METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION 

MINUTES

June 9, 2005


The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, June 9, 
2005, at 1:30 P.M., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita Kansas.   
The following members were present:  Morris K. Dunlap, Chair; Harold Warner Jr. Vice-Chair; James Barfield; Darrell 
Downing; John W. McKay Jr. (Out @ 4:40); Bill Johnson; Bob Aldrich; Elizabeth Bishop; M.S. Mitchell; Frank Garofalo; 
Denise Sherman (In @ 1:41) and Bud Hentzen.  Ronald Marnell and Gary K. Gibbs were not present.   Staff members present 
were: John L. Schlegel, Secretary; Dale Miller, Current Plans Manager; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior 
Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Jess McNeely, Associate Planner; David Barber, 
Advanced Plans Manager; and Rose Simmering, Recording Secretary.

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

1.	Approval of May 12, 2005 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Approval of May 12, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

WARNER moved, DOWNING seconded the motion and it carried.  (11-0)

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

2.	Aquifer Recharge and Storage Project – Presentation by David Warren, Director of Water and Sewer.



JERRY BLAIN, DESIGN ENGINEER/PROGRAM MANAGER, WATER AND SEWER ADMINISTRATION presentation

 
ALDRICH How many communities are going to be utilizing the water out of the source?

BLAIN When we did our Water Supply Plan we made the assumption that all the communities in Sedgwick County plus most 
of western Butler County would get their water supply from Wichita, by 2050.

ALDRICH Will they be sharing in the cost of development also?

BLAIN Our customers are whose going to be paying for the water supply.

MITCHELL What is the relationship of the Central Kansas Water Coalition, which has recently been formed, with this project?

BLAIN That entity was put together to look at regional issues, and also to get some regional efforts toward source water 
protection, be it groundwater or surface water.

HENTZEN Jerry, thank you for a good presentation.  Based on putting back the water into the aquifer, suppose that the plan 
or idea is a complete failure, are we prepared or do we think we need to be prepared to treat the water that we put back in 
the aquifer before we do it?

BLAIN Yes.

HENTZEN Are you convinced that we can do that without contaminating the aquifer more than it is now?

BLAIN We are absolutely convinced that we can treat the water to drinking water standards before it is recharged into the 
aquifer.  Right now 60% of the sites don't met drinking water standards now, but all the water that we will be putting in will 
meet all drinking water standards.  It has to.

TAPE CHANGE TAPE 1 SIDE B

BISHOP What is the percentage of water usage from Cheney Reservoir versus what we take from the aquifer?

BLAIN Right now we are getting about 65-70% of our water supply from Cheney Reservoir.  Prior to 1992 we were only 
getting 30% from Cheney.  We basically used the Equus Beds as our primary source and just filled in with Cheney water, and 
now we are doing it the other way around.  

DUNLAP The history was that when we built Cheney Reservoir we were also looking at a second reservoir south of Cheney.  
What has happened to that plan?

BLAIN That plan was one of the 27 things that we looked at, and one of the reasons that they haven't been built is water 
quality.  The Corbin site had high chlorides coming from the south fork of the Ninescah.  

DUNLAP We used to have every summer restrictions on lawn watering and washing cars; we don't have that anymore.  
What happened to that policy?

BLAIN 1990 was the first year that we had water restrictions.  Since that point in time we have done an extensive amount 
of improvements on your water supply.  

DUNLAP How many number of above base flow events do we have a year?  I call them floods.

BLAIN We assume based on past history that there would be about 90-100 days a year that we can get 100 million gallons a 
day of water out of the Aquifer.  

BISHOP Is it not true that the more water you use the more expensive it becomes incrementally?

BLAIN That is correct.  That is conservation, and that is when we implemented the three tier rate structure and that is the 
more you use the more it cost you, and this structure has reduce usage and has worked effectively.  

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

?	SUBDIVISION ITEMS
3.         Consideration of Subdivision Committee   
.
3-1.	SUB 2005-46:  One-Step Final Plat -- HARBOR ISLE SOUTH ADDITION, located north of 41st Street North and on the 
east side of Meridian.

NOTE:	This is an unplatted site located within the City. A zone change request (ZON 2005-21) from SF-5, Single-Family 
Residential and LC, Limited Commercial to LC, Limited Commercial (Lot 2), NR, Neighborhood Retail (Lot 1) and SF-
5, Single-Family Residential has been requested. The Harbor Isle South Community Unit Plan (CUP 2005-22, DP-
285) has also been requested for this site.

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change/CUP and any related conditions of such a change. 
Prior to this plat being considered by MAPC, the zone change/CUP will need to be approved.

B.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer and City water to serve the lots being platted. 

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

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

E.	The plat proposes two openings along Meridian for Lot 1, Block 1 and complete access control along the remainder of 
the property frontage. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat tracing shall 
reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. The access openings should be noted as being in 
accordance with the minimum spacing requirements of the City of Wichita Access Management Standards. 

F.	City Engineering has requested a petition for a future decel lane for Lot 1.  

G.	The plat should be included within one block. 
H.	Benchmark #1 is missing a symbol. 
I.	Benchmark datum needs to be shown. 
J.	City Fire Department needs to comment if the plat meets the Fire Department single street entrance access standards. 
The entrance widths are approved. 

K.	City Fire Department needs to comment on the street length of Waterford (2000 feet). The Subdivision Regulations limit 
urban cul-de-sacs to 800 feet in length unless an emergency access easement is proposed. The opening from Waterford 
through Lot 1, Block 1 as shown on the preliminary plat needs to be established through a public access easement. 

L.	In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, maintenance/emergency access easements have been platted for 
development of zero lot line dwellings. The easements shall be a minimum of five feet in width and referenced in the 
plattor's text with the following language as specified in the Subdivision Regulations: "The maintenance/emergency 
access easements, as shown, are hereby platted for the purpose of pedestrian emergency access, construction, 
maintenance, the extension of the footing and a two-ft overhang of the structure on the adjacent lot." The Applicant will 
be revising the plat to eliminate the maintenance/emergency access easements since zero lot line dwellings will not be 
proposed. The reference in the plattor's text will be deleted. 

M.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. 

N.	Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way, adjacent "street, drainage and utility easements" 
must be platted.

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

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

Q.	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.

R.	This covenant shall also provide for the Homeowners' Association to maintain the "parking strip" located between 
Reserve A and Meridian. 

S.	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.

T.	The parking areas adjoining Reserve A need to be included as "parking easements" and need to be at least 20-feet deep 
and no wider than 50 feet. The parking easements shall be referenced in the plattor's text specifying that the easements 
are granted for residential parking only and that no obstructions shall be constructed or placed within the easements.

U.	Since Reserve B includes a swimming pool, a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, for review and approval by 
the Planning Director. The site plan shall include the information indicated in the Subdivision Regulations. Otherwise a 
conditional use and public hearing will be needed in the future. Department of Environmental Health also advises of the 
need for plan review prior to licensing of the pool.

V.	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.

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

X.	Various lots may not conform with the 50-ft lot width standard, which is measured at the building setback line. An 
increase in the distance of the building setback from the road would meet the standard.

Y.	GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names are approved. 

Z.	Approval of this plat will require a waiver of the lot depth to width ratio of the Subdivision Regulations for various lots. 
The Subdivision Regulations state that the maximum depth of all residential lots shall not exceed 2.5 times the width.

AA.	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. 

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

CC.	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.

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

EE.	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.

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

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

HH.	Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

II.	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. 

JJ.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:	Approve subject to staff recommendation.

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

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

3-2.	SUB 2005-28:  Revised One-Step Final Plat -- FURLEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH    ADDITION, located on the 
northeast corner of 101st Street North and Greenwich Road.

NOTE:	This site is located in the County in an area designated as "rural" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive 
Plan. The Applicant has requested a Conditional Use for a church. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

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

B.	The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 9. If service is available, feasible and 
the property is eligible for service, County Code Enforcement recommends connection. The applicant proposes to 
connect to rural water system. 

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning 
Department for recording.
D.	County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan is needed. 
Minimum pads need to be established. 
E.	The Applicant shall contact Sedgwick County Fire Department. Onsite water for fire protection is required.  
F.	An onsite benchmark is needed. 
G.	County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes one opening along both 101st 
St. North and Greenwich. The access controls are approved. 
H.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that all access drives shall be in accordance with Sedgwick County Service 
Drive Code.  
I.	County Engineering has requested additional right-of-way along both arterials. The Access Management Regulations 
requires a 60-ft half-street right-of-way width along rural arterials. The Regulations also require a 75-ft arterial 
intersection right-of-way and an additional 25-ft x 25-ft corner clip at the intersection.  

	The street dedications have been provided as requested. 

J.	The Applicant is advised that if platted, the building setbacks must 85 feet from the centerline of perimeter streets to 
conform with the Zoning setback standard for County section line roads.

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

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

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

N.	The 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: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the 
plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

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

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

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

S.	Recording of the plat within 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 compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:	Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MITCHELL moved, WARNER seconded the motion and it carried. (11-0)

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

3-3.   SUB 2005-39:  Final Plat -- KIRK'S MEADOW ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of 61st Street North and Maize 
Road.

NOTE:	This site is located in the County in an area designated as "rural" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive 
Plan. It is located in the Maize Area of Influence. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

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

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

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

D.	County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan has been 
provided. The Applicant shall guarantee construction of drainage improvements prior to issuance of building permit.

E.	County Engineering needs to comment on the need for defining access controls. The plat denotes one opening along 
Maize. One access opening is approved with the location to be determined by County Engineering. 


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

G.	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.

H.	The City Council certification needs to be deleted, as this is a County plat. 
I.	An onsite benchmark is needed. 
J.	The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage 
easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the 
applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:	Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion and it carried. (12-0)

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

3-4.  SUB 2005-40:  Final Plat -- THE WOODS ADDITION, located east of 151st Street West and on   the north side of Maple.  

NOTE:	This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. The site is currently 
zoned SF-20, Single-Family residential and will be converted to SF-5, Single-Family Residential upon annexation. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed. Upon 
annexation, the property will be zoned SF-5, Single-Family Residential and allow for the lot sizes being platted.

B.	The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer (main and lateral) and City water to serve the lots being 
platted. 

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

D.	City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. An off-site drainage easement is 
needed. A HEC-2 run is needed. The drainage plan is approved. A drainage guarantee is required.   

E.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. The guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on at 
least one side of all through, non cul-de-sac streets.  

F.	In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the 
USDA-NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology.  
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination 
completed." 

G.	If any of the intended recreational uses for the reserves includes a swimming pool, "neighborhood swimming pool" 
shall be specified in the plattor's text and a site plan shall be submitted with the final plat, for review and approval by 
the Planning Director. The site plan shall include the information indicated in the Subdivision Regulations. Otherwise a 
conditional use and public hearing will be needed in the future.

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.	This covenant shall also provide for the Homeowners' Association to maintain the "parking strip" located between this 
site's south property line and driving surface for Maple.

J.	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.

K.	The Park and Pathways Plan indicates a greenway along Reserve C for a proposed bike path. Public access should be 
referenced in the plattor's text as a permitted use in this Reserve or in the alternative the plat shall include a dedication 
of public right-of-way. The Applicant shall contact the pipeline companies regarding the location of a bike path within 
the pipeline easement. 

	A bike path easement has not been included within the plat. The S/D Committee required a bike path. 

L.	City Fire Department needs to comment on the street length of City View Ct (950 feet) in Block B. The Subdivision 
Regulations limit urban cul-de-sacs to 800 feet in length. 

	The Subdivision Committee approved Concept C as proposed by the applicant, which involves relocation of City View 
east of Lot 2 in order to conform with the street length standard. 

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

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

O.	A street stub should be shown to the west in order to provide for connection with potential subdivision of the adjacent 
property. 

	A street stub to the west has been provided as requested. 

P.	GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. The street names are approved. 

Q.	An onsite benchmark is needed. 

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

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

T.	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.

U.	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. 

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

W.	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.

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

Y.	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.

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

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

BB.	Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

CC.	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. Westar Energy has requested additional easements. 

DD.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

NEIL STRAHL This plat was approved by the Subdivision Committee last week.  There are two issues that are being appealed 
by the applicant today - street length and a bike path.  As explained in Item L of the staff report, we have a cul-de-sac called 
City View Ct., and this is approximately 950 feet long, which exceeds the 800-foot limitation of our Subdivision Regulations.  
The Subdivision Committee reviewed two alternatives, Concept B and Concept C.  Concept B would shorten the street; that 
would comply with the Subdivision Regulations and alter the lot layout at the end of the street.  Concept C would involve 
relocating the street to this point right here, and that would involve two legs branching off, and that would comply with the 
Subdivision Regulations.  

Traffic Engineering voiced their concerns at the Subdivision meeting about Concept C, due to sight visibility, since we have 
the entrance of the cul-de-sac located at the top of the curb right here, and a motorist stopping here would have some 
difficulty seeing traffic extending northward.   Paul Gunzleman, the City Traffic Engineer, could not be here, however, we do 
have Julianne Kallman, the Assistant Traffic Engineer, available for questions.
 
The City Fire Department was in favor of Concept C at the Subdivision meeting.  Bob Thompson, Battalion Chief Fire 
Prevention, is in attendance today to answer any questions.

Concept C was approved by the Subdivision Committee and the applicant is appealing that conditions.

The other item being appealed is in regards to a bike path and is explained in Item K in the staff report.  Our Park and 
Pathways Plan indicates a greenway along Reserve C for a proposed bike path.  This segment would connect Maple with 
135th to the east.  During the review of the preliminary plat, the committee also gave the applicant the option of locating the 
Bike Path within Reserve D.  Reserve D is southeast of Reserve C, which encompasses a pipeline easement. A bike path 
easement has not been included within the plat.  The Subdivision Committee required a bike path.  To further explain the 
staff's request for the bike path we have Christy Askew here from MAPD, Advance Plans Division, who would like to 
address the MAPC.  

CHRISTY ASKEW, MAPD Advance Plans Division I would like to review some slides of the area with you.  The Park and 
Pathways Plan was adopted in September 1996, and within the Plan there was a goal to establish a network of linear parks 
and recreation corridors to improve proximity and accessibility to parks and to activity centers.    

DUNLAP On both ends of this property is there a Bike Path existing today?

ASKEW No.  Not at this time.

MITCHELL What are the realistic options of a connection to the east?

ASKEW The property to the south has already been platted, and the MAPC had turned down that request.  The property to 
the north is owned by one person, and we project that there is so much development going into this area that eventually, at 
some point, that property may be subdivided, and then at that point we would see if the MAPC would give us an easement 
on that property. 

DUNLAP There are members of the MAPC that have been contacted on this Item, and I would like you to identify that and let 
us know if you have made up your mind.  

WARNER Yes, I was contacted on this item and in no way will this affect my decision.
 
BARFIELD Did the Traffic Department say they were appealing Concept C?

STRAHL No, they are not officially appealing Option C, but they are here today to answer any questions.

PHIL MEYER, BAUGHMAN COMPANY, 315 Ellis, Wichita, KS 67211 Agent for the Applicant. Today I am going to tag team 
this presentation with the applicant.  We are appealing the decision to do the bike path through there.  One issue is the 
logical length of the bike path.  We have an estate lot.  It is one 80-acre plat.  There is no immediate attempt for that person 
to be subdividing that.  We have been in communication with them on drainage issues, and we know they are not looking to 
subdivide that, or sell that lot.  

On the aerial that I passed out to you today, you will notice there is a lot of floodway/floodplain that goes through this area 
that is within that reserve. The feasibility of construction of a bike path in there is minimal.  There is the standard concern 
that we brought up at the Subdivision hearing of the liability that goes with the bike path.   If there is an easement and they 
are riding through there and they get off and they drown in the lake or they get hurt, what is the responsibility or liability of 
the homeowners association?  In this particular case, the City suggested that maybe they take it as a dedication. I would ask 
the MAPC if they took it as a dedication, which we don't want.  Are the City and the Park Department truly ready to accept 
that as a dedication and maintain it to the standard that it should be maintained to as part of a Homeowners Association?  
The bike path is probably the least of the two issues that concern us, the cul-de-sac is more important.

JAY RUSSELL, MAPLE GROUP, LLC, P O BOX 75337, Wichita, KS 67235-5337 Applicant. If you will look at the aerial that 
we gave you that shows the layout of that piece of ground, everything to the north of it is in a floodplain/floodway area, of 
which we are not changing any of that area.  We will stay outside and deal with the land outside of floodway.

So what it leaves us with is a small section of ground that is 200 feet deep X 1,000 foot long.  We knew that we could 
design this addition per the Concept B, which would allow those two flag lots at the very north end, Lot 4, and Lot 5, but 
our thought was that the Fire Department would prefer to have their fire trucks 100-foot closer to those properties than to 
have to stop in that cul-de-sac and attack a fire from that location.  That is the reason we request Concept A, which would 
extend that cul-de-sac up to the corner of Lot 4, and Lot 5.  We believe that Concept A is better than Concept B.  Then as 
we have talked to the Traffic Engineering Department about Concept C, their concern is more with sight lines and day-to-day 
safety.  Our belief is that on a day-to-day basis Concept A is the best option.  If the MAPC does not feel that Concept A is 
the best option we will accept Concept B, which does meet the Subdivision Regulations. 

BARFIELD At the Subdivision Hearing the Fire Department said they would prefer Concept C, and your agent readily accepted 
that.  Are you at odds with your agent on this?

RUSSELL That was not my understanding.

PHIL MEYER I have never accepted Concept C.  I asked the Subdivision Committee to approve Concept A as we submitted 
on the plat.  The Subdivision Committee made the decision to approve Concept C per the Fire Department, which was in 
conflict with the Traffic Engineer.  The Traffic Engineer was stating that on a day-to-day safety point that Concept A, and 
Concept B were better traffic solutions.  We have always asked for Concept A.

BARFIELD Phil, when you passed these out to us at the Subdivision hearing you did not say that you would accept Concept 
C?

MEYER No, I never said I would accept Concept C.  

GAROFALO Phil, do you know what was the Fire Department's objection to Concept B?  

MEYER The Fire Department staff member is here, and I would like him to answer that.  At Subdivision hearing, Chief 
Thompson said he would accept Concept B, but Concept C was his preference.

MITCHELL Phil, what was the response of the pipeline company about putting the bike path on their easement?

MEYER I communicated with Jim Nolen with Conoco Phillips.  There are four pipelines that run through that easement, a 16- 
inch, 12 inch and two 8's.  He was not very excited about putting a bike path on top of that particular easement. He did not 
close the door completely.  He did leave a little window of opportunity so that he could show that he was working with the 
City.  I am not sure how we are going to put a bike path through that easement with those pipelines and maintain the safety 
requirements that we want.

MITCHELL I now have a question for Christy Askew on that same issue.  Christy, if the pipeline company did permit the bike 
path to be placed on that easement, and it had to be destroyed in places to maintain and repair the pipeline, who would be 
responsible for the replacement and repair?

ASKEW I am not sure.

SCHLEGEL Since the pathway would be city property it would be the City's responsibility to do that.  They would be 
granting an easement over their property for the City to do that. They have the right to go in and repair their pipeline.  If they 
damaged a utility that has an easement under somebody's backyard fence, and they come in and destroy that fence, then it 
is the homeowners' responsibility to replace that fence.

ASKEW So the repair of the actual path would be the City's responsibility, but property on each side of the path is the 
property owners' responsibility to maintain.

MITCHELL So we are talking about the property owner, the pipeline company and the owner of the bike path will have a 
responsibility?

ASKEW Yes.

BARFIELD Phil, I want to clarify for the record, you and the applicant, even if the pipeline company were to agree to this bike 
path, you are opposed to a bike path even over that pipeline. Is that correct?

MEYER Between the two issues here today, the bike path, we are not excited about it. We really don't want it there because 
it complicates the homeowners association and makes things difficult.  We are more concerned about the subdivision layout 
and the cul-de-sac.  If the MAPC votes for a bike path we are not going to fight that very adamantly.  

BARFIELD You stated the pipeline company was not eager about the bike path, but at the Subdivision hearing you did not 
mention that he closed the door, and today you say that he closed the door to the bike path.

MEYER I have stated the same thing today that I did at the Subdivision Hearing as close as I could get.

DUNLAP I heard you say that the pipeline company did not want to close the door on the bike path.

MEYER He did not want to close the door on the City of Wichita, but he is saying that the likelihood of them allowing that on 
that particular easement, with those particular pipelines, is not good.

ALDRICH Phil, how does a bike path compromise safety issues of a pipeline?  Also, you mentioned the homeowners 
association, how would that impede on them?

MEYER The homeowners association is the ongoing debate, and one that has not been resolved to date.  Is there a liability 
with the developer today and the homeowners association in five years with a public bike path easement going through their 
property?  If someone falls, or drowns who is liable?

ALDRICH Again, there is no difference on that than going out and playing baseball, or football out on City owned park 
property.

MEYER But in the homeowners association you have the right to say on private property the public is not allowed, and you 
have at least made that attempt to tell people that you are not allowed in here.  When there is a public bike path going 
through there that is different.

ALDRICH Again, we are looking at an easement?

MEYER Correct, that is part of the problem that you are looking at an easement.  The pipeline company is going to require 
you to sign a hold harmless agreement with them, taking them off the hook before they even let the City of Wichita put a 
bike path in.

BISHOP Phil, for one thing there are currently neighborhoods, Towne Parc is an example, that do have public access, 
sidewalks, bike path, skating paths, through the homeowners association area.  In fact, Towne Parc even has a tot lot that is 
part of the City's park system and the homeowner's association area is around it, and people's backyards open onto it.  
Perhaps we should have the Legal Department here and get a legal opinion.

ASKEW We spoke with the Legal Department today, and Doug Moshier, pretty much said that the City will provide an 
exemption to the property owner of any legal liability for the trail easement.  

BISHOP Christy, my understanding is that drainage easements, and drainage areas, really serve as an ideal place-to-place bike 
paths and walking trails, correct?

ASKEW That is correct.  According to what I have learned is that if you have a trail in a flood prone area, it is going to 
prevent other future damage of other structural property.

HENTZEN Christy, does the bike path lead anywhere on either end or is this just a bike path in the sky?  Is it attached to any 
other bike path?

ASKEW There is a map in the Parks and Pathways Master Plan, and the whole point of the map is to try and interconnect the 
bike paths throughout the entire City and County.

DUNLAP While Commissioner Hentzen is reviewing the map, I think the answer is, no, it does not connect on either end to 
an existing bike path.

ASKEW It does connect.

DUNLAP It does connect?  On which end?  On an existing bike path?  That is the question I asked before and I got a no 
answer.

ASKEW It connects over here to 135th Street.

DUNLAP Show me where it hooks.

GAROFALO How can it?

MCKAY Where is the bike path now?

ASKEW There is not an existing bike path right now.

HENTZEN That is what I asked.

ASKEW I thought you meant what is proposed.

DUNLAP No, not what is proposed, where is the existing connection today?  There is not one on either end, is that correct?

ASKEW That is correct.

WARNER Christy, what are the odds that there will be one within the next 10 years?

ASKEW The Parks and Pathways Master Plan was developed to support the initiative of providing a trail system throughout 
the City and the County.

DUNLAP I would like to redirect our attention on the streets.  We will have a motion here today that will include something 
about a bike path.

RUSSELL I am not an opponent of the bicycle system.  I would like to see a lot of these different communities tied together 
where children can ride from Point A and Point B, and be safe in doing that. Currently, we are working on a project down 
south from MacArthur down to 63rd Street on a bike path, and it is all intermingled into the subdivision that we are creating.  

We have a piece of property at 29th and Ridge Road and we have a railroad track that runs through there that basically 
would start at the Sedgwick County Zoo.  You can come to the north on a paved street up to the railroad track and that runs 
all the way up to Maize.  My idea was to go in and donate 10-foot of ground along all of the property that we own so we 
could put a bicycle trail in there.  I spoke with Dale Miller and met with Jamsheed Mehta, and they came back and said the 
problem is that whenever you have a bicycle path that intersects in the middle of a mile line we don't have the ability to get 
the children across that street safely, so they were not interested.  This is the same problem. You will have children on 
bicycles coming out in the middle of Maple or the middle of 135th Street.

I would like to have some consistency in the policy, so that when we as developers sit back and think of ideas that will 
work, we would like to see them go somewhere.

One more thing about the street issue.  Normally on an 800-foot cul-de-sac you have 24-28 houses on it.  That particular cul-
de-sac that we have only has 10 houses.  So we believe that rather than going with Concept B - the flag lots, it only has 10 
houses.  We think it is better to add another 150-foot to that, and get the fire trucks a little closer.

DUNLAP Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this agenda Item?  Ok, we will restrict the comments to 
the Commission now.

SHERMAN I need to speak with the Traffic Engineer.  Would you clarify for me the issue about Concept A, and Concept C, 
the issue with the traffic?  I believe at the Subdivision hearing it was off of Burton that the concern was the sight line?

DUNLAP Do you have Concept A, B, and C with you?

KALLMAN Not with me but they are here.

DUNLAP So you know what we are talking about?

JULIANNE KALLMAN, Associate Traffic Engineer, Public Works Engineering The issue with Concept C, was if you pulled out 
southwards towards Burton you would have a hard time seeing cars coming from either the left or the right, because of the 
curves.

DUNLAP What do you anticipate will be the speed of traffic there?

KALLMAN The speed limit would be 30 mph.

SHERMAN Coming around that corner?  They would take that corner doing 30 mph?  Would that not be because you have 
such quick curves that it would be 10-15 mph at the most?  Also, looking at the number of houses that you have off of 
Burton, what is the traffic count?  I really do believe that Concept C would be better than Concept A, but we certainly don't 
want a day-to-day conflict with homeowners and traffic with children. I want to know the amount of traffic, the flow, and 
the speed of traffic.  I don't know the name of the street is that is coming off of Burton, if that is really an issue.

DUNLAP That would be City View Street.

SHERMAN I am trying to get clarity if that that is really a big issue, with the number of houses, and the amount of traffic, 
and the rate of cars, and the speed that they will be traveling.  Even though you have two curves, and I guess you are saying 
they will have blind sights, are they blind sights, or are they just issues?

KALLMAN I do know that we get plenty of calls from other subdivision's where homeowners' feel that cars are coming 
around the curves way too fast.  They are often asking for speed limit signs, or children playing signs, and they fear the cars 
are coming around the curves too fast, and they are not going to see their children.

SHERMAN But, the people who will be traveling, are residents of the subdivision, not traffic from the general public.  Is 
Burton Street part of this development or is it outside of the development?

DUNLAP Phil, is this everything north of Burton Street?

MEYER Burton Street is an existing street that is out there today.

SHERMAN Is it part of this homeowner's association?

MEYER It is a separate homeowner's association.  It is through the same developer but it is a separate homeowner's 
association and separate subdivision.

SHERMAN Ok, so it is not just general traffic passing through?

MEYER It is general traffic from the subdivision, and/or guest coming into the subdivision that goes through it.  But just 
because you live in that subdivision, typically those are the people that are zipping through the subdivision, they get very 
comfortable with the curves.

BARFIELD Chief Thompson, at the Subdivision hearing I think you said you prefer Concept C, and I would like for you to tell 
the MAPC why the Concept C would work better for the Fire Department.

BOB THOMPSON, WICHITA FIRE DEPARTMENT, In looking at all three concepts, we took the information to the Operations 
Division of the Wichita Fire Department, and these are the folks that will have to respond to the area, and pull in the trucks, 
and work the fire.  It was not just my thoughts of why Concept C would work better.  Concept C worked the best for us 
because of the reduction in the length, and the other addition of the cul-de-sac: accessibility, getting in there and getting out 
of there.  I understand what Paul Gunzelman was saying about the traffic, but for the Fire Department Concept C would 
work better.

SHERMAN Bob, can you live with Concept A?

THOMPSON Concept A was our second choice, and Concept B was not an option for our Department, so it came down to 
Concept C working best for the Wichita Fire Department.

TAPE CHANGE TAPE 2 SIDE A

MCKAY As far as Concept A, B or C, it is irrelevant at this point, because I haven't made up my mind.  But, I would say that 
we have two city departments here that are not agreeing.  The developer is saying he will go either way.  Here we are trying 
to make a decision between the two city departments that can't agree.  The Fire Department just said they could accept 
Concept A.  I don't know that I have heard the Traffic Department say that they would accept Concept C.

THOMPSON I did speak with Paul Gunzelman, prior to the Subdivision hearing last week, and he had concerns about the 
traffic on Concept C, and I shared with him that Concept C was the best for our department, and even though he was not 
totally for Concept C, he said that he will let the Subdivision Committee decide for us, and that is the concept that we would 
go with.

BARFIELD I asked specifically staff at the very beginning when they made their presentation, if the Traffic Department was 
appealing Concept C, and the answer was "No".  So I think basically that is saying they are willing to accept Concept C.

JOHNSON It appears that on Concept A the problem was the length of the road, and the cul-de-sac wasn't going to help but 
if I just understood you right, he liked Concept C because there was another cul-de-sac on the other end of the street that 
was going to help you.  So I don't know how it can help on one end and it can't help on the other end.

THOMPSON In regards to the additional cul-de-sac it is always nice to have that for turn around purposes, and what we are 
experiencing now, with the newer vehicles, is that it is very difficult to turn around.

ALDRICH Is the main reason that you are looking at Concept C is because it is centrally located between the houses?

THOMPSON Yes, and it is shortened for us.

ALDRICH I think we also need to be looking at the safety of the pedestrians too.

SHERMAN Is the issue of 800 feet still on the table or are we as a Commission waiving that?  That was the problem with 
Concept A and Concept B.

MCKAY That is what we are talking about.

SHERMAN I understand, but it seems like we have three issues, and they are in conflict.  We have the Subdivision 
Regulations, the Traffic Department, and the Fire Department.

WARNER In my opinion we have a choice to make between two decisions, one is the 800 feet, Concept A.  The other one is 
how critical do we think the problem is with the traffic flow on Concept C, that the Traffic Department was concerned about 
the curves, and seeing the traffic coming around those two curves.  After listening to the testimony today, I voted one way 
at the Subdivision hearing and I am probably going to change my mind.  I think the traffic is more important than the 800 
feet, at this point and time.

ALDRICH Are there existing houses there?

RUSSELL No, there are no houses there.  

ALDRICH Is it possible to split the difference on that entranceway and move that over? 

RUSSELL Part of the reason is that over on Lots 17 & 18, those are the backyards of those houses.  When you move it over 
on Concept C, you are driving between two houses, and the width of the entryway on Concept C, you will notice is fairly 
wide where the island is and then it narrows down.  On Concept A, you have a more open, wider path all the way back and 
you are in the backyard of Lots 17 & 18 versus between the two on the other.  

We would not even be here discussing the issue if we agreed to Concept B because that meets the Subdivision Regulations, 
and there would have been a conflict.  We thought we were doing the Fire Department a favor by suggesting Concept A, and 
what the real issue is whether or not the Fire Department has to back their fire trucks up from the end of Lot 7 all the way 
back to there, or whether or not we propose to get the fire trucks closer to Lots 4 & 5 which is what they are going to have 
to fight a fire with.  If it would help, we are willing to accept Concept B.

BISHOP Mr. Russell, why cul-de-sac's?  This could be a round-robin.  

RUSSELL About 10 years ago, Mr. Marvin Krout asked me to go to a seminar that he was putting on about how to design 
subdivisions that were safer and how to slow traffic movement down in them.  In that seminar, the main thing that they 
emphasized was to try and do as many cul-de-sac's as you can because it limits the amount of people who drive down 
through there.  Typically the only cars that drive down those cul-de-sacs are the homeowners that live there, rather than 
designing streets that run through the subdivisions.  I think our risk on a day-to-day basis is more for our children than it is to 
worry about the Fire Department having to backup this street 600 feet, on a fire that may happen sometime, maybe.

BARFIELD Do we have an accurate traffic count for Burton Street?

JULIANNE KALLMAN No, I don't think so.

BARFIELD Can you give an estimate?

KALLMAN No, I don't even know how many houses are in that Subdivision.

MOTION:  To approve Concept A and require the bike path as recommended by staff.

WARNER moved, ALDRICH seconded. 

SUBSTITUTE MOTION:  To approve with Concept A with no bike path requirement.

MITCHELL moved, MCKAY seconded. 

BISHOP I know there has been a lot of discussion about is this bike path going to connect with anything, well it is never 
going to connect with anything if we never follow a plan that has been in existence for a number of years.  I don't see a 
problem with going across 135th Street, which is not going to be as bad as Ridge Road for a number of years.  I also believe 
that a bike path would be a nice amenity for the neighborhood and it is needed.

HENTZEN I am going to vote in favor of not requiring a bike path.

	SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS (6-6).
	(BISHOP, ALDRICH, WARNER, SHERMAN, BARFIELD, GAROFALO opposed).

	SUBSTITUTE MOTION:  To approve with Concept C and requiring the bike path.

BARFIELD moved, BISHOP seconded. 

	SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS (4-8).
	(JOHNSON, ALDRICH, DUNLAP, WARNER, GAROFALO, MCKAY, HENTZEN, MITCHELL).

	ORIGINAL MOTION carried (8-4).  (HENTZEN, MITCHELL, DOWNING, BARFIELD opposed).

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

3-5.  SUB 2005-52:  One-Step Final Plat -- PRAIRIE BREEZE ESTATES, located on the north side of MacArthur and west of 
Webb Road. 

NOTE:  This site is located in the County within three miles of Wichita's boundary. It is in an area designated as "2030 Urban 
Service Area" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. 

A.	Since sanitary sewer is not available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact County Code Enforcement to 
find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage. A 
memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval of the proposed individual alternative sewer system from County 
Code Enforcement along with a maintenance agreement. 

B.	The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 3. If service is available, the 
Subdivision Committee has required connection. 

C.	City of Wichita Water and Sewer Department requests a petition for future extension of sanitary sewer and City water 
services. 

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

E.	County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan has been 
provided. Terraces need to be removed. An off-site drainage easement may be needed.   

F.	County Engineering needs to comment on the need for any improvements to perimeter streets. The Applicant shall 
guarantee the paving of 39th St. South from Webb Rd. to the half-mile line.  
G.	The lots shall be renumbered and included within one block. 

H.	All access drives shall be in accordance with Sedgwick County Service Drive Code.  

I.	The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the cul-de-sacs to the 36-ft rock suburban street standard. 

J.	"S M" needs to be added to legend. 
K.	The radius on the cul-de-sac should be 75' 
L.	In accordance with Access Management Regulations for County plats, complete access control is required for arterials 
intersecting with local streets. Complete access control of 75 feet is needed at the south end of both cul-de-sacs. 
M.	In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the 
USDA-NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology.  
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination 
completed." 

N.	The applicant is reminded that this site is located within three miles of the City Limits of Wichita and will be heard by 
City Council. Therefore, the City Council signature block needs to be included on the final plat.

O.	GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. Phyllis Lane needs revised to Linden. 

P.	Reference to City of Wichita in the plattor's text shall be deleted. 

Q.	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.

R.	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. 

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

T.	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.

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

V.	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.

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

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

Y.	Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

Z.	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. 

AA.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

STRAHL At the Subdivision hearing we had three residents in the neighborhood voicing their concerns.  Those issues were in 
regards to the size of the lots, the Alternative Sewer System, drainage and water quality.  As part of the plat approval the 
Subdivision Committee required connection to Rural Water District No. 3, if service is available.  That means, no individual 
domestic wells would be allowed.  Subsequent to the meeting I did have discussions with County Code Enforcement, and I 
was informed that a prohibition on the use of wells for irrigation purposes would be imposed.

BARFIELD I asked at the Subdivision meeting, I just want to see if anything has changed, has McConnell Air Force weighed 
in on this proposal at all?

STRAHL No.

DUNLAP We do have a Joint Land Use Program Plan with McConnell, but I think this falls outside of their immediate 
jurisdiction.  

DOWNING No, it falls within the Joint Land Use Area, so it is a part.

DUNLAP I have been contacted by some folks in that area, and I have not made up mind and the discussion will not affect 
my decision today.

MCKAY I received a letter, and the letter will not affect my decision today.

ALDRICH I received an e-mail and the e-mail will not affect my decision today.

MITCHELL I was contacted as well and the contact will not affect my decision today.

KIRK MILLER, 516 S. Market, Wichita, KS 67202 We are in agreement with staff comments.

ALDRICH Would you be willing, instead of one-acre lots, to maybe increase that and split the difference on that?

KIRK MILLER My client is planning on doing one-acre lots, and I could not speak for him to go bigger.  He looked at the 
financial feasibility of doing larger lots, and one acre lots is what he determined was the feasible size for him.

ALDRICH So the answer would be no?

KIRK MILLER Correct.

DUNLAP Is your client the owner of the property or a contract purchaser?

KIRK MILLER Contract purchaser.

GARY BECKWITH, 4207 S. Cypress, Derby, KS 67037 I live in the Heather Ridge Addition, and that is located directly to 
south and downhill from this proposed development.  We are opposed to the size of the lots in this subdivision.  We would 
prefer them to stay as 4.5 acre lots which matches everything, which is 4.5 acre lots or bigger from 31st Street to 53rd 
Street. 

Most of the homes in the Heather Ridge Addition, which is going to be affected by this proposed subdivision, are on well 
water.  That is a very critical aspect to us in this area.  The well water in the area is not good and we do not have good 
supply, and most of the pumps are only running seven to eight gallons per minute.  There are a number of wells that go 
through dry spells, which does cause a problem to us where we do lose water.  A lot of residences have reported they 
cannot run the dishwasher and have a shower at the same time.  We feel granting this plat of 28 one-acre lots with no 
restrictions to the groundwater supply of tapping wells is going to affect us critically.  

There is Rural Water District No. 3 in the area, and some of the residences have that.  I spoke with the Rural Water District 
office this week, without actual engineering they cannot say if there is a water supply sufficient to supply this development 
of 28 houses.  From what they are saying they are very close to maximum, and they did give a count that there is only 80 
meters available allowed to hook onto this system before it is maximized.  

WARNER Mr. Beckwith, this was approved on the condition that everybody on these 28 one-acre lots hook up to Rural 
Water District No. 3., if service is available.  I don't understand your point on the wells.

BECKWITH Was it available drinking water?  If you read that, wasn't that they could still put a well in to get yard use water, 
correct?

WARNER I think staff indicated that there is a prohibition on that as well.

BECKWITH Are you stating that no wells can be drilled on these 28 one-acre lots?  That would help as far as the water 
situation.  We still have the size of the lot as to the area as to what we have.  We do have 51 residences, on 5-acre tracts in 
the Heather Ridge Addition.  There is one 10-acres zoned business, which is across the street from this proposed 
development.  This week we did get an official City/County petition form to pass around the neighborhood to find out how all 
the neighbors felt.  Out of the 56 we distributed we have 48 back opposing this size of one-acre lots.

We would like the MAPC to review the Joint Land Survey dated May 2005 before making a decision on this.  As you are 
aware, the Joint Land Use Study was done between The City of Wichita, the City of Derby, Sedgwick County, and 
McConnell Air Force Base.

GAROFALO What it narrows down to is that you are mostly objecting to the one-acre lots?

BECKWITH Correct.

GAROFALO The water is not an issue?

BECKWITH Not now since it is a condition of approval that they cannot drill wells on that particular property.  Then again it 
will fall back to the Rural Water District No. 3, which may not be there for them until they find out from engineering.   

MCKAY I would like a clarification from staff, can they or can they not put wells for irrigation or something like that?

STRAHL County Code Enforcement informed me subsequent to the Subdivision hearing last week that they cannot put wells 
in.

MCKAY They cannot put wells in?

STRAHL Correct.

MCKAY They are required to connect to Rural Water District No. 3., if service is available?

STRAHL Correct, that is how the motion from Subdivision was quoted.

WARNER The motion was not "if service is available."  If it is not available, they can't do it.

BISHOP I question whether that is the way that it reads.  It says, "If service is available, the Subdivision Committee has 
required connection."  It doesn't say that if is not available then they can't create it.

DOWNING I am sure at the Subdivision Committee meeting last week that the motion was, "That they must connect to Rural 
Water District No. 3. They cannot drill wells for household uses."

WARNER I made the motion, and that is correct, Commissioner Downing.

DOWNING I don't know about the language that is written in the Staff Report, but that is what happened.

MCKAY The question was asked by the previous speaker, "They can't put any well in at all?"  The answer from staff was, 
"Correct, you cannot put any well in at all."

DOWNING That came up after the Subdivision Committee meeting.

MCKAY You said for domestic use, and I am saying even if they want to water their lawn.

DOWNING Yes, but the answer to your question came up after the Subdivision Committee meeting.  At that time we did not 
know, nor did we specify that they could not drill wells for irrigation purposes.  But as I understand staff now, that the 
County Code Enforcement staff added that they cannot drill wells for irrigation purposes, and those wells are prohibited.  So 
the end result is that they can't drill wells period.

MITCHELL May we ask County Code Enforcement to address that additional prohibition, and the availability of water from 
the Rural Water District No. 3?
TIM C. WAGNER, County Code Enforcement, 1144 S. Seneca, Wichita, KS 67213 We have water well records of the wells 
that are currently out there.  They are poor producing wells.  The aquifer is fairly confined and has a very slow recharge rate.  
I have spoken with some well drillers, and they say the water is poor quality and hard to get quantity.  Most of the wells run 
dry in the summer.  You can't partially water your lawns, so we don't think it is worthwhile to allow any type of water well 
to be drilled on those lots. 
DUNLAP Your testimony is, "No, water wells will be allowed to be drilled?"

WAGNER Correct.  

DUNLAP Regardless of use?

WAGNER Correct.  That will be part of our approval memo.

DUNLAP Regardless if it is external or internal usage to the house?

WAGNER Correct.

JOHNSON No, wells.

MITCHELL I also asked a question about the availability of water from the Rural Water District No. 3?

WAGNER I have spoken to Rural Water District No. 3, and they have to do a study, and they may have to add a new line, 
but County Code Enforcement is not aware that they are at full capacity.

DR. TOM ROCHAT, 9116 E. 39TH STREET SOUTH, DERBY KS 67037 It is my understanding that these properties were 
together as one 40-acre plot, and at some point years ago it was subdivided with this five acres coming off (pointing to a 
map).  This entire neighborhood is five plus acre lots.  There are reasons for that to be the case, and the reason I am going to 
address has to do with drainage on these properties.  

Apparently the issue of drainage is a two-tier issue - one is the soil composition and issue two has to the grading of the 
properties.  The soil composition of this area is clay, which does not absorb very well, but does allow water to flow off well.  
So if you have a leaking basement it is good to put on your foundation in order to drain the water away from it, but it 
otherwise does not absorb well.  Approximately one year ago I had a lagoon problem.  The company that did my lagoon was 
out of Goddard, came out and I was inquiring about alternative septic systems.  His statement was that I live on the wrong 
side of town - that I have to live in West Wichita in order to do that because they are more sandy over there.  Here we have 
clay.  I did replace the lagoon knowing that alternative sewer was not available to me given the nature of the clay soil.

The second issue is the issue of grade.  My job as the property owner is essentially to drain this property.  I am at much 
lower grade than the others, and approximately two months after buying my property in the fall of 2003, it was a very wet 
fall season, and my house appeared to be a house in the middle of a lake.  I called several people to get opinions what to do.  
My basement had 1 1/2 foot of water in it, and there was water surrounding my house.  I got very quaint answers from 
people that I called, and one even suggested that I attach helium balloons to the gutter and try to raise the house up.  I 
contacted an Engineer who came to the property and explained to me that I had three issues going on at the property.  Issue 
one was that I had a terracing of the subject property.  Issue two had to do with grade.  Issue three had to do with the soil 
composition being clay.  He said you really have two choices, you can either try to work with the owner of the other 35 
acres, maybe suing him to try and get him to put in more terraces, or you can create a swale system yourself.  Do a bunch 
of excavating and do that, but that is going to be fairly expensive.  So I then contacted an excavator, who created a $4,000 
swale system for me.  So I now have swales, which are supposed to be gently sloping valleys that carry water away.  When 
it rains heavily my swales roar like rivers.

The concern that I have about this development, my basement is dry.  My neighbor to the east is not thankful for the new 
water that I have sent to them, but my problem is solved.  If this development takes place, one of the plans is to remove the 
terraces.  When these terraces are removed I will have a new influx of water.  I talked to an engineer this week, and the 
mere fact that there are 28 houses there will greatly increase my water problem.  

ROD STEWART, 9200 E 39th Street, I am the landowner east of Dr. Rochat.  His swales have added so much water into our 
property that when we have a big rain the whole end of our property from one end to the other is a total river.  My biggest 
concern, listening to the gentleman that was here early today is about water and how it drains into the aquifer.  What is 
going to happen to us?  If they put 28 houses on this development it will not allow enough water to flow down into our 
ground to help the people that do have wells.  We did have a well originally when we bought the property, and we had rural 
water hooked up to our house.  We have a business there. We board, train and show horses, and we have had to add the 
rural water into our barn so that we could have water for our barn, because our well just dried up.  We are not opposed to 
having the land but we want it done in respect to the land, to the conservation of water, and to the residences that are 
already there.  

MITCHELL Mr. Stewart, were your ponds designed by an engineer for an inflow/outflow ratio?
 
STEWART Yes.  They were really meant for the land north of us to help to control the water right there and it flows into our 
property, and we are putting in a dry riverbed to help that flow so that it doesn't cut the ground to bad.  

MITCHELL Have you given a copy of your engineered plan to the County Code Enforcement to consider in their analysis of 
the drainage of this subdivision?

STEWART No, I have not.

MITCHELL Would you?

STEWART Yes.

ALDRICH Do you know whether or not if there has been any efforts at all from the County to help elevate some of the 
drainage problems?

STEWART I think there is another gentleman here today that can answer that better than myself because he takes care of 
our roads.  He used to farm all that area at one time, he even suggested at the time that they went to put in the 4.5 acres 
lots there to use larger culverts to allow the flow to flow better, and they did not take him for his word, so it doesn't runoff 
as quick as it should in some areas.  We have a great system underneath the bridge but it just does not flow enough.  

BOBBY JOHNSON 3707 S. Webb Rd. 67210 Our family property is this entire 80 acres.  I farmed this property from 1980-
1993. The terraces that were on this property were designed in the 1950's and were built by the federal government, along 
with the Conservation Office.  They were designed to work that this whole area to drain in this direction and dump out in our 
meadow, and then drain down to the right-of-way and then down.  When I farmed the property they worked correctly, I 
made sure of it, because when those terraces wash out you have gullies, low production on the farm.  There is 250 acres of 
water that goes through that bridge on 39th Street, a lot of these developments out in this area I have seen, the County is 
real good about making sure that they get rid of their water quick, but when they do that they don't take into consideration 
of the people downstream from that and they cause all kinds of problems.  I have been in this area since 1959.

DUNLAP Mr. Johnson, when you talk about getting rid of the water in a hurry, are you suggesting storm water retention 
ponds? 

JOHNSON Something to keep from getting rid of the water quickly.  Most of the developments that I see they cut through 
terraces, and don't take into consideration that they dump to a different location.  Those terraces where designed to retard 
that water from rushing downhill.

ALDRICH Mr. Johnson, do you know whether or not there has been any effort at all from the County to help evaluate this 
problem?

JOHNSON The Conservation Office is who I dealt with all the time, and I made sure that all my terraces and everything 
worked, and I was in compliance with their standards.

ALDRICH So the answer to my question is that as long as those terraces are there then there is not a problem?

JOHNSON There is not a problem, however when you go to develop it, you need to take into consideration where the water 
has always run.  What I suggest is that on the north end of that property is that they create a flat waterway from the top of 
that down to the drainage area.  How quick the water gets to the bridge is the problem.

CATHY STEWART 9200 E 39th Street I am Rod's wife.  We have 10-acres that are zoned for special use.  I have a business 
there, Aces High Acres.  I raise and board show horses.  I want to share with you from past experience, what happens when 
a subdivision encroaches on livestock.  I had a stable in Waco Township, and a subdivision was put in there, and children 
love to see horses run, and they throw rocks, shoot fireworks just to get the horses to run, and that doesn't seem bad until 
the horses run through the fence.  It doesn't sound bad but then the kids climb the fences to chase the horses, and then it 
becomes a liability for me, and my customers.  In the Waco Township, my property insurance increased because of property 
damage.    I am concerned about this issue.  One suggestion that I would have is to put a barrier wall around the subdivision; 
many of them do these days.  Because those terraces on that property was not kept up, the water now runs from the west 
to the east, through Tom's property and then onto ours.  Our property is eroded tremendously.  I am concerned about the 
increased traffic of 39th Street, and the paving of the street, because I am speaking as a business owner of a horse facility, 
we don't like pavement. 

TAPE CHANGE TAPE 2 SIDE B

WARNER Was the subdivision to your south there with you bought the property?

STEWART Yes, it was.

WARNER Those 30-40 residences with children don't create a problem?

STEWART No, all of those residences are on 5+ acre lots.  We are talking about putting 29 homes on 34 acres.  I think the 
influx of children in the area is going to be much greater.

LAREINA SAINDON, 8215 E. 39th Street South, Derby, KS 67037 When you asked if the properties in the other subdivision 
have children, yes we do have children, however most of those homes range from $250-$350,000.  We are not looking at 
starter homes with small children.  What is proposed for this one-acre section are homes that are 1,500 square feet or more. 
There is no amount proposed or larger homes proposed so we are looking at possibly starter homes, and we have not even 
heard yet if that could include mobile homes.  

I would like to speak as a friend of McConnell Air Force, and someone had asked if McConnell AFB had been notified.  At the 
Subdivision hearing McConnell had not been notified.  I went home that afternoon and called the base.  I am very concerned 
about the implications to McConnell with this development.  I do not have any service representatives in my family that work 
at McConnell; however, my son is in the Army.  McConnell has done a lot for the Wichita area, and they have a major impact 
on our economy.  In May 2005, McConnell participated in a Joint Land Use Study, and that was concluded and was 
published.  I am concerned that they have not considered this property in the Joint Land Use Study.  The area goes all the 
way out to Greenwich Road.  We are out of the noise contours, and we are out of the crash areas, however they did go to 
Greenwich Road for a reason when they did this study.  My husband and I have spoken with Mike McKay out at the base, 
which was a part of this study, and Mike shared with us that McConnell's position is that they would prefer to have green 
grass from McConnell to Missouri, and we know that is not going to happen.  They do understand that land is going to get 
developed around the base.  Their position whether official or not is that they would prefer to see it developed as a low- 
density area.  I know one-acre tracts are not considered high-density development.  I also have concerns about the study, 
and there are the security issues, also the residential development.  McConnell is not going to take an official stand on this 
because they are not going to tell land developers how to develop their land.  However, Mike McKay cautioned the 
Commission to keep in the back of your mind when you are developing land around this area that you are in the Air Force's 
backyard.

ALDRICH What is the least amount of property size that you would support?

SAINDON We have no problem with the 5-acre lots in that area.  

ALDRICH Would you be interested in compromising, like say 2 1/2 – 3 acre sizes?

SAINDON We would like to see the 4 1/2 – 5 acre lots.  You are still looking at more homes and you are still looking at 
encroaching on the base with more population.
 
KIRK MILLER I think we have addressed the water situation, drinking water, irrigation water, we are fine with the restrictions. 
We have an approved drainage plan that has been approved by County Public Works.  We met the zoning requirements and 
the adjacent zoning all around.  It appears to be "SF-20".  We concur with the staff comments.

BARFIELD The concern has come up about screening the area off, and I know that there is no policy that says that you have 
to do that, but is that something your client would consider?

KIRK MILLER Screening in what way?

BARFIELD Screening the subdivision off from MacArthur.

KIRK MILLER Like landscape screening?

BARFIELD I don't care.

KIRK MILLER He may be interested in doing something like that.

GAROFALO Obviously drainage seems to be a big issue with the residence there.  I know you have an approved drainage 
plan from the County.  How do you address the drainage?

KIRK MILLER The increase in runoff from current conditions to proposed conditions; you are putting in houses so there will 
be a higher "C" factor so your soil will not be able to absorb as much water, but the route that the run off will take by the 
time of concentration will be greater because it will be running around ditches, and that type of thing as opposed to a more 
direct route.  The peak runoff from the site will be slightly less than the current because of the time of concentration.  There 
are a lot of design issues that will have to be taken care of, how to cut the ditch and to size the ditch properly.  Those are all 
design issues not drainage concept issues.

ALDRICH What is the drainage plan for that area?

KIRK MILLER The typical drainage plan will tell you what your drainage calculations are, and will show you the routes the 
drainage will go, and will show you the lot elevations and the lot corners.

BISHOP Condition C in the Staff Report says "The City of Wichita Water and Sewer Department request a petition for future 
extension of sanitary sewer and City Water services."  Has that been agreed to?

KIRK MILLER Yes.

MITCHELL Is Mr. Weber from County Public Works still here?  In your opinion does the drainage plan address the drainage 
issues that the adjacent residences have brought up this afternoon?

JIM WEBER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR SEDWICK COUNTY The plat; these are the contours running kind 
of at this diagonal in here.  The terraces that are there, first of all, the natural condition before 1959 was that every bit of 
water ran following those kind of lines; sheet flowed across the property.  The natural condition is not to have terraces.  In 
fact the natural condition would have brought every bit of water in here right through Dr. Rochat's property, which I suspect 
is when the terraces started to go into disrepair.  It tried to go back to the natural drainage pattern.  

When we do development on terrace properties we actually have more problems trying to retain terraces in a development 
than if we do if we take the terraces out, and then handle the drainage in the context of the street and drainage ditches, so 
that is what their plan is showing.  Things will look different than they do right now, but we think the drainage plan has 
properly addressed the issues.  What happens is that we have street systems that start now to intercept the water instead of 
the terrace system and they are more or less parallel to the contours in here, and both of them basically do that, and then 
route it to a central ditch system that comes in here.  Instead of what Mr. Johnson has pointed out, wandering up and then 
coming into the natural drainage channel up in here they are going to come in here; they are going to move that entry point 
600 feet or whatever it is.  On this side over here there are floodway reserves dedicated across this property and across Mr. 
Stewart's property that would pick it up at either place, and bring it down here.  This is a drainage easement that was taken 
probably because these are platting exemptions that were done before a 5-acres or anything under 20 acres would be 
required to plat.  

The short answer is that their drainage plan shows that the peak rate of runoff from this property after this development is 
done is slightly less than the peak rate of runoff today.  That is the standard that we work off of; when it starts to go higher 
then we start talking about detention ponds and those kinds of things.  It depends a lot on lot sizes, and how the water gets 
routed.  A cultivated field is not the best drainage condition, when after harvest and dry, that is the kind of predevelopment 
discharge that we are calculating; that is not a good condition.  When you go and do development, if the lot sizes are large 
enough you put some impervious out there, and you also put a good lawn out there and that helps the interception of water 
down into the soil.  

The short story is, we had a couple of comments on this drainage plan, that had more to with size of culverts under the 
entrances, and those kinds of things but we are satisfied with the drainage plan that they have submitted on this plat.

BISHOP Would you comment on the part of the staff report that says, "An off-site drainage easement may be needed."  Is 
that what you were talking about?

WEBER What I am talking about is that comment was done before we figured out that we had a floodway reserve over here, 
but the point is that the channel is 50 feet over from the property line; that the issue was how do you actually make the 
physical tie-in from this point here, over to the channel if some grading needs to be done?  It is in a drainage reserve, so it is 
essentially in a reserve in an easement, and that is really fine that the comment is in there but it is less an issue for us now 
than it was at the Subdivision hearing.

ALDRICH If the development is approved and you have a floodway reserve how will that affect the adjacent properties? Will 
it increase the potential for flooding or decrease it?

WEBER No, there should be no change.  The discharge rate is remarkably close.  It was 103 csf as opposed to 108 or 
something like that, and so given that this is already an area prone to flooding, and has already been identified as an area 
that would flood, and we are not increasing the discharge rate, I think the main issue physically that you would see is that 
when the work gets done that instead of some of this coming off the terrace system at the north, it is going to come off the 
ditch system down here.
 
ALDRICH So they are still going to have the same problem.

WEBER It will not fix their problem.  Hopefully Dr. Rochat has his problem fixed, and maybe he can work with the developer 
and make sure if there are some tweaks that those things can happen during the development process.  As Kirk Miller had 
indicated, we are at the drainage plan phase, which is a concept, and it is not a designed.  So at some point there will be a 
road plan done, and a drainage plan done, and some of those details will get done at that point.  We can't work that far 
ahead of the curve.

DUNLAP Should the traffic increase to the point where there is a petition of 28 residences to pave that road out to Rock 
Road, will the people on the south side also be assessed?

WEBER I think the requirement right now under the Urban Fringe Development Policy is, these 28 people will be signing a 
petition to pave from the ½-mile line back to Webb Road, the nearest arterial.  They would not be included in another petition 
later on to go anywhere else.

DUNLAP The people on the south side from that development to Webb, are they going to be assessed part of the cost of the 
paving of that road?

WEBER Not unless they want to join in a petition to do so.

DUNLAP But the paving is going to happen?

WEBER The way the policy works is that the County will pay for half the cost of this ½-mile, the developer will pay 100% of 
the other half amongst these 28 lots.

DUNLAP So the people on the south side do not have additional cost and that road would be paved?

WEBER That east ½-mile, correct?

BISHOP I have a question of staff. My understanding is that this application area is within three miles of Wichita's boundary, 
so that means that this plat, if it is approved, will go to the County Commission for approval but it will also go to the City 
Council?

SCHLEGEL It will have to go to the City Council as well.

BISHOP But if the City Council for some reason rejected it, it would not happen?

SCHLEGEL I guess in theory that could happen.

SHERMAN I really would like to see this area not compromised and stay five-acre lots.

		MOTION: To deny the plat.

	BISHOP moved, SHERMAN seconded.

DUNLAP Having been a neighbor out there several years ago, we were all cautioned and very aware of being nice to 
McConnell, and we have recently escaped being put on the list for base closing, and I know that is not a reason to deny 
development, but I also feel that it will have an affect.  The tighter we squeeze McConnell, the more likely they are to be put 
on the base-closing list someday.  We are going through the problem with the people on the other side of the runway, and I 
don't want to see it happen again.  I also went out there and looked, and that is the nicest area that I have seen in five-acre 
lots anywhere around here.  I don't think one-acre lots fit in the neighborhood, so I will support the motion to deny the plat.

HENTZEN Is the present owner and the present zoning SF-20, how many structures could he put on that?

SCHLEGEL He could develop this at 20,000 square foot lots, under that zoning, so these one-acre lots are perfectly legal 
under the current zoning.

DUNLAP About 60 houses could be on there by right, not with this plat, but with the zoning.

BISHOP That is actually a failure of our planning policy rather than a reflection on this particular application.  When the 
alternative sewer system was approved which meant that smaller than five-acre lots were possible, that needed to be 
addressed in terms of the density, and the leap frog development that would call for, and unfortunately as a Commission we 
chose to ignore that concern.

MITCHELL I am going to disagree with all of the previous comments.  What we have tried to do with the alternative sewer 
system and with other planning initiatives is to increase density in areas that will be served by municipal services, and this 
petition already had been required.  The petition to the City of Wichita for sewer and water will come, and it will come within 
a reasonable length of time.  

With all due respect to McConnell, they have not taken an official position, and there has to be some limit on how far we sit 
and surmise what might or might not affect the future use of that base.  So I don't see any basis for denying the use of this 
property for that purpose.  

The three issues that were addressed by the adjacent residences are the size of the lots, the drainage, and the water supply.  
I think the drainage and the water supply have been answered.  I think this is a good development, and I will not support the 
motion.

	MOTION fails (5-7).
	(JOHNSON, BARFIELD, DOWNING, WARNER, MCKAY, MITCHELL, HENTZEN opposed)

	MOTION: To approve the plat subject to staff recommendations.

		BARFIELD moved, MITCHELL seconded the motion and it carried 7-5. 
(ALDRICH, DUNLAP, GAROFALO, BISHOP, SHERMAN, opposed)

SCHLEGEL Dale, what is the recourse on having this Item heard at the County Commission?  

BOB PARNACOTT, ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSELOR Typically plats are not controversial and we do them on a consent 
agenda, so there is not an opportunity to speak.  However, County Commissioners can ask to have Items pulled off the 
consent agenda if there is a recommendation from staff that it be placed open the regular agenda then we can do that.

SCHLEGEL That is what I will do. When we send this over to the County Commissioner we will place it on the regular 
agenda, and if people are there, it is usually the practice of the Chair to recognize people that want to speak.

PARNACOTT They would be given that opportunity, yes.  

DALE MILLER We do not send the plats over so Jim Weber will have to remember to do that, once they leave our office.

PARNACOTT I am sure we will be well aware of this as it tracks through the process and we will get it on the regular 
agenda.

BARFIELD I believe one of the speakers say they had an 80% protest petition?

DUNLAP Yes, they have not filed that yet.

AUDIENCE We will in about five minutes.

SCHLEGEL Protest petitions do not count with platting.  They are not valid.  I mean you can register your protest with the 
County Clerk and City Clerk if that is what you want to do but they will not affect the vote of either the County Commission 
or the City Council.

DUNLAP It might affect it but it will not mandate it.

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

3-6.  SUB 2005-53:  One-Step Final Plat -- REMINGTON PLACE 4TH ADDITION, located south of 21st Street North and east 
of Webb Road.

NOTE:   This is a replat of a portion of Remington Place 3rd Addition which consists of the elimination of Reserve C. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	The applicant shall contact Debt Management regarding the need for submission of a respread agreement for existing 
improvements. 

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

C.	In accordance with the KS Wetland Mapping Conventions under the Memorandum of Understanding between the 
USDA-NRCS; USEPA; USACE; and USF&WS, this site has been identified as one with potential wetland hydrology.  
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be contacted (316-322-8247) to have a wetland determination 
completed." 

D.	Since this is a replat of a previous Addition involved with the ownership and maintenance of reserves for that Addition, 
but not being replatted by this Addition, the above covenants and/or other legal documents shall be provided which 
provides for this Addition to continue to share in the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of any such previously 
platted reserves.

E.	The parking easements should be located within a Reserve and shall be referenced in the plattor's text specifying that 
the easements are granted for residential parking only and that no obstructions shall be constructed or placed within 
the easements.

F.	Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves for this plat and for the subsequent 
phase of development.  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.

G.	The 15-foot drainage and utility easements should be labeled as "street, drainage and utility easements".  

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

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

J.	The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring 
that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures 
constructed on subject property.

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

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

M.	The 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: 316-946-4556) prior to development of 
the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined.

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

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

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

R.	Recording of the plat within 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 compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:  Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion and it carried. (12-0)

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

3-7.  SUB 2005-54:  One-Step Final Plat -- KRUG NORTH 2ND ADDITION, located north of 21st Street North and on the west 
side of 143rd Street East.  

NOTE:	This is a replat of the northern portion of Krug North Addition. Five new cul-de-sacs are proposed resulting in four 
fewer lots. The site is located within the 100-year floodplain. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Petitions have been provided with Krug North Addition for sewer, water, drainage and paving improvements. New 
petitions are needed including sewer (main and lateral), water, drainage and paving improvements.  

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

C.	City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. County Engineering requests 
a drainage plan. 

D.	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.

E.	Since this is a replat of a previous Addition involved with the ownership and maintenance of reserves for that Addition, 
but not being replatted by this Addition, the above covenants and/or other legal documents shall be provided which 
provides for this Addition to continue to share in the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of any such previously 
platted reserves.
F.	County Engineering has requested a guarantee for paving of 143rd St. to the north line of plat. 
The Subdivision Committee did not require this condition. 
G.	An onsite benchmark is needed. 
H.	Sedgwick County requests annexation of 143rd St. by the City. 
I.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed streets. The guarantee shall also provide for sidewalks on at 
least one side of all through, non cul-de-sac streets.  

J.	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.

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

L.	GIS needs to comment on the plat's street names. Revised street names are needed. 

M.	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.

N.	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. 

O.	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.)

P.	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.

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

R.	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.

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

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

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

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

W.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov) . This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:	Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion and it carried. (12-0)

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

3-8.   SUB 2005-55:  One-Step Final Plat -- MIDLAND BAPTIST CHURCH 2ND ADDITION, located east of Ridge Road and on the 
south side of 45th Street North.  

NOTE:  This site is located in the County within three miles of Wichita's boundary. It is located in an area designated as 
"2030 Urban Service Area" by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

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

B.	In accordance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards the subdivider shall contact the City of Wichita to 
determine the financial feasibility of connecting the proposed subdivision to the city water system.  If financially 
feasible, the subdivision shall be connected to Wichita's water system in accordance with City of Wichita standards.

C.	City of Wichita Water and Sewer Department requests a petition for future extension of sanitary sewer and City water 
services. 
D.	County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. A drainage plan is needed. A 
cross-lot drainage easement is needed. 
E.	County Engineering has requested a guarantee for the paving of 45th N. from Ridge Rd. to 1/2-mile line. In lieu of a 
paving petition, the Subdivision Committee required a No Protest Agreement for future paving of 45th St. North. 
F.	As drainage will be directed onto K-96, a letter shall be provided from KDOT indicating their agreement to accept such 
drainage. 

G.	County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one opening along 45th St. North. The 
access controls are approved. 

H.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that all access drives shall be in accordance with Sedgwick County Service 
Drive Code.  
I.	Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that onsite water protection may be required. 
J.	An onsite benchmark is needed. 
K.	Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves.  A covenant shall be submitted 
regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities. 

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

M.	Reference to City of Wichita in the plattor's text shall be replaced with Sedgwick County. 

N.	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.

O.	The applicant is reminded that this site is located within three miles of the City Limits of Wichita and will be heard by 
City Council. Therefore, the City Council signature block needs to be included on the final plat tracing.

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

Q.	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. 

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

S.	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.

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

U.	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.

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

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

X.	Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

Y.	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. 

Z.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

BISHOP Neil we talked early about the drainage plan, and you have checked that it had been submitted, because my 
understanding from the staff report is that it says that the drainage plan needs to be submitted?

JIM WEBER, Sedgwick County Public Works The plan was submitted and we have requested some additional information 
after it was submitted.

BISHOP So you can assure me that nothing will proceed until an approved drainage plan is in place?

WEBER No plat will be filed.

MOTION:	Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion and it carried. (12-0)

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

3-9.  SUB 2005-57:  One-Step Final Plat -- LILLIE ADDITION, located south of Maple and on the    West side of Maize Road.  

NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. A zone change request (ZON 2005-23) from SF-5, Single-Family 
Residential to GO, General Office has been requested.  The Lillie Office Park CUP (DP-286) has also been requested. The site 
is located within the 100-year floodplain.

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change and any related conditions of such a change. Prior to 
this plat being considered by MAPC, the zone change will need to be approved.

B.	City Water and Sewer Department advises that the applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water to serve the 
lots being platted. Sewer is available to serve Lots 1 and 2, however in lieu of assessment fees are needed for 
connection. The existing sewer on the south side of lot 3 is 27" and therefore can not tapped into for individual 
services. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer for Lot 3.

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. 

E.	Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one street opening along Maize Road 
and complete access control along the remaining plat frontage. The access controls are approved. Complete access 
control along McCormick Street is also requested.  
F.	In accordance with the CUP proposal, a cross-lot circulation agreement is needed to assure internal vehicular movement 
between the lots.

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. A Driveway Closure Certificate in lieu of a guarantee may be provided. 

H.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed street. 

I.	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.

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

K.	The 25-ft setback along Maize does not coincide with the 35-ft setback lines that are required by the CUP. 

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

M.	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.

N.	Contingent on the CUP approval, the street right-of-way width of Maize Ct may be decreased to 58 feet with 
submission of a restrictive covenant prohibiting on-street parking and construction to a commercial street thickness or in 
the alternative be increased to the standard 70-ft commercial street standard.  

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

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

Q.	The 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.

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

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

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

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

V.	Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission.

W.	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. Westar Energy has requested additional easements. 

X.	The applicant is reminded that a compact disc (CD) shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning 
Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD, or sent via e-mail to MAPD (cholloway@wichita.gov). This 
will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MOTION:  Approve subject to staff recommendation.

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

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

3-10.  DED 2005-17:  Dedication of a Utility Easement, for property located east of Maize Road and   north of MacArthur 
Road.

DED 2005-17:  Dedication of a Utility Easement for property located east of Maize Road and north of MacArthur.  

APPLICANT:  Betty Evans, 9971 E. Sabino Springs Place, Tucson, AZ 85749

AGENT/SURVEYOR:  Craig Moehring, Moehring and Associates, 433 S. Hydraulic, Wichita, KS 67211  

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:  Beginning at a point in the east line and 31.37 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block B, 
Mid-Continent Industrial Park II, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence N00°00'00" West along the east line of said Lot 1, a 
distance of 10.46 feet thence S72° 48'49" West parallel with the south line of Lot 1, a distance of 508.06'; thence S17° 
01'11" East; a distance of 10.00' thence N72° 58'49" East, a distance of 505.00' to the point of beginning.

PURPOSE OF DEDICATIONS:  This dedication is associated with a lot split case (SUB 2004-79) and is for construction 
and maintenance of public utilities.  

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:  Accept the Dedication.


MOTION:  Approve subject to staff recommendation.

MCKAY moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion and it carried. (12-0)

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

?	PUBLIC HEARINGS – VACATION ITEM
		      
4-1.  VAC 2005-22:  Request to Vacate Street Right-of-Way, located west of Hillside and south of Central.

APPLICANTS/OWNERS:	Team Players, LLC c/o Mike Boyd

AGENT:	Baughman Company, PA c/o Russ Ewy				
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:	That part of Reserve "B", the Maple Grove Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, 
Kansas, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Reserve 
"B"; thence west along the south line of said Reserve "B" a distance of 12.04-feet; 
thence northeasterly a distance of 14.67-feet; thence south along the east line of 
Reserve "B" a distance of 8.5-feet to the point of beginning.  

LOCATION:	Generally located south of Central Avenue and west of Hillside Avenue (Council 
District I) 

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Part of a site to be redeveloped

CURRENT ZONING:	Site is a remnant of public ROW.  Properties north and west of the site are zoned 
"GC" General Commercial and "B" Multi-family Residential.  Properties east and 
south (across drainage) of the site are zoned "B" 

The applicants are requesting consideration to vacate a remnant of Francis Avenue right-of-way (ROW) that was acquired by 
a taking in 1931; reference Ordinance 10-987, Misc. Book 98-278.  A portion of Francis Avenue was located over portions 
of the abutting Reserves "B" and "F", all in the Maple Grove Addition.  The portion of Francis Avenue over Reserve "F" was 
vacated March 2, 1966 (Misc. Book 575, Page 217), however that portion of Francis Avenue over Reserve "B" was never 
vacated.  There are no uses listed in the plat's text for Reserve "B" or any of the Reserves in the Maple Grove Addition.  
There is a sewer line and a manhole in this portion of ROW.  There are no water lines located in the ROW.  The ROW abuts 
drainage on its south si