 
some City Fathers were thinking about should be the important route through this area.  It doesn't belong to any 
other previously chosen highway route system.

Now, look at US54.  It stretches from some part south of Chicago, Illinois to El Paso at the Mexican border.  So in 
terms of recognition, you can identify that what US54 means to cities close by or on it or businesses that use that 
name or businesses that are associated and get some market share out of US54 oriented traffic in relationship to 
the 100 in blue.  

From a multi-state prospective and at this scale, it really doesn't matter whether the highway goes through our 
downtown or through the fringe area as long as we have a multi-state highway go through the area.  From a local 
prospective, there are various differences and various issues.  Just to quickly touch on this, you do have, on my 
blue sheet all of the details that I have identified.  The Kechi Chamber of Commerce feels that this would be a 
positive change for them.  The City of Goddard, the only other city—and there are only two cities so far that have 
sent messages back to us saying that they are in support of it—and Goddard feels the same thing.  It is not the City 
of Kechi, it is really the Kechi Chamber of Commerce.  There are some other who aren't really cities, it is their 
Chambers of Commerce who are really making these pitches to us.

The City of Goddard favors this change because they don't want to see their city split in north of Highway 54 and 
south ofHighway 54.  So they would like to see this 54 alignment be on their new Goddard Bypass, part of the 
northwest Wichita and Goddard Bypass systems.  It is north of Goddard.  However their city is still split by what is 
Kellogg today, which will continue to be US400, so Goddard will have north of 400 and south of 400 if they were 
thinking that that is going to be turning into a county road, but I don't think so.

To a limited extent, the completion of the Northwest Wichita Bypass will provide some benefit in diverting through 
traffic off of Kellogg and central Wichita.  That is the idea—it is a bypass in that sense.  But we don't think that the 
change in the route numbering per se is the reason why we will be seeing that shift.  I think truckers and other 
users can change highways anyway, they don't have to be on Highway 54 just by name and definition.

Then there are three other communities that did respond and they responded negatively to this.  The Augusta 
Chamber of Commerce and they said it rather vehemently.  The City of Augusta had some additional questions to 
ask of the state and I think they are tilting towards not necessarily being in favor of this, although they haven't yet 
sent word back to us yet.  

The City of Towanda—strangely, in this case—it is on Highway 254, which in this proposal 254 disappears and 
gets replaced by 54.  One would have thought a city on a route like that would have thought getting recognition of 
being on a significant multi-state highway would prefer the idea, but apparently, they aren't in favor of it and they 
have the same reasons as the Augusta Chamber of Commerce. They think it would be a burden to those who are 
already used to the fact that there is already a 54 already here.  And the City of Andover—and predictably so—it is 
going right through the City of Andover, and they are not in favor of the change.  

If you will look at your map and imagine additional loop highways in the southeast quadrant and the southwest 
quadrant.  So you line up with K-96 on the east side and take a look towards Derby and Haysville and come up to I-
35 and take another similar quadrant, the southwest quadrant and take it from where the Northwest Bypass comes 
down towards Haysville and they meet somewhere on the turnpike on I-35.  What happens then when those 
highways come about in 20 to 30 years from now, or a new extension of a highway from where K-96 is at Kellogg 
on the east side and goes down towards Mulvane.  And we talked about that in the long-range Transportation Plan 
for the year 2030 that we will be looking into those highway alignments.  

If you have only 400 designated as what it is on Kellogg, then what do you call these circumferential or bypass 
highways?  While there isn't any strong argument against it based on what I am just telling you, I guess one 
recommendation at least, or comment to the state would be that they seriously consider retaining a state/US 
highway designation through Wichita that we don't lose it at any point in time.  By 54 itself moving about 
technically doesn't impact the routing system, but what happens later when you go to the southeast and the 
southwest.  Those would be our only concerns at this point and it is up to this body whether you would like to add 
your comments in conjunction with the 5 others that we received.  We also did receive some comments from 
individual citizens because this was advertised in the paper and there was a story on it.  There was a comment 
section on the City's and County's website, so we have had some feedback from citizens, which I haven't quite 
mentioned over here.  One of them is in favor of the change, two of them were opposed to it.  One of them that 
was opposed to it did bring up a good point.  It had to do with what about the history and the tradition?  US 54 
has been this highway since 1926, and we are making a significant change in that context.  There were two 
businesses identified by the Augusta Chamber of Commerce that use the 54 Highway in their business name.  

Just an hour or so ago, we were rather casually going through the telephone directory and we found there were 
two or three similar Wichita area businesses also that did use 54 in their business name.  With that, are there any 
comments?"

WARREN "As you pointed out in one of your graphs here, 54 is a viable highway running from Wichita going all the 
way to Texas and will remain so, won't it?"

MEHTA "That is correct."

WARREN "Okay, and I think I am hearing you suggest that maybe we drop that designation just as it comes 
through Wichita?  All of a sudden 54 becomes 400 and then again it becomes 54?"

MEHTA "No.  Highways 54 and 400 are running together on most of Kellogg."

WARREN "I know that, but I am hearing you suggest dropping the 54 as it comes through Wichita and not 
identifying it."

MEHTA "Dropping that but replacing it on what is K-254 to the north.  Essentially it is a shift of about 7 miles from 
the existing alignment north."

WARREN  "What happens to it until you connect it, though, with the west exchange out there?"

MEHTA "At the west point somewhere near Goddard, probably east or west and west of Goddard, it continues to 
be, again, a dual highway US54 and US400."

WARREN "So at that point, you would still leave it dual?"

MEHTA "It is dual.  There is no other highway for it to go on, so it is dual again."

WARREN "So 54 would have continuity coming down through Wichita and 400 would take on another identity?"

MEHTA "Yes.  Right now, 54 and 400, these two highways are dual for 152 miles.  We will take out 52 miles and 
keep 54 separate, still leaving about 100 miles of dual highway, but that is west of us where it gets dual again."

BARFIELD "To me, this would only cause mass confusion.  Can you imagine someone planning a trip, say leaving 
Chicago and going west and having to deviate or having to try to figure out what is going on when 54 turns into 
400.  I don't see the necessity for that.  I see that as mass confusion, I see it as an inconvenience to businesses 
that are located along this route and I would be against it, myself."

MARNELL "Jamsheed, what difference will this change in the designation of 254 from a state highway to a federal 
highway.  What difference will that make in funding?"

MEHTA "It would make no difference.  K-254 is a Kansas highway.  The US highways are still state highways.  
The states have the rights and they have a lot of control even over what is 'I' designated highways or US 
designated highways.  They are the agents of the federal government and essentially act as though they are 
owners of those highways."

MARNELL "As I see this thing when you look at it as somebody traveling through the area, getting to El Dorado, 
coming across, now that 254 is being improved, it looks like a logical extension to make it a straight path, and 
probably an easier path to travel for somebody going through.  It makes a lot of sense to me."

HENTZEN "I am just going to ask Jamsheed, would you repeat, and I think you started off with this information—
exactly what Goddard and KDOT has done right now.  What was that that you were saying?"

MEHTA "The City of Wichita and Sedgwick County and the State—these three entities partnered together using 
federal funds three years ago and did a major investment study.  That study concluded about 2 years ago with the 
recommendation that you should go ahead and preserve the corridor.  That there is a need for the Northwest 
Wichita Bypass.  In that same study, the state asked its consultant to also add in a component whereby a bypass 
over on the north side of Goddard would also be considered.  

Now this is a separate thing.  The state, last year, approved a city/county joint application through system 
enhancements.  That is the one where we got some awards for Kellogg projects.  We also got this one for the 
Northwest Bypass, but only up to the state of 'you preserve the corridor', which means you have to do a detailed 
enough design to know where your highway is going to be and then go and acquire it.  Now, that process has just 
started a few months ago.  They will have to examine maybe half a dozen different alignments and then through 
the process of elimination, after doing environmental checks through the EPA's requirements, they will identify, 
eventually, one or two routes for final decision by the governing bodies, where they would like to see this.  Or, at 
that stage later, there will be acquisition of properties to reserve the corridor.  

Goddard made a similar application to the state when Wichita and Sedgwick County made their application for 
northwest Wichita, Goddard made an application for that part of the bypass that would go north of their city.  The 
state approved both and because of the proximity situation, they are going to deal with it as though it is a single 
project, so we tend to call it the Northwest Wichita and Goddard Bypass.  All in one breath because it is going to 
be one big project."

HENTZEN "Okay, what you are saying, and I think I've got a better handle on it now, is if anybody in Goddard asks 
what is the Northwest Passage and you gave them this map, it would not be the total truth."

MEHTA "It would be half-true."

HENTZEN "That's right."

MEHTA (Indicating) "This is the Wichita Bypass section.  The Goddard one will be another circumference highway 
on the north here.  And they would both come down on Kellogg.  It is no interest to the northwest Wichita's 
growth area if, in fact, citizens cannot use a highway facility to go down to Kellogg and it goes all the way over to 
Goddard.  We did traffic studies with KDOT and their consultant and I believe at that time there was very little 
traffic to justify that section which is why we, as the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County weren't pushing for an 
alignment touchdown point west of Goddard.  That was also one of those many proposals.  We had 2 or 3 
alignments.  The ones that the steering committee of that study decided and voted on and proposed to the 
governing bodies was a touchdown point on Kellogg east of Goddard."

HENTZEN "Okay, so really, we should clarify this when they ask what is the Northwest Passage.  It is this map 
(indicating) and this map."

MEHTA "The one you see is a rendering that we borrowed from KDOT.  That alignment which this shows as the 
Northwest Bypass, the dash line in red is too close to the City of Wichita.  It is going to bulge out further 
westward.  It is only intended to be conceptual.  You shouldn't use it as having any level of accuracy to it.  It is as 
conceptual as the pink band that we drew on the big map, or the map on the wall."

HENTZEN "But is all going to be called one bypass?"

MEHTA "Yes, it is being built as one big bypass project with both Wichita's and Goddard's concerns patched 
together."

ANDERSON "Is it the staff recommendation that the MAPC approve of the state's request here?"

MEHTA "KDOT's reason to solicit us to do their work for them was just to get information.  What we are doing 
here is reporting to you the information we have gathered to date.  You have all of the rights to add our own 
comments to the ones that we have already received from these other communities and we have forwarded that to 
them."

WARREN "Just as a matter of clarification.  On this little map they are showing a dotted line going from the bypass 
on west.  It looks like it is on the north side of Goddard.  What happens to the old road, 54?  Would it be just a 
public street then?"

MEHTA "Old road 54 continues to be US400."

WARREN "You are going to have two running parallel?"

MEHTA "Exactly, so you can imagine the jurisdiction of Goddard has two highways—54 a brand new one on the 
north side and old Kellogg, which is 400 still, right in the middle."

WARREN "How far north of Goddard is this new bypass?"

MEHTA "That would come out in the next year to year and a half when the consultants show what is the best 
alignment from environmental standpoint of least impacts to the existing residences, etc."

WARREN "But we built two interstate roads, one right next to the other parallel."

MEHTA "It wasn't an idea in the original MIS study, but Goddard and KDOT chose to push for that section of a 
Goddard Bypass."

KROUT "That may be something that you would like to talk about because actually that is another area where the 
plan would need to be amended to show this Goddard Bypass.  It was something that really came up after the local 
committee was done with their work.  I assume that they wouldn't upgrade 54 through the middle of Goddard to a 
freeway if they are going to build one around it.  They would just leave it the way it is today with a signal 
halfway."

WARREN "It would just be a public street and then the other would pick up 400?"

KROUT "Right.  And I imagine that Goddard is concerned about having a freeway that would take some more 
businesses and disrupt businesses and cut their community in half and that is why they prefer the bypass.

When we were looking at east Kellogg, we looked for a while at a bypass of Kellogg by anywhere from a block to 
four blocks to the south.  So I think KDOT will have to do some more planning and some more justification before 
this is really a done-deal."

WARREN "With our crying need for road dollars, it would seem that would not be a very good priority to put two 
right next to each other."

MICHAELIS "Here again, I think in order to summarize this, what we are asked to do here is to authorize staff to 
report our findings as well as the findings of the people in opposition and the people in favor to KDOT.  If you have 
any specifics about this that you want to add, you could certainly do that in the form of a written deal to give to 
Marvin, and add that to it.  But that is all we are being asked to do."

BARFIELD "I just want to ask if KDOT has done any studies to determine what percentage of the vehicles now 
would exit 54 to 254, both on the east and on the west?"

MEHTA "Not as part of this route number change, but they will include it as part of the study that they are now 
pursuing in which they define where it is going to be.  They would want to know what proportion of traffic 
generally through the area is going to use the bypass.  They did a little bit of that in the 2 or 3 year study and they 
will do more of that again."

MCKAY "I would like to make a statement before I make a motion.  First of all, Don the answer to your question is 
no, I don't think the staff is in favor of this proposal.  The indications I got were negative."

ANDERSON "Well, I would like to know."

KROUT "Well, Jamsheed and I have talked about this and we have also talked to the City Public Works Director, 
and we think it makes sense as the ultimate signing that it will be a simplification of signing for people who are 
travelers and visitors to the area.  It will take some adjustments.  There are very few businesses that are signed 54 
that will be affected.  I think, for instance the 54 Laundromat at Greenwich and 54 could probably find another 
name in the future.  So we do think it makes good sense for the future to resign.  Not now, but resign it when the 
northwest highway is built."

MOTION:	That the Metropolitan Planning Organization endorse the proposed 
project.

MCKAY moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion.

WARREN "Is your motion, then, that this would not take place until completion of the 254 Bypass?  Then at that 
time it be assigned 54?"

MCKAY "I think it is all one thing."

MEHTA "That is right."

WARREN "I took it that maybe they are wanting to drop signage now."

MCKAY "No.  It says there 'as of the time that the Northwest Bypass is done'."

WARREN "Is that right?"

MEHTA "That is correct.  Only when the new roadway and the new two bypasses are completed."

MCKAY "And even the bypass north of Goddard doesn't take effect until the west circumferential around Wichita is 
finished."

MICHAELIS "Okay.  Any further discussion?  Seeing none, we will vote."

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried unanimously (11-0).

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

5.	Subdivision Committee items 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, and 5/5 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee 
recommendations.  GAROFALO moved, COULTER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-
0).

5/2.	SUB2001-38 – Final Plat; Preliminary Plat of ECK 8TH ADDITION, located on the southeast corner of 
Arkansas and 53rd Street North.

A.	Municipal water services are available to serve the site. In accordance with the zone change, the extension of 
sanitary sewer is required for the site. The City Water and Sewer Department will not permit sewer service 
from Park City for this site. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer. In lieu of extension 
of sanitary sewer, the Applicant may install a temporary private system consisting of a grinder pump and 
private line connecting to the City sewer line. This system would be required to be replaced with City sewer 
when available to the site. 

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 indicates 
a need for off-site detention. An off-site easement for detention will be needed along with a drainage 
guarantee. 

D.	County Engineering has noted that the current owner of the adjacent railroad is BNSF. 

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

F.	The plat proposes two access openings along Arkansas and complete access control along 53rd St. North. In 
accordance with the Subdivision regulations, any access openings located within 250 feet of the intersection 
of Arkansas and 53rd St. North (measured from curb) 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. 

G.	Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way. The Subdivision Regulations 
require 75 feet of half-street right-of-way at arterial intersections. Traffic Engineering has required the right-of-
way be increased to a 60-ft right-of-way with a corner clip.  

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

I.	A Protective Overlay Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the 
approved Protective Overlay (referenced as P-O #85) and its special conditions for development on this 
property.

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.

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

5/3.	SUB2001-67 – One-Step Final Plat of NORTHRIDGE PLAZA ADDITION, located on the northwest corner 
of 37th Street North and Ridge Road.

A.	The Applicant shall submit guarantees for the extension of City water and sanitary sewer. 

B.	As the northern portion of this site is adjacent to Wichita's City limits, the Applicant shall submit a request 
for annexation. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need 
to be completed.

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

D.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is 
approved. A drainage guarantee is required. Minimum building pads need to be denoted for additional lots. 

E.	City Engineering has recommended that the plat boundary be extended to the west to include the abutting 
floodway reserve. An administrative adjustment will also be needed. 

F.	In accordance with the approved CUP, the plat proposes four openings along Ridge Road and three openings 
along 37th St. North. 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 of 37th St. North 
and Ridge Road 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. 

G.	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. This guarantee will be provided with the guarantee 
for the street improvements along 37th St. North. 

H.	The joint access openings along Ridge Road and 37th St. North 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.

I.	The 10-ft utility easement along the north property line shall be platted separately from the wall easement 
which is required by the CUP. 

J.	In accordance with the CUP approval, a cross-lot circulation agreement is required to assure internal vehicular 
movement between the lots. 

K.	A restrictive covenant will be submitted consenting to cross-circulation access between this site and the 
property to the north. 

L.	Although currently zoned SF-20, Single-Family Residential, the property to the north has been approved for a 
zone change to NR, Neighborhood Retail per SCZ-0769 subject to platting. Due to this potential zone change, 
the east 336 feet of this subject plat may abut non-residential property, and a wall easement would 
subsequently not be required at this location. Therefore, it is recommended that a temporary wall easement 
shall be platted for the east 336 feet which is to be automatically vacated upon the rezoning to a non-
residential district of the property to the north.  

M.	Transportation improvements (including decel lanes, storage lanes, signalization) are required as approved per 
the CUP. 

N.	The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for its portion of the paving of 37th St. North. 

O.	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.

P.	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.

Q.	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.

R.	A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved 
Community Unit Plan and its special conditions for development on this property.

S.	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.

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

U.	The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities 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.)

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

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

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

Y.	The owner of the subdivision should 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. 

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

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

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

CC.	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.

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

5/4.	D-1769  - Dedication of street right-of-way from Team Players, LLC, for property located on the north 
side of Kellogg, east or Rock Road.

OWNER/APPLICANT:   Team Players, LLC, 128 S. Dellrose, Wichita, KS 67212

PURPOSE OF DEDICATION:  This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. L/S-1018, and is being submitted to 
dedicate 10 feet of street right-of-way along Kellogg Drive.

Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted.

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

5/5.	D-1771 – Dedication of a Utility easement from Team Players, LLC, for property located on the north side 
of Kellogg, east of Rock Road.

OWNER/APPLICANT:   Team Players, LLC, 128 S. Dellrose, Wichita, KS 67212 

PURPOSE OF DEDICATION:  This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. L/S-1018, and is being submitted to 
dedicate a 10-foot utility easement.

Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted.

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

5/1.	SUB2000-88  - Final Plat of RIO VISTA ESTATES FOURTH ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of 
61st Street North and Meridian Avenue.

A.	As this site is adjacent to Wichita's City limits, the Applicant shall submit a request for annexation. Upon 
annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single-Family Residential. 

B.	The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water to serve the lots being platted. 

C.	City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. No additional guarantees are 
required. 

D.	City Engineering needs to indicate if petitions for future extensions of sewer services need to be provided.  A 
petition for extension of sanitary sewer services is requested. 

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

F.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is 
approved. A drainage guarantee is required. Utility and drainage easements need to be labeled. 

G.	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.

H.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets in addition to paved access of 61st St. 
North between the nearest paved segment and the entrance to the subdivision.

I.	City Fire Department needs to comment on the street names. The street names are acceptable. 

J.	In accordance with County Engineering, the reserves may be dedicated to the public. Ownership and 
maintenance responsibilities shall be referenced in the plattor's text."

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.

NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff "This is the Rio Vista Estates Fourth Addition.  This plat was approved by the 
Subdivision Committee last month.  It is located on the northwest corner of 61st Street North and Meridian Avenue.  
One of the conditions of the subdivision approval was that the applicant meet with County Engineering regarding 
the maintenance of the proposed floodway reserve.  Maintenance of a reserve is typically handled by the plat's 
homeowner's association and a restrictive covenant would typically be filed.  

In this case, County Engineering agreed that the reserve may be dedicated to the public with maintenance 
responsibilities going to the County and the Flood Control Authority, and that pertinent language could be 
referenced on the plat.

The other issue involves groundwater.  The plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee with the Health 
Department requiring standard soil testing for septic systems and subsequent to the subdivision meeting we did 
receive a letter from the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District.  They had concerns relative to potential 
contamination due to the wastewater from the site.  They recommended septic systems not be used.  Also, 
subsequent to the subdivision meeting, we did receive a comment from the Wichita Water and Sewer Department.  
They also recommended that septic systems not be used for the site.  Last week the Development Coordination 
Committee also recommended to the Planning Commission that the developer tie into the city sewer.  

The City would be participating in the cost of constructing a sewer main and a lift station that would need to be 
constructed to serve the property.  The developer would submit a petition based on their share of the costs as 
determined by the Water and Sewer Department in addition to a separate petition for the internal laterals.  The 
applicant has agreed to these conditions and the staff report will be revised to reflect these requirements.  Are 
there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?  Mr. Warren, would you care to make some initial comments, 
please?"

DAVID WARREN "I am the Director of the Wichita Water and Sewer utilities.  I appreciate you allowing me to make 
a few comments.  I think it is important for the Planning Commission to recognize that the Equus Beds Aquifer is 
one of the State of Kansas' most valuable and vulnerable water resources.  More importantly, it represents one of 
the most significant water resources for the City of Wichita.  

This water resource serves over half a million people in Kansas, the vast majority of which are right here in the 
Wichita area.  We believe it is important that we be diligent and vigilant in protecting this groundwater resource as 
the city expands outward, particularly to the north and west into the Equus Beds area, we think it is important that 
we look very carefully at any development that occurs in the Equus Beds, and that great care be taken to protect 
the Equus Beds from any sort of contamination.

Again, we appreciate the support of the developer in recognizing the importance of the water resource and allowing 
us to work towards getting public sewer systems into this area.  In all other areas, both inside Sedgwick County 
and even beyond where development is continuing to occur in these areas, we think it is real important that the 
City, the County and that these surrounding political jurisdictions support the protection of this important 
groundwater.  Thank you."

MCKAY "Dave, two quick questions.  No. 1, when you run the sewer main up there, are the people that live along 
there that are presently on septic tanks going to be required to join that sewer?"

WARREN "No, only if they elect to participate in the benefit district for the main extension at this time, they would 
have that opportunity.  If they choose not to, then at such time in the future as they either are required or 
voluntarily connect with the city sewer system, then they would have to pay the fee in lieu of."

MCKAY "Is that line going to be large enough for the people to the east of there in that subdivision?"

WARREN "We will size the line large enough to serve a benefit district area that includes beyond just that one 
subdivision."

MCKAY "And on the pollution situation, that ground on both sides of the river is polluted pretty bad with past oil 
rigs."

WARREN "Yeah, and we don't want to contribute anything else to it, do we?"

MICHAELIS "Okay, thank you, Mr. Warren.  Is the applicant here?  Okay, is there anyone here wishing to speak on 
this item, either in favor or against?  Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	That the Planning Commission recommend to the 
governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments 
with the amendments.

MCKAY moved JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(11-0).

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

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.

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

6/1.	VAC2001-00024 – Request to vacate Rutan Avenue and its right-of-way & Edgemont Avenue and its 
right-of-way

MICHAELIS "We are going to take this item and put it back with Agenda Item No. 9 because they are tied 
together."

6/2.	VAC2001 - 00029 – Request to vacate the 210-ft front building setback on Lot 2, West Kellogg Power 
Center.

MICHAELIS "I have been informed that we can take Items 6/2 and 6/3 as one item."

APPLICANT/OWNER:	BA, LLC/Thomas Boyd

AGENT:	Baughman Company PA/Russ Ewy

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:     	The north 175-ft of the south 210-ft of Lot2, West Kellogg power Center, 
Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the west 200-ft thereof.

LOCATION:	Generally located southwest of Hoover St – Taft Av intersection.   

REASON FOR REQUEST:	The applicant proposes to increase the number of buildings that can be 
developed on the lot.  

CURRENT ZONING:	Subject property is LC Limited Commercial and part of CUP DP 221.  
Property to the north is zoned SF-5 Single family Residential.  Property to 
the east is zoned GC General Commercial.  Property to the south is zoned 
GC General Commercial.  Property to the west is zoned LC Limited 
Commercial.

The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate the 210-ft front building setback on Lot 2, West Kellogg Power 
Center. The applicant proposes to replace the 210-ft front building setback with a 30-ft setback line. The applicant 
has applied for an adjustment to CUP DP 221, concurrent with the vacation request, which would allow an increase 
of the number of buildings allowed on Lot 2 to go from 2 to 4 buildings.  A 30-ft setback would allow this 
expansion of the number of buildings allowed on Lot 2.  The parcel to the east (Lot 1, which is part of CUP DP 
221) currently has a 35-ft setback.  The applicant's request would leave a 5-ft difference between Lot 2's proposed 
30-ft setback and Lot 1's 35-ft setback. The applicant noted at the July 12, 2001 SD meeting that the adjustment 
to CUP DP 221 had been approved. 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 June 28 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 
building setback 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 setback as described in the petition should be approved subject to the following 
conditions:

1.	Retain the existing easements as shown on plat.
2.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be                                                                                                                       
        the responsibility of the applicant.
3.     All improvements shall be according to City Standards.

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	Retain the existing easements as shown on the plat.
2.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicant.
	     	3.  All improvements shall be according to City Standards.	

6/3.	VAC2001-00030 – Request to vacate 60-foot utility-drainage easement. 

APPLICANT/OWNER:	USD 259

AGENT:	Baughman Company PA/Russ Ewy

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:     	The 60-ft utility – drainage easement as granted in Lot 6, Midtown 3rd 
Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas

LOCATION:	Generally located northwest of the Main St – N 9th St intersection, 1025 
North Main St.   

REASON FOR REQUEST:	The applicant proposes expansion of Park Elementary School, USD 259.  

CURRENT ZONING:	Subject property is zoned B Multifamily.  Property to the north is zoned B 
Multifamily and LI Light Industrial.  Property to the east is zoned GO 
General Office, B Multifamily, LC Limited Commercial, and NR 
Neighborhood Retail.  Property to the south is zoned LI Limited Industrial.  
Property to the west is zoned LI Limited Industrial.

The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate the 60-ft utility-drainage easement, as dedicated on Lot 6, 
Midtown 3rd Addition, approved by the WCC 10-05-1985.  The applicant is proposing expansion of Park Elementary 
School, USD 259.                  
 
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 June 28 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-utility 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 drainage-utility easement as described in the petition should be 
	approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Guarantee the abandonment of utilities in the easement.
2. Guarantee the relocation of utilities in easement.
3.	Hold the currant easement as a temporary easement until utilities are relocated.
4.	Dedicate new easement.
5.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicant.
6.	All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
	
1.	Guarantee the abandonment of utilities in the easement.
2.	Guarantee the relocation of utilities in easement.
3.	Hold the currant easement as a temporary easement until utilities are relocated.
4.	 Dedicate new easement.
5.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility 
of the applicant.
	      6. All improvements shall be according to City Standards

BILL LONGNECKER "There have been no changes on these two items since the Subdivision's recommendation on 
July 12.  You can take them both in one motion.  Are there any questions or comments from the staff or anybody 
from the audience?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?  Can we hear from the applicant, please?"

RUSS EWY "I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant.  I will stand for any questions."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions for the applicant?  Thank you.  Is there anyone in the audience wishing to 
speak on either of these two items?  Seeing none, we will bring them back to the Commission."

MOTION:	That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body 
that the two requests be approved.

GAROFALO moved, BLAKE seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(11-0).

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

6/4.	VAC2001-00020 – Request to vacate a portion of a 30-foot side yard setback and a 16-foot utility 
easement.

The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate a portion of a 16-ft utility easement and a platted 30-ft setback.  
The applicant proposes to build a detached 30-ft x 32-ft garage with an 8-ft high garage door.  The garage will 
allow easier covered access to the applicant's handicapped equipped vans. The applicant currently has two 
attached, connected double garages (approximately 40-ft x 24-ft, total size of the two put together) and an 
attached carport (24.6-ft x 21.1-ft).  The applicant proposes using the current access off of Woodlawn that the 
existing attached, connected double garages are using.  The proposed garage will encroach 30-ft into the platted 
30-ft wide setback (this encroachment was reduced from 30-ft to 25-ft just prior to the 06-14-01 SD meeting) and 
take up 32-ft of the southern 37-ft of it.  The proposed garage will also encroach 3-ft deep into the 8-ft (1/2 of the 
16-ft easement) for 30-ft of its length.  There is nothing unusual about the size or configuration of the lot; it is a 
typical lot for this addition and for this subdivision.  The 30-ft street side setback appears to be consistent in this 
residential area along Woodlawn.  There appears to be no other encroachments into this setback along Woodlawn 
in this area.  The front of the house faces Peach Tree St and is oriented so the side yards are the east and west 
sides, with the south side being the rear yard.  The OCI Director regards the front yard as the north side.

VAC2001-00020 was deferred (by mutual agreement between Staff and the applicant) for 2 weeks at the 
Subdivision Committee's May 31, 2001 meeting.  VAC2001-00020 was considered by the Subdivision Committee 
at its June 14, 2001 meeting.  Prior to the June 14 meeting the applicant modified his proposal by moving the 
garage 5-ft west and attaching it to the primary structure.  The encroachment into the 30-ft setback would be 25-ft 
rather than the original 30-ft.  The 3-ft encroachment into the utility easement would remain as in the original 
proposal. The revised legal description reflects this change and is noted in bold above.  Subdivision recommended 
denial of the request at the June 14, 2001 meeting.  VAC2001-00020 was deferred by the MAPC for 30 days at 
their June 21, 2001 meeting.    

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 May 17, 2001, which was at least 
20 days prior to this public hearing.

2.	That private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described setback 
and utility easement, and the public will suffer loss or inconvenience thereby.

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

B.	Therefore, the vacation of the setback and utility easement described in the petition should be denied due 
to the following reasons.

Staff's recommendation is for denial and proposes that the applicant move the proposed detached garage back out 
(going west) of the 30-ft street side (Woodlawn) setback and attach it to the existing garages.  This would make 
the proposed garage part of the principle structure and trigger the reduction of the current SF-5 zoning 20-ft rear 
yard setback to 5-ft.  The applicant's encroachment would then be only the 3-ft encroachment into the utility 
easement.  Public Works recommends reducing the 32-ft length to 30-ft or 'spin' the proposed garage so the 32-ft 
side is out of the easement and in the backyard, both suggestions would eliminate the encroachment into the utility 
easement. Making the proposed garage part of the principle structure would restrict its height to 60% of the 35-ft 
maximum for SF-5 zoning; maximum height allowed would be 21-ft for the garage. These Staff recommendation's 
would preserve the current lack of encroachments along this section of Woodlawn Blvd and into the utility 
easement.  

City Public Works recommends denial of the request to vacate the utility easement, due to the option of relocating 
the proposed garage in a way that would not encroach on either the easement or the set back. If the applicant is 
allowed to encroach into the utility easement they require a "Hold Harmless Agreement" and the applicant would be 
required move the existing manhole and extend the existing sewer line east into the Woodlawn ROW, to clear the 
proposed encroachment, at the applicant's expense and according to City Standards. 

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends denial due to the following reasons:

Subdivision concurs with Staff's recommendation for denial and its proposes that the applicant move the proposed 
detached garage back out (going west) of the 30-ft street side (Woodlawn) setback and attach it to the existing 
garages.  This would make the proposed garage part of the principle structure and trigger the reduction of the 
current SF-5 zoning 20-ft rear yard setback to 5-ft.  The applicant's encroachment would then be only the 3-ft 
encroachment into the utility easement.  Public Works recommends reducing the 32-ft length to 30-ft ft or 'spin' 
the proposed garage so the 32-ft side is out of the easement and in the backyard, both suggestions would eliminate 
the encroachment into the utility easement.  Making the proposed garage part of the principle structure would 
restrict its height to 60% of the 35-ft maximum for SF-5 zoning; maximum height allowed would be 21-ft for the 
garage. These Staff recommendations would preserve the current lack of encroachments along this section of 
Woodlawn Blvd and into the utility easement.  

Subdivision concurs with City Public Works recommendation for denial of the request to vacate the
utility easement, due to the option of relocating the proposed garage in a way that would not
encroach on either the easement or the set back. If the applicant is allowed to encroach into the 
utility easement they require a "Hold Harmless Agreement" and the applicant would be required 
move the existing manhole and extend the existing sewer line east into the Woodlawn ROW, to
clear the proposed encroachment, at the applicant's expense and according to City Standards.

BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff, "This item is a request to vacate a portion of a 30-foot side yard setback and a 
16-foot utility easement.  Very briefly, there has been quite a few changes made because of the dialog between the 
staff and the applicant on this.  A brief history is that Subdivision recommended denial of this request at the June 
14, 2000 meeting, which was in its original form, which showed the applicant proposing to put a garage in the 30-
foot setback and into a 16-foot utility easement.  On the June 21st meeting of the MAPC, the applicant requested a 
30-day deferral on this case to see if there could be some agreement reached between the applicant and staff.  

Just prior to the meeting today, staff and the applicant reached an agreement on the request.  Basically, this 
agreement is that the applicant has agreed to stay out of the 16-foot utility easement, also close the existing access 
to Woodlawn at the applicant's expense.  Currently, there is, (indicating) approximately right here, a curb cut onto 
Woodlawn here.  Again, the applicant has agreed to close this access at his expense and to give the City complete 
access control on Woodlawn, thus directing the applicant's traffic onto Peachtree, where the applicant has a circular 
drive, which swings through here and here (indicating) and also connects with the garages here.

The applicant has agreed to put the garage behind the tree line.  That distance has not been determined yet.  It will 
be worked out between now and City Council.  Both the applicant and staff agree that the garage needs to be set 
far enough behind the tree line, which runs right along the applicant's property right in here and back.  Put the 
garage far enough behind the tree line to ensure that the mature line of trees that is there are not disturbed or killed 
due to the construction of the garage.  The applicant has agreed that the garage will compliment and use compatible 
materials and design to the existing houses and garage.  The applicant has also suggested, if it would agree with the 
Planning Commission and staff to extend a solid screening anywhere in this area, again to be worked out between 
the staff with the Planning Commission's direction.  Are there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?"

WARREN "This completely changes what the Subdivision Committee looked at.  I guess I am not sure…you are 
talking about a tree line…are we talking about the vacation of a setback yet, and if so, how much?"

LONGNECKER "Right now, we are still looking at an encroachment into the setback.  How big of an encroachment 
has not been determined yet.  The applicant right now has a mature line of trees.  They are evergreen and quite 
large.  He has asked for, in consideration for shutting off the access control here on Woodlawn to still have an 
encroachment and a setback, but to have the garage moved behind that tree line.   The distance has not been 
determined yet.  Again, the applicant and staff are looking to make sure that those trees are not disturbed or 
damaged or ultimately killed by the construction of that garage.

The applicant has also indicated that if any trees are damaged or killed during the building of this garage that the 
applicant will replace those trees with trees that are like in size and type that are existing there now."

WARREN "I am interested in hearing from the applicant, but right off, I would want a better site plan to make a 
judgment than what I am looking at here now."

LONGNECKER "That could be done, sir.  Maybe with a 2-week deferral, perhaps."

KAPLAN "I am at 430 North Market.  I'm sorry, Ray, I couldn't hear your comment."

WARREN "One was that we are looking at a completely different picture here now than we were when we looked at 
this in Subdivision a month or so ago.  Secondly, before I would want to make any decision one way or the other, I 
would want to see a site plan rather than just some rhetoric about where a tree line is and where this building may 
go in relation to that tree line."

KAPLAN "All right.  That is fine.  Do you want to defer it?"

WARREN "I think it ought to come back to the Subdivision Committee, quite honestly."

KROUT "Unless someone has some concern about the overall concept, just bring it to the site plan back to the 
Planning Commission."

WARREN "I do have concerns."

KROUT "Then you should make that motion."

MICHAELIS "Well, before we do that, is there anyone here in the audience that was here to speak on this item?  
Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commission."

WARREN:	Somehow I feel like everything has changed here and this is a pretty significant deviation from 
normal site plan layouts in that Woodlawn Street is a heavy traffic street.  Based on the amount of changes that we 
have, I think it ought to be resubmitted with a better site plan and brought back to the Subdivision Committee."

MOTION:	That the item be sent back to the Subdivision Committee with a 
new site plan, better identifying what they are now asking for."

WARREN moved, COULTER seconded the motion.

MCKAY "Can the applicant have that done by the next Subdivision meeting, which is next week so there is only a 
two week delay?"

KAPLAN "Yeah, I think we can.  It is not a difficult drawing.  Baughman has been doing the work on it.  We already 
have an 'as built' survey to work off of, so I think that can be done.  The only thing I would reiterate, I really felt 
very strongly that what we are doing is in the best interest of both parties, both the City of Wichita and the 
applicant.  We were jointly hoping that you would accept it.  I think I gave more than I got, quite frankly."

MCKAY "I am just saying that if you don't go to the normal publications and all of that…."

KROUT "There would be no re-advertising.  If it is ready, it will be on the next subdivision agenda."

MICHAELIS "Is there any further discussion on the motion?"

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried unanimously with 11 votes 
in favor.

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

ZONING:

7a.	Case No. ZON2001-00013 – Sally and Lowell Loesch (owner and applicant) request zone change from 
"SF-6" Single-family residential to "GO" General Office; and 

7b.	Case No. CON2001-00021 – Sally and Lowell Loesch (owner and applicant) request Conditional Use to 
allow Animal Care, Limited, on property described as:

	LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RAINBOW LAKES WEST SECOND ADDITION, SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS, EXCEPT 
PART TAKEN FOR ROAD ON SOUTH.  Generally located north of west Central, ¼ mile east of 135th 
Street West.

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

The application area is a 1.5 acres platted lot located on the north side of west Central, ¼ mile east of 135th Street 
West.  The owners are seeking a zone change from "SF-6" Single-family Residential to "GO" General Office with a 
Conditional Use to permit "animal care, limited" (small animal veterinary clinic).  The site is currently developed with 
single-family residence with one point of access to Central Avenue.  The applicant indicates he would like to 
convert his garage – approximately 800 square feet – to a small animal veterinary clinic.  The garage is located on 
the east end of the residence.  The application area is located next to an "S" curve in Central Avenue.  There have 
been instances where vehicles have failed to negotiate the curve and have ended up on the applicant's property.  
The applicant indicates that on a typical day his current practice sees 10 – 20 clients a day.  He also states he 
needs only a small sign less than 2 square feet.  The only kennels he intends to have will be indoors.  Hours of 
operation are to be 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday thru Friday. 

The applicant's site plan depicts a 4,000 square foot structure with access off Central and with parking located 
east of the house.

Land surrounding the application area is used either for single-family residential or is in agricultural use.  All 
surrounding property is zoned "SF-6" Single-family Residential or "SF-20" Single-family Residential.  There is a pond 
located west of the house that appears to be part of the Dry Creek drainage system.  The closest of these 
residences is approximately 300 to 400 feet from the home on the application area. 
  
The "Unified Zoning Code" first permits "animal care, limited" in the "GO" General Office district with a Conditional 
Use subject to the following conditions:  No noise or odors shall be discernable at the property line; treatment is 
limited to dogs, cats and other small animals; and all animals are to be harbored indoors.  Parking requirements for 
"animal care, limited" are 1 space per 250 square feet of space.  If the applicant uses only 800 square feet, then 4 
parking spaces will be required, one of which must be a handicapped stall.  Should the existing home be converted 
to animal care use, then 16 spaces would be required.  All parking and drives must be paved with asphalt, asphaltic 
concrete or concrete.  (A more detailed parking plan will have to be submitted and approved by the Zoning 
Administrator, per Article IV-A 13.  Parking lot lighting and screening will also have to comply with code 
requirements, per Article IV-B.)  If this request is approved, the applicant will also need to comply with landscape 
ordinance requirements.  

The Sign Code permits 32 square feet of signage in the "GO" district.

CASE HISTORY:  Rainbow Lakes West Second Addition was platted in December 1977.  The site was annexed in 
1998 and zoned "SF-6" Single-family Residential at that time.

 
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:  	"SF-20" Single-family Residential; agricultural
SOUTH:  	"SF-6" Single-family Residential; single-family residences
EAST:		"SF-6" Single-family Residential; single-family residences	
WEST:	"SF-6" Single-family Residential; single-family residences

PUBLIC SERVICES: The lot has platted access control allowing only one opening along Central.  Traffic counts are 
not available at this location.  Central is scheduled in the City's CIP to be improved to a four-lane urban arterial in 
2008.  Neither municipal sanitary sewer or water serve this site today.  Water is scheduled to be available in 2006.  

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The "Wichita Land Use Guide" depicts this site as appropriate for "low 
density residential" uses that provide for the lowest density of urban residential land use plus schools, churches and 
other similar uses.  "Office Location Guidelines" contained in the "Comprehensive Plan" state that office uses 
should:  generally be located adjacent to arterial streets; local, service-oriented offices should be incorporated 
within or adjacent to neighborhood and community scale commercial development and low-density office use can 
serve as a transitional land use between residential uses and higher intensity uses.   

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends 
that the request be DENIED, however if the Commission feels this request is appropriate, the Conditional Use shall 
be subject to the following conditions:

A.	The site shall be developed and maintained in conformance with a revised site plan approved by the Planning 
Director, and in conformace with Supplementary Use Regulations found in Article III-D 6 c of the Unified Zoning 
Code.  As part of the site plan review,  the applicant may be asked to move the location of the drive to a different 
location that would function better with respect to the "S" curve in Central.
B.	Uses permitted on the site shall be limited to "animal care, limited" and those uses permitted in the "SF-6" Single-
family Residential district. The "animal care, limited" use shall be limited to a maximum size of 1,000 square feet of 
area.
C.	All applicable permits, including but not limited to those dealing with health, building and zoning, shall be obtained 
before the use can begin operation.
D.	Signage shall be limited to a maximum size of 6 square feet which is not to be illuminated.
E.	A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to beginning clinic activities. 
F.	Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void.  
  	
This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood.  Land surrounding the application area is used either 
for single-family residences or is in agricultural use.  All surrounding property is zoned "SF-6" Single-
family Residential or "SF-20" Single-family Residential.  The character of the area is large-lot residential 
and agricultural.    

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted.  The site is zoned "SF-
6" Single-family Residential which permits single-family residences, churches and schools.  The site is 
developed with a single-family residence that is occupied, appears to be well cared for, and appears to 
have maintained its value as a residence.  The site is suitable for the uses for which it has been restricted.   

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of the 
request will introduce a zoning district and a use that is not currently present in the general area and is 
not in character with existing nearby uses.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The "Wichita 
Land Use Guide" depicts this site as appropriate for "low density residential" uses that provide for the 
lowest density of urban residential land use plus schools, churches and other similar uses.  "Office 
Location Guidelines" contained in the "Comprehensive Plan" state that office uses should:  generally be 
located adjacent to arterial streets; local, service-oriented offices should be incorporated within or 
adjacent to neighborhood and community scale commercial development and low-density office use can 
serve as a transitional land use between residential uses and higher intensity uses.  This application is not 
consistent with plan recommendations for office uses since this location is surrounded by residential or 
agricultural uses and is located at mid-mile.   

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  Because of the relationship between the 
curve of Central and this site, traffic should be minimized at this location to avoid further potential for 
accidents.  The proposed use limited to the garage conversion will increase the daily trips from 10 to 20 
to 30.  If the residence is remodeled or redeveloped to 4,000 square feet of office use, it would generate 
50 to 80 daily trips. 

MILLER "This is a request that was originally presented to you back in April.  The original request was for 'GO' 
General Office zoning, plus a Conditional Use to permit Animal Care, Limited for a small animal veterinary clinic.  At 
the time that that went through, both the DAB and the Planning Commission recommended denial.  It went to the 
City Council and they have sent it back for further consideration.  As part of sending it back, the applicant has 
indicated that instead of asking for the original request of 'GO' plus the Conditional Use for the animal care, he 
would drop the request down to 'NO' Neighborhood Office.  

So basically the site is the same—is located there on West Central, kind of on the 'S' curve, if you will, between 
135th Street West and 119th over here.  The application area is a site that is already developed and you can see the 
Rainbow Lakes neighborhood around it to the south primarily.  There are homes to the west, one to the east; it is 
mostly agricultural ground to the north.  Part of the problem that the applicant has indicated that he has had is that 
he has tried to sell this home over the past few years for a residence and he indicates that he has had trouble 
because this 'S' curve.  Apparently, on three different occasions people have left the road and have either ended up 
in his yard, into his garage, and I think there was even a fatality that was perhaps behind the house at one point.  
He can fill you in on those details if you need additional information on the accidents.  At any rate, he says because 
of those accidents he has not been able to sell this for a residence and that is why he is seeking the increased 
zoning on it.