Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Agenda

AGENDA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, December 05, 2019 1:30 PM

The regular meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission will be held on December 05, 2019 at 1:30 PM in the Planning Commission Conference Room, 203 271 West Third Street, 2nd Floor Wichita, Kansas.

1. Approval of the prior MAPC meeting minutes November 21, 2019

2. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Items may be taken in one motion unless there are questions or comments. Description will go here.

2.1 SUB2019-00049: One-Step Final Plat – S & B’S 1ST ADDITION; located on the east side of South 407th Street West, one-quarter mile north of West 23rd Street South.

RECOMMENDATION ACTION: APPROVED 5-0

2.2 SUB2019-00050: One-Step Final Plat – ECK BROTHERS ESTATES ADDITION; located on the south side of West 29th Street North, one-half mile west of 231st Street West.

RECOMMENDATION ACTION: APPROVED 5-0

2.3 SUB2019-00051: One-Step Final Plat – MAKERSPACE ADDITION; located on the north side of East Mount Vernon Road, one-quarter mile west of South Woodlawn Boulevard.

RECOMMENDATION ACTION: APPROVED 5-0

3. PUBLIC HEARING – VACATION ITEMS NONE

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED TO BE HEARD NO EARLIER THAN 1:30 PM

4.1 DER2018-00012 - Pursuant to K.S.A. 12-747 et seq., adoption of the South Central Neighborhood Plan as an element of the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, will be considered.

PRESENTING PLANNER: MATTHEW WILLIAMS

Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 December 05, 2019

4.2 CON2019-00043 - County Conditional Use for a Training Kennel on property zoned SF-20 Single Family Residential generally located approximately 3/4 of a mile east of South Rock Road and approximately 1/2 mile south of East 39th Street South (East MacArthur Rd) (9025 E 42nd St South).

PRESENTING PLANNER: PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN

4.3 CON2019-00044 - City Conditional Use to allow Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Sales on property zoned LC Limited Commercial and generally located on the northeast corner of South Meridian Avenue and West Harry Street.

PRESENTING PLANNER: PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN

4.4 PUD2019-00012 - City Zone Change to create a new Planned Unit Development (37th Event Center PUD) to construct an Event Center and Entertainment Establishment on property zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential, generally located on the north side of East 37th Street North and 900 feet east of North Woodlawn Boulevard.

PRESENTING PLANNER: DAVE YEAROUT

4.5 PUD2019-00016 - City Zone Change from GC General Commercial, B Multi-Family, SF-5 Single-Family and CUP DP-198 to Planned Unit Development to create the Starkey Development Commercial PUD on property generally located north of West Maple Street and four blocks west of South West Street (4500 West Maple Street).

PRESENTING PLANNER: DAVE YEAROUT

4.6 PUD2019-00017 - City Zone Change from CBD Central Business District to PUD to create new Planned Unit Development to allow expansion of tattoo and body piercing business on property generally located on the south side of East Douglas Avenue and two blocks east of South Washington Avenue (1207 East Douglas Avenue).

PRESENTING PLANNER: DAVE YEAROUT

4.7 ZON2019-00037 - County Zone Change from SF-20 Single Family to OW Office Warehouse to permit a landscape business on property generally located on the south side of East Pawnee Road and one-half mile west of Eat 159th Street.

PRESENTING PLANNER: PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN

4.8 ZON2019-00045 - City Zone Change from SF-5 Single Family to TF-3 Two Family and from TF-3 to SF-5 to revise the zoning district limits of a previous zone change approval on property generally located on the east side of South Webb Road, approximately one-quarter mile north of East Pawnee Road (east of 2130 S. Webb)

Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 December 05, 2019

PRESENTING PLANNER: PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN 4.9 ZON2019-00046 - City Zone Change from SF-5 Single Family and D-O Delano Overlay to TF-3 Two-Family Residential and D-O Delano Overlay to construct a duplex on property generally located approximately 250 feet south of West Douglas Avenue and one block east of South Meridian Avenue (122 S Sedgwick).

PRESENTING PLANNER: KATHY MORGAN

4.10 ZON2019-00047 - City Zone Change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to TF-3 Two-Family Residential on 17.8 acres of property generally located east of South 135th Street West and north of West Pawnee Avenue.

PRESENTING PLANNER: KATHY MORGAN

5. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NONE

6. Other Matters/Adjournment NONE

Dale Miller, Secretary Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSOIN

MINUTES

November 21, 2019

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, November 21, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., in the Planning Commission Conference Room, 2nd Floor, Suite #203, 271 West Third Street, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Chuck Warren, Chair, Mike Greene, Vice-Chair, Lowell Richardson, Schane Gross, John McKay, Jr., Bob Dool, Joshua Blick, Hugh Nicks, David Foster, Bill Johnson, Joe Johnson, Cindy Miles and Rob Hartman. Members absent: Terrell Florence. Staff members present were: Dale Miller, Director; Scott Knebel, Planning Manager, Dave Yearout, Principal Planner; Kathy Morgan, Senior Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner, Philip Zevenbergen, Associate Planner, Matt Williams, Associate Planner, and Justin Waggoner, Assistant County Attorney, and Sharon Dickgrafe, Assistant City Attorney.

1. Approval of the November 7, 2019, MAPC minutes.

MOTION: Approve the November 7, 2019, minutes.

NICKS moved, GREENE seconded the motion, and it passed (10-0-2). Abstained: J. JOHNSON and B. JOHNSON.

______

2. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

2-1. SUB2019-00043: CITY FINAL PLAT-OLIVER ADDITION, located on the west side of North Oliver, approximately 800 feet south of East 29th Street North.

NOTE: This is a replat of the Greenbriar Manor Addition in addition to unplatted property. The property is subject to a Protective Overlay (PO #252) addressing density, building height, screening and access.

STAFF COMMENTS:

A. City of Wichita Public Works and Utilities Department advises Lot 1 has water and sewer available. Lot 2 has water available. The applicant needs to extend sewer (laterals) to serve Lot 2. Public Works requests a utility plan along with platted easements.

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

C. The applicant shall submit an Encroachment Agreement to City Public Works prior to submittal of the mylar.

D. City Stormwater Management has approved the drainage plan.

E. Traffic Engineering has approved the access controls. The plat denotes one 50-foot opening along Oliver and complete access control along 27th Street North in accordance with the Protective Overlay. The label along 27th Street should be corrected to read “complete access control”. A cross-lot access easement is needed to provide access to Lot 1.

F. The Benchmark shall correct the spelling of “Dellrose” and chiseled”.

G. Traffic Engineering requests the dedication of a 10-foot contingent right-of-way along Oliver. The plattor’s text shall state: “The contingent right-of-way dedication is for public uses such as streets, sidewalks, drainage, or utilities, and shall become effective if the City Engineer of the City of Wichita determines a need for such dedication.”

The contingent dedication has been shown on the final plat. The contingent right-of-way dedication shall be denoted with a dashed line. The language in the plattor’s text shall be revised to “The cost for any utility relocations, if required, will be at the expense of the City.”

H. As the plat consists of a non-residential lot abutting a non-arterial street, the Subdivision Regulations require a sidewalk along the 27th Street frontage. A Sidewalk Certificate in lieu of a guarantee may be submitted.

I. A Protective Overlay Certificate shall be submitted identifying the approved Protective Overlay and its special conditions for development on this property.

J. County Surveying requests the applicant locate the Jayhawk Pipeline Easement with respect to the plat boundaries.

K. The Applicant informed the Subdivision Committee the pipeline is in the process of being released. The applicant shall obtain a release of the pipeline easement. A recorded copy of the release of the easement shall be submitted.

L. The plattor’s text shall be revised in two places to state the utility easements are granted “to the public”.

M. City Environmental Health requires any wells installed for irrigation purposes to be properly permitted, installed, and inspected in a manner consistent with City and State requirements.

N. County Surveying and MAPD requests review of a pdf prior to mylar submittal. Send to [email protected] and [email protected].

O. 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.

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

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

R. Prior to development of the plat, the applicant is advised to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: (316) 946-4595) in order to receive mail delivery without delay, avoid unnecessary expense and determine the type of delivery and the tentative mailbox locations.

S. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Route 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.

ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements.

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

V. The applicant should check City or County GIS mapping to determine whether the location of any taxing district boundaries (e.g. school districts) crosses their property and plan accordingly to avoid unnecessary splitting of lots between taxing districts.

W. Evergy will need to request additional easements. Heide Bryan, Subdivision Representative, will be the contact for this plat and can be contacted at 261-6354. Any relocation or removal of service due to this plat will be at the applicant’s expense.

X. A compact disk (CD) should be provided, which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. Please include the name of the plat on the disk. If a disk is not provided, please send the information via e-mail to Kathy Wilson (e-mail address: [email protected]).

STRAHL presented the staff report, and explained the Subdivision Committee reviewed the plat on October 17, 2019. At that time the drainage plan had not been submitted. Subdivision Committee did not have any issues with the preliminary plat other than lack of drainage plan approval. The preliminary plat was approved with the condition the drainage plan would be evaluated at the time the final plat was submitted. The final plat was approved subject to approval of the drainage plan. The drainage plan was submitted this morning, which did not give Stormwater engineers time to review the plan prior to today’s meeting and have recommended the plat be deferred. MAPC has two options; defer a decision today or approve the plat with the requirement that it not go to City Council until the drainage plan has been approved.

LEVI BOND, KAW VALLEYENGINEERING, 200 NORTH EMPORIA, SUITE 100, WICHITA, explained that Stormwater Engineer Joe Hickle and he visited the site, and he attended an HOA meeting. BOND developed a model for one storm, Hickle asked for a second model that was for a bigger storm, and that has been provided. The current plan proposes to detain 44,000 cubic feet of stormwater, which is double the usual requirement. BOND asked the MAPC to approve the plat with the stipulation that it cannot go to City Council until the drainage plan has been approved because of pending real estate transactions. They plan on meeting with the neighbors on-site one more time.

FOSTER asked what year of storm did they model, and was told the 100-year storm.

LONNIE BARNES, 2924 NORTH TERRACE, WICHITA, 67220, described earlier efforts by the City to address flooding and his earlier presentation at Subdivision Committee. He noted that despite the improvements flooding still occurred. The detention pond that was installed is not deep enough. He was concerned there was only two or three items in the staff report that dealt with drainage. The proposed detention ponds are not deep enough given all the water that comes to this location.

FOSTER thanked Mr. BARNES for his excellent presentation on flooding that he presented at the Subdivision Committee, and noted that it was very informative.

BRENDA STEVENSON, 4723 EAST 27TH STREET NORTH, commented that Mr. B BOND had provided them with a new flood zone map. Her concern is the channel narrows down so much. It needs to be cleaned out. She pointed out a house that had to redo their driveway, garage and back patio due to years of water saturation. They gave up and moved.

BOND replied that the proposed detention ponds are not as deep as WSU’s because the proposed development is not as big as WSU’s. For the two to 100-year storms they are detaining more water than before. He emphasized the proposed drainage plan significantly reduces the rate and flow of water for a 100-year storm.

McKAY asked if they did a model for the 500-year flood and was told they only have to model for the 100- year storm by code.

There was a discussion concerning modeling for the 500-year storm, and the adequacy of designing only to the 100-year storm. It was also noted that this particular area was probably platted when drainage plans were not required at the time.

MOTION: To approve subject to the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and staff recommendation; withhold City Council consideration until the drainage plan has been approved.

GREENE moved, BLICK seconded the motion, and it carried (12-1). Deny: McKAY.

(THIS CASE WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR 13 MEMBERS BEING PRESENT; 2nd CASE HEARD AFTER CONSENT AGENGA.) ______

2-2. SUB2019-00044: COUNTY ONE-STEP FINAL PLAT-AIR CAPITAL OFFICE PARK ADDITION, located north of East 47th Street South and west of South Oliver Street.

NOTE: This unplatted site is located in the County within three miles of the City of Wichita. It is designated as: “Industrial and Improvement District” by the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035.

STAFF COMMENTS:

A. City of Wichita Public Works and Utilities Department advises the lot is currently being served by private water and sewer. The language in the plattor’s text regarding a “Use of Easement Permit” should be deleted as this is a County plat.

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

C. County Public Works has approved the drainage plan subject to Reserve D being better defined.

D. County Public Works has approved the access controls. The plat denotes one opening along Oliver and one opening along 47th Street.

E. Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that the plat will need to comply with the 2012 International Fire Code, Appendix D.- Fire Apparatus Access Roads.

F. County Surveying and MAPD requests review of a pdf prior to mylar submittal. Send to [email protected] and [email protected].

G. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A restrictive covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities.

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

I. 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.)

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

K. Prior to development of the plat, the applicant is advised to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: (316) 946-4595) in order to receive mail delivery without delay, avoid unnecessary expense and determine the type of delivery and the tentative mailbox locations.

L. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Route 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.

M. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater 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.

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

O. The applicant should check City or County GIS mapping to determine whether the location of any taxing district boundaries (e.g. school districts) crosses their property and plan accordingly to avoid unnecessary splitting of lots between taxing districts.

P. Evergy requests additional easements. Shane Price, Supervisor, Design Services, would like the agent and or the applicant to reach out to discuss the easement needed as it does include a small area outside the plat where an existing duct is in place. He will be the contact for this plat and can be contacted at 261-6315. Any relocation or removal of service due to this plat will be at the applicant’s expense.

Q. A compact disk (CD) should be provided, which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. Please include the name of the plat on the disk. If a disk is not provided, please send the information via e-mail to Kathy Wilson (e-mail address: [email protected]).

MOTION: To approve subject to the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, HARTMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ______

2-3. SUB2019-00046: COUNTY ONE-STEP FINAL PLAT-ST. MARK’S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION, located approximately one-quarter mile west of North 183rd Street West, on the south side of West 29th Street North.

NOTE: This unplatted site is located in the County and designated as “Rural Growth Area” by the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035. The applicant requests a zone change (ZON2019-00043) from RR Rural Residential to SF-20 Single-Family Residential.

STAFF COMMENTS:

A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department 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. A restrictive covenant is required that prohibits non-domestic wastes on the site until public sewer is available.

B. The site is currently located within the Sedgwick County Rural Water District No. 4. If service is available, feasible and the property is eligible for service, Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department recommends connection.

C. Easements referenced in the plattor’s text are not shown on the face of the plat.

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

E. County Public Works advises the drainage plan needs to include a detention area for the additional impervious surface.

F. The applicant will meet with County Public Works prior to the MAPC Meeting to discuss two access openings along 29th Street.

G. County Public Works requests that on 29th Court North, the south portion shall have complete access control except four openings.

H. County Surveying advises the elevation of benchmark #1 needs to be corrected.

I. County Public Works requests a 50-foot right-of-way plus a 10-foot utility easement along 29th Street North.

J. Right-of-way width needs labeled along 29th Court North.

K. Sedgwick County Fire Department advises that the plat will need to comply with the 2012 International Fire Code, Appendix D.- Fire Apparatus Access Roads.

L. A Lot number and Block number shall be designated on the face of the plat.

M. It appears the plat boundaries need to be revised to delete the 60 x 120-foot property located at the east side of West Baalman Avenue, 335 feet south of 29th Street owned by Scott Wegerer which is not included in the legal description of the plat (tax control number 00595996).

N. 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.

O. County Surveying and MAPD requests review of a pdf prior to mylar submittal. Send to [email protected] and [email protected].

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

T. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater 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.

W. Any removal or relocation of existing equipment of utility companies will be at the applicant’s expense.

STRAHL, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report and noted that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval.

PHIL MEYER, BAUGHMAN EINGINEERING, 315 ELLIS, WICHITA, stated he was in agreement with staff comments, and the drainage plan had been approved by Sedgwick County Public Works.

JAN STRUNK, 18400 WEST 29TH STREET NORTH, stated his concern was they wanted to put in a parking lot, which is fine except that all the water from the parking lot is going to go into the ditch which will carry the water to the east and then southeast across his property. He questioned the effectiveness of the proposed detention ponds to address his concern. The parking lot will permit less absorbs ion and speed up the flow of an increased amount of water.

FOSTER asked if Mr. STRUNK’S property has a drainage easement where the water runs and was told there was an easement.

WARREN asked MEYER explain what criteria they have to use when the design a drainage plan.

MEYER clarified that the zone change is for a much larger area than just the parking lot. The natural grade of the land is to the north to the ditch and then east in the ditch to STRUNK’S property that has been platted and has drainage dedications on it. The drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by County Engineer. They have met with the neighbors and are creating extra detention to address those concerns.

LEROY KIETER, 2761 NORTH 183 WEST, (?) stated he lives on the south side of the property being rezoned. He stated the parking lot was already being installed and questioned how that could be happening. He questioned how water could travel uphill to flow the way it was explained.

MEYER explained that the architect who designed the improvements did not realize the property was not zoned or platted properly when they started the dirt work. The school has been there a long time. The plans have been reviewed and permits applied for when the plan review comments was it is not properly zoned or platted. To his knowledge they are not building the parking lot; they are doing demolition. If the requests are approved today they may be able to get a conditional building permit.

KIETER repeated his assertion that the parking lot and the detention ponds are under construction as of this morning.

FOSTER asked for, and received, confirmation that the drainage plan had been approved.

J. JOHNSON asked where will the water from the new construction go, and was told the detention ponds are designed to catch the increased flow.

MEYER explained the location of the detention pond.

MOTION: To approve subject to the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and staff recommendation.

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

(THIS CASE WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR 13 MEMBERS BEING PRESENT AND WAS THE SECOND CASE HEARD FOLLOWING THE CONSENT AGENDA.) ______

2-4. SUB2019-00047: CITY ONE-STEP FINAL PLAT-KANSAS SURGERY AND RECOVERYCENTER 2ND ADDITION, located on the east side of North Webb Road, on the south side of K-96 Highway.

NOTE: This is a replat of a portion of the Kansas Surgery and Recovery Center Addition. The property is included in the Tallgrass East Business Park Commercial Community Unit Plan (DP-192).

STAFF COMMENTS:

A. City of Wichita Public Works and Utilities Department advises that water is available to Lots 1 and 2. Sewer is available to Lot 2. The applicant needs to extend sewer (laterals) to Lot 1.

B. The language in the plattor’s text regarding a “Residential Drainage Relief Permit” needs replaced with “No signs, light poles, private drainage systems, masonry fences, masonry trash enclosures or other structures shall be located within public utility easements unless a Use of Easement Permit is obtained from the City of Wichita Public Works & Utilities Department.”

C. The applicant shall submit an Encroachment Agreement to City Public Works prior to submittal of the mylar.

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

E. City Stormwater Management has approved the drainage plan.

F. The plat denotes one opening along Webb Road. Traffic Engineering has approved the access controls.

G. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. A restrictive covenant shall be submitted regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities.

I. The plattor’s text shall be corrected to reference the bike path within Reserve B to be maintained by the City of Wichita.

J. The Applicant needs to request a CUP adjustment as the CUP parcel boundaries do not correspond with the area being platted.

K. A note shall be placed on the final plat, indicating that this Addition is subject to the general provisions of the Tallgrass East Business Park Commercial Community Unit Plan (DP-192).

L. 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.

M. 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.

N. Drainage easements referenced in the plattor’s text are not denoted on the face of the plat.

O. City Environmental Health requires any wells installed for irrigation purposes to be properly permitted, installed, and inspected in a manner consistent with City and State requirements. P. County Surveying and MAPD requests review of a pdf prior to mylar submittal. Send to [email protected] and [email protected].

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

T. Prior to development of the plat, the applicant is advised to meet with the United States Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: (316) 946-4595) in order to receive mail delivery without delay, avoid unnecessary expense and determine the type of delivery and the tentative mailbox locations.

U. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Route 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 acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Stormwater 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. The applicant should check City or County GIS mapping to determine whether the location of any taxing district boundaries (e.g. school districts) crosses their property and plan accordingly to avoid unnecessary splitting of lots between taxing districts.

Y. Evergy requests additional easements. Becky Thompson, Area Construction Representative, will be the contact for this plat and can be contacted at 261-6320. Any relocation or removal of service due to this plat will be at the applicant’s expense.

Z. A compact disk (CD) should be provided, which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. Please include the name of the plat on the disk. If a disk is not provided, please send the information via e-mail to Kathy Wilson (e-mail address: [email protected]).

MOTION: To approve subject to the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, HARTMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (12-0). ______

3. PUBLIC HEARING – VACATION ITEMS

3-1. VAC2019-00037: City Vacation of the front building setback to allow building addition on property zoned LI Limited Industrial generally located 500 feet west of South Hoover Street, 1,875 feet south of West Harry Street (1831 South Hoover).

The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of the 35-foot front setback on Lots 8 and 9, reducing it to 15 feet and 12 feet respectfully in addition to a request to reduce a portion of the 50-foot platted front setback to 15 feet on Lot 11. All Lots are part of Block 2, Airport Industrial Park Addition. This property is generally located on the west side of South Hoover Road and approximately 1,875 feet south of West Harry Street (1831 S. Hoover Ct.). The purpose of this vacation is to allow for two future building additions: one on Lot 9 and one that spans lot lines on Lots 8 and 11. The Lots on this property were originally platted with a 50-foot front setback. However, in 2007, the applicant requested to reduce the 50-foot platted setback to 20 feet on Lots 8, 9, and 10 (VAC2007-00028). During the review of this case it was cited that the platted 50-foot setback on several Lots of Block 1 in the same addition were previously reduced to 35 feet (VAC2004-00025) providing precedence in this case. In light of this, the applicant of the 2007 case agreed to only a 35-foot setback instead of a 20-foot setback. This is a further reduction of that setback for Lots 8 and 9. For Lot 11, the applicant is requesting to reduce the original 50-foot platted setback (as it was not included in the previous case), but only for that portion pertaining to the cul-de-sac.

These Lots are zoned LI Limited Industrial. The Unified Zoning Code’s (UZC) minimum front setback standard for the LI zoning district is 20 feet. The applicant’s request exceeds the minimum front setback for LI zoning by 5 feet and 8 feet respectively. Both Cox and Evergy have existing facilities in the area to be vacated. Any easements for the relocation of these facilities shall be 10 submitted to Planning prior to this case going before City Council for final action. Ennidh Garcia is the Evergy Construction Representative in this area and can be contacted at 316-261-6359 with any questions regarding this case. The Airport Industrial Park Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds December 18, 1964.

Based upon information available prior to the public hearing and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from Public Works, Stormwater, Water and Sewer, Traffic, Fire, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff has listed the following considerations (but not limited to) associated with the request to vacate the described portions of building setbacks.

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

1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, in the Wichita Eagle, of notice of this vacation proceeding one time October 31, 2019, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing.

2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by vacating the described portion of the front setback and that the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

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

Conditions (but not limited to) associated with the request:

(1) Vacate the southwest 23 feet of the 35-foot building setback on Lot 8, together with the northwest 20 feet of the 35-foot building setback of Lot 9, together with the northeast 35 feet of the platted 50-foot setback of Lot 11, Block 2, Airport Industrial Park Addition. Provide Planning Staff with legal descriptions of the approved vacated portions of the setbacks on a Word document, via e-mail, to be used on the Vacation Order. This must be provided to Planning prior to the case going to Council for final action.

(2) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility and at the expense of the applicant. Provide Planning with any needed easements dedicated by separate instrument with original signatures. These conditions must be completed prior to the case going to Council for final action.

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

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

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval per staff recommendations. 11

MOTION: To approve per staff and Subdivision Committee recommendations.

J. JOHNSON moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0-1). Abstained: B. JOHNSON

______

DOOL arrived.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1 Case No. CON2019-00041 – City Conditional Use to permit an accessory apartment on property zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential and generally located of South Maize Road and approximately ¼ mile north of West Kellogg Avenue (1302 South Lark Lane), and described as:

LOT 1 BLOCK A ADAY ADDITION

BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use to build an accessory apartment in SF-5 Single-Family Residential. The site is currently being developed with a single-family home, detached garage and an outbuilding (barn). The accessory apartment will be located in the outbuilding.

The subject property is located in the Aday Addition, which is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential. The applicant submitted the attached site plan showing the location of the new residence, detached garage and an outbuilding located on Lot 1, Block A of the Aday Addition. Properties north and east of the subject site are large, unplatted lots ranging from one to eight acres. Property to the west is located in the Fieldcrest Addition, platted in 1965, and is zoned SF-5 and is developed with single family dwellings. Property south of the subject site is located in the Cedar Lane 4th Addition, platted in 1962, is zoned SF-5 and is developed with single family dwellings

The Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code (“UZC”) defines an “accessory apartment” (Art. II. Sec. II-B.1.b) as a dwelling unit that may be wholly within, or may be detached from a principal single-family dwelling unit. Accessory apartments are also subject to supplementary use regulation Art. III.Sec.III-D.6.a (1) a maximum of one accessory apartment may be allowed on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit that may be within the main building, within an accessory building or constructed as an accessory apartment; (2) the appearance of an accessory apartment shall be compatible with the main dwelling unit and with the character of the neighborhood; (3) the accessory apartment shall remain accessory to and under the same ownership as the principal single-family dwelling unit, and the ownership shall not be divided or sold as a condominium and (4) the water and sewer service provided to the accessory apartment shall not be provided as separate service from the main dwelling. Electric, gas, telephone and cable television utility service may be provided as separate utility services.

CASE HISTORY: The subject property is located in the Aday Addition, which was platted in January 2019. No other planning cases are associated with this 1.58-acre site.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 Single-Family residences, unplatted lots SOUTH: SF-5 Single-Family residences, Cedar Lane 4th Addition WEST: SF-5 Single-Family residences, Fieldcrest Addition EAST: SF-5 Single-Family residences, unplatted lots

PUBLIC SERVICES: South Lark Lane is a local, residential paved street with 60 feet of right-of-way. West Lynndale Street is a local, residential paved street with 60 feet of right-of-way. South Maize Road, an arterial street, is located approximately one-quarter mile east of the subject property. Aday Addition has no municipal

12 water or sewer service.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The 2035 Community Investments Plan Wichita Future Growth Concept map (MAPC approval November 19, 2015) indicates the site is located in the “Outside Established Central Area.” The area is designated for residential growth except for property located along major arterial streets.

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

(1) The accessory apartment shall remain accessory to and under the same ownership as the principal single- family residence (located at South 1302 Lark Lane) and the ownership shall not be divided or sold as a condominium.

(2) Development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved site plan

(3) The appearance of the accessory structure shall be compatible with the main dwelling unit and with the character of the neighborhood.

(4) The water and sewer provided to the accessory apartment shall not be provided as separate services from the main dwelling. Electric, gas, telephone and cable television utility service may be provided as separate utility services.

(5) The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits including, but not limited to: building, health and zoning. This will include turning in plans for review and approval by the MABCD for the accessory apartment.

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

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

(1) The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The subject site is located in an SF-5 zoned area with platted and unplatted lots ranging from 8,500 square feet to 8 acres. Development in the area consists of single-family residences.

(2) The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject site is currently zoned SF-5 which allows the development of single-family residences. The property will continue to be used for one single-family residence; the size of the property easily accommodates an accessory apartment and the additional required parking spaces.

(3) Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of the request should not detrimentally impact nearby properties. The conditions of approval should minimize any unanticipated detrimental impacts.

(4) Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The 2035 Community Investments Plan Wichita Future Growth Concept map (MAPC approval November 19, 2015) indicates the site is located in the “Outside Established Central Area.” The area is designated for residential growth except for property located along major arterial streets.

(5) Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Community facilities will not be impacted by the accessory apartment located in the outbuilding. The property is served by water wells and a septic field.

MOTION: To approve per staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0). ______

4.2 Case No. PUD2019-00013 – City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development to permit office-warehouse and other commercial and residential uses on property generally located 450 feet west of North Maize Road and approximately ¼ mile south of West 21st Street North (1903 North Maize), and described as:

W 437.06 FT S 299 FT E 874.12 FT N1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 SEC 7-27-1W

BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to establish the DOBA Development PUD (PUD #68) on the 3 acre tract generally located one-quarter mile south of West 21st Street North and 450 feet west of North Maize Road. The property is currently zoned SF-5 Single Family. The property contains several buildings and storage areas utilized by the current uses. The applicant has indicated the intent is to accommodate the existing mix of commercial uses on the site and permit additional uses in the future. The site currently houses a pet waste removal business, a vehicle repair and refurbishment business, a construction business, outdoor storage business, and outdoor storage of personal property. A detailed description of these uses can be found in the purpose statement in the PUD text attached to this staff report.

The proposed screening, landscape buffer, and setbacks for all property lines reflect that the property has residential zoning abutting on all sides. Proper screening, landscaping, and setbacks will diminish negative impacts of this site with surrounding properties. As stated in General Provisions 3-B through D, if the parcel is developed for non-residential use, the following applies:  A six-foot screening fence shall be constructed on each property line  Landscape buffers on the south and east property line shall consist of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced 30 feet on center.  Landscape buffers on the north and west property line shall consists of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced 40 feet on center.

As stated in General Provision 5, the setbacks for each property line are as follows:  35 feet along the south  10 feet along the west and north  30 feet along the east

With the recommended setbacks, it is understood that the existing small building used as an office on the east side of the property will encroach into the 30-foot setback along the east property line. There is also a provision to allow a reduction of the east setback to 15 feet with an approved site plan.

Property to the north is zoned SF-5 and is Pathway Church. Property to the east is zoned SF-5 and has residential uses. Properties to the east that directly abut Maize Rd are zoned NO Neighborhood Office and are dental and orthodontic offices. Properties to the south are zoned SF-5 and are single family residences. Property to the west is zoned SF-5 and is owned by Pathway Church but is undeveloped.

CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted. The property has an existing Conditional Use (CU-156) approved in February 1974 to allow a metal agricultural storage building to be used for the storage of alfalfa, hay, farm equipment, and non-agricultural storage including earth-working equipment including trucks, tractors, and misc. This conditional use became invalid in 2017 when the land use changed through the sale of the property to the current owner. In 2005, PUD2005-00005 was filed to rezone the subject property to PUD. The case was approved 14 by City Council on April 11, 2006 with the condition of platting within one year. This condition was never met and the zoning was never perfected. In 2009 ZON2009-000074 was filed to rezone the subject property to NO Neighborhood Retail. The zoning was approved by City Council on April 21, 2009 with the condition of platting within one year. This condition was not met and the zoning was never perfected.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 Church SOUTH: SF-5 Single Family Residential EAST: SF-5; NO Residential and Offices WEST: SF-5 Undeveloped.

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property currently has access to all utilities and to North Maize Road (via access easement). North Maize Road is a paved, 5-lane arterial.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map from the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as appropriate for “new employment.” The recommended rezoning is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the policies attached to the designation given to this property. The designation “encompasses areas that likely will be developed by 2035 with uses that constitute centers or concentrations of employment primarily in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, construction, research, technology, business services, or corporate offices.”

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #68 DOBA Development PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

2. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved PUD shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of governing body approval, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The property is currently zoned SF-5 Single Family. The property contains several buildings and storage areas utilized by the current uses. Property to the north is zoned SF-5 and is Pathway Church. Property to the east is zoned SF-5 and has residential uses. Properties to the east that directly abut Maize Rd are zoned NO Neighborhood Office and are dental and orthodontic offices. Properties to the south are zoned SF-5 and are single family residences. Property to the west is zoned SF-5 and is owned by Pathway Church but is undeveloped.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned SF-5, but given its location, it could be difficult to redevelop for residential uses. The purpose of the PUD contains language that would allow residential uses above and beyond just single family residential as permitted in the current SF-5 district. The creation of the PUD for this property is reasonable.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The requirements of the PUD for screening, landscaping, and setbacks, should mitigate detrimental effects on nearby residential properties.

4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map from the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive

Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as appropriate for “new employment.” The recommended rezoning is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the policies attached to the designation given to this property. The designation “encompasses areas that likely will be developed by 2035 with uses that constitute centers or concentrations of employment primarily in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, construction, research, technology, business services, or corporate offices.”

5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The subject property currently has access to all utilities and North Maize Road (via access easement).

DOBA DEVELOPMENT Planned Unit Development No. 68 Case Number: PUD2019-00013 Development Guidelines General Provisions

PUD Purpose Statement: DOBA Holdings, LLC wishes to continue to use the property for business purposes and with other additional compatible land uses. All of such additional uses would be permitted as per the General Provision 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., and 2.D. listed herein. Present uses on the subject property include a pet waste removal business, a vehicle repair and refurbishment business, a construction business, outdoor storage business, and outdoor storage of personal property. There are live/work residential uses on the subject property. The pet waste business has light traffic consisting of a hand full of trucks operating during normal business hours. The vehicle repair and refurbishment business currently work on both small golf cars as well as larger party buses. The vehicles are at times stored outside while they are in the queue for repair or refurbishment and/or delivery. Warehousing of materials for the vehicles does occur accessory to the use. The construction business operates mostly out of the office and does warehouse equipment and materials. Most of the outdoor construction storage is within containers or on trailers parked generally within the northern limits of the property. Other outdoor storage is within the northern limits of the subject property some of which are in an existing pole barn that was utilized by the previous owner’s construction business. None of the existing uses generate significant traffic and generally operate during normal business hours similar to the existing offices east of the subject property that they share a drive with. These stated land uses are unique to this property and do not conform well to a specific zoning classification under the current zoning regulations, therefore a PUD is necessary and most suitable under the current conditions. Moreover, the lengthy history of land uses and development patterns on and surrounding the property has further contributed to the need for a PUD. This PUD allows for the orderly development of the property.

1. Parcel Descriptions: Parcel 1 Gross Area = 3.00 Ac. Maximum Height = 35 feet as defined by city requirements. Maximum Coverage = 45% Max. Gross Floor Area = 45% 2. Land Uses and Development Standards: The following uses are permitted for Parcels within the PUD: A. All allowed uses permitted by right within the "OW" Office Warehouse Zoning District, EXCEPT the following; No Parcels within this PUD shall allow: Animal Care General or Limited; Auditorium or Stadium; Automated Teller Machine; Asphalt or Concrete Plant Limited; Bank or Financial Institution; College or University; Community Assembly; Manufacturing Limited, Recycling Collection Station, Private;

Recycling Collection Station, Public; Recycling Processing Center; Reverse Vending Machine; Retail General; Research Services; Safety Service; Printing and Copying Limited; Tattooing and Body Piercing Facility (City); Wholesale or Business Services. B. In addition, the following uses shall be allowed by right: Single-Family Residential, Duplex, Assisted Living, Church or Place of Worship; Parking Area and/or Accessory Drive Ancillary; Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Outdoor; Vehicle Repair Limited and General; Outdoor Rental and Sales of Equipment. C. The uses of Vehicle and Equipment Sales Outdoor, Outdoor Rental and Sales of Equipment is permissible in areas restricted as shown on the PUD. The north 120 feet of the west 370 feet of Parcel 1. D. The uses permitted by the PUD are only those uses permitted by right and not by conditional use unless specifically identified. E. Development Standards and Site Development Regulations of the Office Warehouse Zoning District “OW” shall apply to the subject property unless as specifically modified herein. 3. Landscape / Screening for this site shall be required as follows if the property is developed with non- residential uses: A. Rooftop equipment, if any, shall utilize a parapet to reasonably hide equipment from ground-level view. B. If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses a 6-foot screening fence is required along the north, south, east, and west lines of Parcel 1, except for the south 30 feet along the east line for access. C. If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses a landscape buffer consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced 30 feet on center shall be maintained in the south 10-20 feet of the west 330 feet of Parcel 1, the remaining southern perimeter shall provide a 10-foot landscape buffer with evergreen trees spaced 30 feet on center. A landscape buffer consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced 30 feet on center shall be maintained on the east property line if the abutting property is used for single-family residential or other exclusive residential uses. D. If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses a landscape buffer consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees spaced 40 feet on center shall be maintained along the north and west perimeter of the PUD. E. A landscape plan shall be prepared by a Kansas Landscape Architect for the above-referenced landscaping, indicating the type, location, and specifications of all plant material. The landscape plan shall also state how water is to be provided to the plant materials. This plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. F. Failure to properly maintain the required landscape buffer shall be considered a violation of the PUD after a joint determination by the Director of Planning and the Superintendent of the MABCD. 4. Lighting: A. Lighting shall be in accordance with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code, Section IV; as well as the provisions of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Airport Hazard Zoning Code, Section 28-08 of the Wichita Municipal Code, and the amendments thereto, and as provided herein. B. All lighting shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction and directed away from residential areas. C. Extensive use of backlit canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings is not permitted. D. If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses light poles will be limited to a maximum of 15 feet. 5. Building Setbacks are as shown hereon; 35 feet along the south line of Parcel 1, 10 feet along the west and north line of Parcel 1 and 30 feet on the east line of Parcel 1, provided however with site plan approval by the director of planning 15’ may be permitted. Existing structures shall be permitted within these setbacks. All other building setback requirements shall be per the Property Development Standards of the “OW” Office Warehouse Zoning District. 6. If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses noise from Parcel 1 shall not be audible from an adjacent or surrounding property above the local, ambient noise. No outdoor speaker systems shall be permitted.

7. Parking: All Parcels, shall be in accordance with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code, Section IV-A, and amendments thereto unless otherwise specified. 8. Signs: If Parcel 1 is developed and used for non-residential uses signs shall be as permitted under Neighborhood Office of the current Sign Code of the City of Wichita, and amendments thereto. Additionally, the following conditions apply: A. Building signage shall be allowed for tenant identification. Building signage shall be limited to not more than 10 feet off the ground and is not permitted to have internal or backlit illumination. Building signage shall be permitted on the west and south elevations of the buildings but shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. B. No electronic display signs are allowed on Parcel 1. 9. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the Fire Code of the City of Wichita. No parking shall be allowed in said fire lanes, although they may be used for passenger loading and unloading. The Fire Chief or his designated representative shall review and approve the location and design of all fire lanes. 10. Architectural and Building Restrictions: All new buildings shall share a uniform and/or compatible architectural character with each other, colors, and similar predominant exterior building materials. Private restrictive covenants may further restrict certain architectural features. 11. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Wichita City Engineers Office for approval. Required guarantees for drainage shall be provided at the time of platting. 12. Title: The transfer of the title on all or any portion of the land included in the Planned Unit Development does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof; but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns and amended. However, the Director of the MAPD, with the concurrence of the Zoning Administrator, may approve minor adjustments to the conditions in this overlay, consistent with the approved development plan, without filing a formal ordinance amendment. 13. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 14. Any major changes within this Planned Unit Development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and the Governing Body for their consideration. Amendments, adjustments, or interpretations of the PUD shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code. 15. Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this PUD shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

DOBA DEVELOPMENT Planned Unit Development No. 68 Case Number: PUD2019-00013

History Statement: The subject property was first developed in the late sixties and early seventies. It began with the residence/office that is situated east of the subject property. The workshop/office/warehouse/storage buildings and structures were built for a construction business. In December of 1973 the property was approved for a Conditional Use Permit, case no. CU-156, for the uses of the construction/excavation business including non-agricultural storage of equipment, materials, etc. The business was operational and functioned from the property. In the mid-’80s the home was sold. Prior to the sale, the business secured an access easement through the residence for the use of 18

the business. In the early ‘90s, the property south of the construction business was platted and developed into a single-family neighborhood. In 1998 the property to the north was platted for a church and annexed into the City of Wichita. Also, in 1998 the property adjoining Maize Road east of the residence was annexed, platted, and zoned for neighborhood offices. Then on November 12, 1999, the subject property and adjoining residence were annexed into the City of Wichita. Then one of the office parcels on Maize Road was built on in 2001, the church was later built in 2002, and the second office on Maize Road was built in 2005. The construction business continued operation through this time. From 1999 to 2001 the official zoning maps erroneously indicated that the subject property was zoned as General Commercial (GC). The research was conducted and determined that the subject property was indeed zoned SF-5 after the annexation occurred with conditional use as mentioned above. In 2005 the residence and the construction business filed for a zone change, PUD2005-00005. The case was approved by the Wichita City Council on April 11, 2006, per the conditions of the PUD, one of which was platting the property within one year, the approval disallowed the 150-foot-tall wireless communications tower as requested within the PUD. Certain PUD conditions of approval were not met, such as platting, consequently, the zoning was never enacted. Then in 2009 the construction business filed for a zone change to Neighborhood Office (NO), ZON2009-07. The zoning was approved by the Wichita City Council on April 21, 2009 subject to platting within one year. Once again, the platting was not completed. In 2014 the residence east of the subject property was sold by sheriff’s deed to the current owner with the access easement for the construction business through the property and through the office parcel to the east. In 2017 the construction business property was sold to the current owner DOBA Holdings, LLC. It was represented to the buyer DOBA Holdings, LLC that similar commercial uses could be conducted on the property so long as new building permits were not needed. Unbeknownst to the owner at that time the conditional use for the excavation business became invalid due to land uses changes. The subject property owner began using the property for various businesses that include aspects of various zoning land uses such as vehicle and equipment sales outdoor, vehicle repair, outdoor rental and sales, storage outdoor, office, construction services and sales, warehousing, warehouse self-service storage. The current owner became aware that they were not in compliance with the zoning regulations and began efforts to determine the appropriate zoning classification needed for their continued use of the property.

ZEVENBERGEN, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report.

BRIAN LINDEBAK, MKEC ENGINEERING, 411 NORTH WEBB ROAD, AGENT, commented that they are zoning for an existing use. The site used to be the location of Kirk Excavating years ago. The business was there before anything else in the area was built. Kirk Excavating sold the parcel located immediately to the east (between the application area and the office building that fronts Maize Road), where the residence is, in 2010, and they retained an access easement from the subject site to Maize Road. LINDEBAK reviewed the case history on the site. Two different zone changes were approved but never perfected due to lack of platting. In 2014 the property was sold at auction and then was sold to the current owner in 2017. The current uses are not in compliance with the zoning code so the current application is an effort to address that issue. They have talked with the church and attempted to meet with the property owner of the home located just to the east with which they share the access easement to Maize Road. No pet waste is disposed on-site. He also asked to eliminate “dry cleaning service” as a permitted use. The church had concerns with a paint booth use. They currently do not operate a paint booth on-site. Their painting is done off-site, but they would like to have that use in association with golf cart refurbishment.

LORI “AMBER” HEMMER, 1905 NORTH MAIZE ROAD, WICHITA, 67212, stated that they moved into the residence (located just east of the application area) in 2015. She had left three messages for the agent but never connected. She has safety and health concerns. There are different businesses going on over there, such as the concrete business that rents out some of the space and the buildings. We don’t know if they are dumping anything. She and her husband have seen some of the pet waste in bags being dropped off near one of the buildings. Here home was built in 1968. They are on a private well which is used for drinking and washing. She does not know if there are any carcinogens or contaminants leeching into the ground. She stated she pays taxes on the access easement to Maize Road. It is not big enough to accommodate the traffic that

19 goes through there. They constantly get water runoff. She showed a picture of traffic backed up in front of her driveway that blocked access to and from her driveway for over 10 minutes waiting for the gate to the application area to be unlocked. This happens frequently. They store campers, boats, utility trailers. It is worse in the summer time. It is a safety issue. If we had a medical issue we would be able to get help quickly. They had a FEDX sitting there for over a half-hour. The proposed change in zoning is too extreme. It is unclear what their final plans are.

FOSTER asked if she bought her home prior to the current owner buying the application area, and was told yes.

JIM McClain (?), 1825 NORTH LARK CIRCLE, WICHITA, stated he has lived in his home for the last 11 years. He has put up with all kinds of stuff off the property, dust and dirt. They are constantly dumping dirt. He doesn’t know what kind of chemicals they might be dumping. The banging of the dump trucks’ tail gates is annoying. There is a lot of noise coming out of this area, otherwise it is a quiet area. It is a residential property being used for commercial. It looks like a junk yard. There are vehicles parked up and down along the fence. Most of the houses are two-story houses. When they look out their second story window they see a bunch of junk. They have motor homes and cars all parked in a line. They haul dump trucks and tractors in the area, day and night. He does not see how they are getting away with it. The lot is nothing but dirt. Every time a truck comes in it stirs the dust up.

BRIAN HEMMER, 1905 NORTH MAIZE ROAD, WICHITA, 67212, commented that the application area was not zoned for the uses going on there. There is too much residential to allow commercial uses. It is a circus over there.

GORDON KIRKBRIGHT, 1824 NORTH LARK LANE, WICHITA, he noticed they had a trailer come in and out carrying stuff. He has a nice family of skunks and possum come over to his area. He never noticed that before.

DAN DORFLINGER (?), PATHWAYS CHURCH, confirmed the applicant’s agent had reached out to the church. They have been very forthcoming in their conversations. They were concerned with dry cleaning and the applicant has asked for the use to be removed. They still have concerns with a paint booth. The church’s playground for the daycare is located on the south side of the church and directly north of the application area. A south breeze would blow paint fumes towards the church. Not sure on whose property the fencing is located.

LINDEBAK reported that the dumping of dirt and dump trucks was associated with the previous owner. There have not been any dump trucks on the property for over five years. The owners are trying to clean up the property. The dirt contractor sold is as is so cleaning it up has been a big undertaking. They do store vehicles inside the barn. They are restricting that use to the northern part to be a good neighbor. With respect to the traffic coming and going from the site there is very little traffic coming and going. Most of the traffic is in the morning and evening with equipment leaving for a job site and returning from a job site. The golf cart and bus refurbishment business is a very low volume business. The picture shown by L. HEMMER must have been a unique situation where no one had the key. They are going to look at getting some sort of remote access.

RICHARDSON asked if the owner would move the gate so traffic does not back up in front of the neighbor’s driveway and suggested that would address the concern and what development standards will have to be done immediately.

LINDEBAK pointed out the actual access point is limited to about 30 feet and the neighbor is using a much wider area for ingress and egress.

KNEBEL replied that the applicant will have to immediately provide the screening and landscaping.

GREENE asked about requirements associated with the paint booth. LINDEBAK replied that he did not know, but it would be installed in compliance with all codes.

BLICK asked if the access drive was a private drive and was advised by KNEBEL replied that it is a private access easement located on two different private properties.

WARREN asked how wide the driveway easement was as opposed to it use, and LINDEBAK advised it is approximately 30 feet wide.

FOSTER stated that he hoped the landscaping plan would require new landscaping to be installed to plug existing holes in the existing landscaping. He recommended that the language in the PUD be modified to reflect his comment. He asked L. HEMMER to describe the ongoing uses.

L. HEMMER stated the concrete business, golf cart drop off and pick up, storage of camper, boats and utility trailers. They are not stored just inside the building. She pointed out on the map where they were stored outside. The dog waste disposal business. She was unsure what else may be going on. She invited LINDEBAK to stay at her house for a week to see if he still felt the traffic to and from the site was minimal. Traffic is Monday thru Sunday, as late as 11:00 o’clock at night. The renters have access at any time. Traffic is not as limited as it is being portrayed.

FOSTER asked for more information regarding the concrete business.

L. HEMMER stated she was not sure. Sometimes they park the concrete truck and trailer there and then sometimes they don’t. She noted there was 10 mile per hour speed limit on the access drive, which is not observed that created a lot of dust. They have nearly been rear-ended because of the volume and speed.

FOSTER asked who was responsible for the road upkeep.

L. HEMMER commented that she was unsure at this point. They took a 1986 document to an attorney who advised them the language was so vague that he was unsure of who had responsibility. They pay the taxes on it and it is not 30 feet wide. It is common for people to be parked at the property line which blocks her sons’ ingress and egress.

J. JOHNSON asked who made the statement about the discrepancy between the testimonies regarding the number of trucks going in and out. Also, what is the surface material on that property.

McClain (?) stated that a business like they operate should be out in the country, not in a residential area. The dust from the site constantly drifts over into our neighborhood. And then there is the noise. It is nothing but dirt.

MILES asked L. HEMMER is she had heard dump truck gates slamming and was told “Yes I have.”

RICHARDSON asked KNEBEL what the paving requirement was. KNEBEL noted that the PUD requires all parking and circulation areas to be paved, from the gate inward.

ZEVENBERGEN reviewed slides showing the surface material being a mix of grass, gravel and some small areas of concrete.

BLICK made a motion to approve per staff recommendations and as amended by the applicant today, which failed for lack of a second.

MILES made a motion to deny, which failed for lack of a second.

FOSTER asked if the uses were legal nonconforming.

KNEBEL replied they were establish without conformance to the zoning code. By conditional use approval they were allowed an excavation business only. These other uses – storage of trailers, the body shop, and the other uses were established without conformity to the zoning code.

WARREN commented that the entrance setup is a concern to him. He wanted the applicant to pave the entrance due to the dust. And that signage be installed that there be no parking that blocks residential parking ingress and egress. It is not right that the applicant can block the residence’s parking.

BLICK asked if MAPC could require the applicant to pave someone else’s property. MILLER advised that if the Commission felt that was a development standard that was necessary to make the use work it could be required. If they can’t accomplish that then the approval would fail. DICKGRAFF advised that she has not seen the document so she couldn’t comment.

LINDEBAK noted that the applicant would be agreeable to pay for their half of the driveway.

GROSS asked if the applicant pays part of the taxes on the driveway and if the gate could be moved to avoid blocking the residence. LINDEBAK replied that is not how an easement works. KNEBEL stated that moving the gate was a reasonable requirement.

HARTMAN stated that based on the scale on the site plan the drive was only 24 feet wide. There is no way to turn around at the gate if you have big vehicles. The proposed use does not fit well in the neighborhood given the current setup.

McKAY did not think it was right to ask the residences to pay for the paving of the access easement, and that needed to be worked out before it comes back.

There was a discussion about what uses were legal. KNEBEL restated that the uses in terms of the vehicle equipment sales, vehicle repair, vehicle storage, construction sales and services, the warehouse, warehouse self-storage, those uses the applicant indicates they began using the property for were done on property zoned SF-5 with a conditional use for only an excavation business. The applicant acknowledged that they began the illegal uses without knowing the site was not properly zoned.

J. JOHNSON noted that the applicant should consult with the church about the possibility of accessing the site from the north.

MOTION: To defer indefinitely.

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

______

4.3. Case No. PUD2019-00014 – City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development to convert a former school building to a mixed use development and make space on property generally located north of East Mount Vernon Road and ¼ mile east of South Woodlawn Boulevard (5920 East Mount Vernon Road and ¼ mile east of South Woodlawn Boulevard (5920 East Mount Vernon Road), and generally described as:

ALL LOTS 1 TO 18 INC EXC CCA 55094 REPLAT OF RESERVE A GREENDALE ADD.

BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a zone change from SF-3 Single-Family Residential (SF-3) to a

Planned Unit Development (PUD) for approximately 2.48-acres generally located on the north side of East Mount Vernon and approximately one quarter mile east of South Edgemoor Drive on the site of the former Booth Elementary School. The applicant recently acquired the subject property from Hope International Fellowship Church with the intention of converting the subject building into the new location to support the MakeICT mission, which is as follows:

MakeICT provides resources and activities to help members of our community create. Our flagship program is the MakeICT makerspace – “…a facility which is home to several different areas filled with tools and equipment. It’s sort of like a gym, but instead of equipment for building your body, we have equipment for building things – whatever it might be!

MakeICT is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and is operated entirely by volunteers. It’s our mission to innovate, learn, and build community at the intersection of art, technology, science, and culture.

The Unified Zoning Code (UZC), defines a Planned Unit Development as a special purpose zoning district that is intended to encourage innovative land planning and design and can be used to reduce or eliminate inflexibility that can sometimes result from strict application of the basic requirements of individual zoning districts; allows greater freedom in selecting the means to provide light, air and open space to projects; allows development to take advantage of special site characteristics or land uses and allows for deviation from certain zoning standards that would otherwise apply if not contrary to the general spirit and intent of the zoning code.

The information provided by the applicant proposed the following General Provisions for this PUD:

1. Total Land Area: 108,223 sq. ft. (2.48 acres) To be updated with new plat Total Building Coverage: 21,222 sq. ft. Total Building Coverage Ratio: 5.1 percent Total Gross Floor Area: 21,222 sq. ft. Total Floor Area Ratio: 5.1 percent

2. Parcel uses: The primary use of the facility will be to provide education and resources for the community to create in a collaborative environment. Uses shall be limited to those permitted by-right in the "GO" General Office Zoning District, and the following uses: Manufacturing (Limited), Personal Improvement Service, Personal Care Service, Community Assembly, Event Center, Office, and Retail limited to products produced on-site only. Uses shall include Parking, and accessory storage as permitted by the "GO" General Office Zoning District.

Permitted… The following uses permitted in the "GO" General Office Zoning District are permitted upon approval of a separate PUD Administrative Adjustment: Assisted Living; Group Residence (Limited and General); Day Care (General); Nursing Facility; Medical Service.

Prohibited… This PUD specifically prohibits the following uses: Cemetery; Correctional Placement Residence, Limited; Correctional Placement Residence (General); Hospital; Parks and Recreation; Recycling Collection Station (Private); Hotel or Motel; Marine Facility (Recreational); Retail Liquor Stores, Adult Entertainment Establishments; Sexually Oriented Business; Correctional Placement Residences; Night Club in the City; Tavern and Drinking Establishment; and Asphalt or Concrete Plant (Limited). Exterior audio systems that project sound beyond the boundaries of the PUD are prohibited.

Usage conditions…

The facility shall be subject to the following conditions:

A. Public facility hours where it may be normally open to the public are to be 8:00 a.m. to Midnight, local time, on Friday and Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., local time, Sunday through Thursday.

B. The occasional use of the facility for large public gatherings shall be limited to 400 persons. These events may include charitable events, art shows, holiday festivities, photographic shoots, corporate or professional functions (i.e. seminars, meetings, lectures) and similar events. At these events, food, beverages (including alcohol), music or dancing may be offered. Outside vendors/caterers hired to serve events shall obtain, and at all times maintain, a liquor license(s) as required from the appropriate local and/or State authorities. No business that is classified as a Drinking Establishment, Tavern, Class A Club or Class B Club, under current Wichita, Kansas ordinances or codes, shall be allowed. Live music, or music provided by a DJ, is an option for events and shall be located entirely within a building.

C. Security may be permitted through contracted security services.

3. Parking: A minimum of 21 parking spaces on gravel and 1 existing ADA parking space on concrete shall be required for all uses, and the single ADA stall shall be provided in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code paving standards. The existing ADA accessible parking space is located on-site. Any future expansion of the facility shall provide additional parking at a rate of one parking space per 1,000 square feet of new building coverage.

4. Landscaping: The existing conditions shall be deemed to meet the landscaping and screening requirement of the UZC. The landscape street yard, buffer, and parking lot screening requirements of the Landscape Ordinance do not apply. Any further expansion of the building footprint greater than 1,000 square feet shall trigger compliance with the landscaping and screening requirement of the UZC. In the event the owner is required to provide landscaping, a landscape plan shall be prepared indicating the type, location, and specifications of all plant material.

5. Screening: Any new roof-mounted equipment and loading docks, trash receptacles, ground level heating, air conditioning and mechanical equipment, free-standing coolers or refrigeration units, or outdoor storage use shall be screened from ground level view from any residentially-zoned property to the east and north of the subject property.

6. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be per the UZC for the "GO" General Office.

7. Signage: Signage shall be restricted per the standards of the "CBD" Central Business District. One off-site sign may be permitted, provided it meets the locational requirements of the Sign Code.

8. Exterior lighting: All new exterior lighting shall be per the Unified Zoning Code, and shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction.

9. Trash times: Trash collection shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 pm within the subject property.

10. Amendments, adjustments, interpretations: Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this PUD shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

11. Transfer of title: The Transfer of title of all or any portion of land included within the Planned Unit Development (or any amendments thereto) does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land and be binding upon present owners, their successors and assigns.

12. Development plan: The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development.

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

The proposed language proposes many uses that are inconsistent with the original stated intent of the applicant to convert this facility into the new location for MakeICT use. The introduction of many other uses outlined in the proposed use language within this PUD are incompatible with the residential neighborhood and would introduce uses and impacts negative to the area. As such, there needs to be significant modification to the language attached to this PUD request.

The surrounding neighborhood is mostly a single-family residential neighborhood and is zoned SF-5 Single- Family Residential. The subject property is adjacent to Gypsum Creek and the attendant drainage improvements on the north and west side. The Cessna East Park is located to the southeast on the south side of East Mount Vernon Road. The is some MF-29 Multiple-Family Residential zoning and LC Limited Commercial zoning on the south side of Mount Vernon to the east of the subject property at Edgemoor Drive, however that property is occupied with a church.

CASE HISTORY: The site included in the plat of Greendale Addition, which was recorded with the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds on November 18, 1949, as Reserve A. This area was replatted as the Replat of Reserve A of Greendale Addition, which was recorded with the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds on December 18, 1952. The property is being replatted currently (SUB2019-00051) as the Makerspace Addition, which is intended to clean up some easements and dedications to make the proposed use conform to the ownership. The legal description for this Planned Unit Development will need to conform to the newly described property created within the new plat.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: SF-5 Gypsum Creek

South: SF-5 Single-family residences East: SF-5 Single-family residences West: SF-5 Gypsum Creek

PUBLIC SERVICES: The property fronts on Mount Vernon, but the primary access is on Drollinger Road. Mount Vernon is a minor arterial, four-lane road with full improvements. Drollinger Road is a two-lane, residential street. All other public utilities are provided to the subject property.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for commercial uses. The commercial designation states these locations encompass areas that reflect the full diversity of commercial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. The site is in the Established Central Area (ECA), where infill development and higher density is encouraged. The plan also strongly supports the expansion of existing businesses to surrounding properties. Supporting the new use for this former school facility is consistent with the overall spirit and intent of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the concept of what is intended with this project; however, we believe there is significant changes that need to be made to the PUD General Provisions. Therefore, based on the information available at the time of the public hearing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following condition:

A. Rewrite the General Provisions, except provision #1, to read as follows:

This PUD specifically prohibits the following uses: Multi-family; Accessory Apartment; Assisted Living; Group Home; Group Residence, Limited or General; Cemetery; Community Assembly; Correctional Placement Residence, Limited or General; Hospital; Nursing Facility; Parks and Recreation; Recycling Collection Station (Private); Bed and Breakfast Inn; Broadcast/Recording Studio; Funeral Home; Hotel or Motel; Marine Facility (Recreational); Retail Liquor Stores; Medical Service; Parking Area, Commercial; Personal Care Service; Personal Improvement Service; Printing and Copying, Limited; Restaurant; Retail, General; and Asphalt or Concrete Plant, Limited.

3. The facility shall be subject to the following conditions:

A. Public facility hours where it may be normally open to the public are to be 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., local time.

B. Security may be permitted through contracted security services.

4. Parking: A detailed parking layout, complying with the requirements of the Wichita Code, shall be provided on the final PUD drawing, including providing sufficient ADA spaces.

5. Landscaping: The landscape requirements of the Landscape Ordinance shall apply. In the event the owner is required to provide landscaping, a landscape plan shall be prepared indicating the type, location, and specifications of all plant material.

6. Screening: Any new roof-mounted equipment and loading docks, trash receptacles, ground level heating, air conditioning and mechanical equipment, free-standing coolers or refrigeration units, or outdoor storage use shall be screened from ground level view from any residentially- zoned property to the east and north of the subject property.

7. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be per the UZC for the "GO" General Office.

8. Signage: Signage shall be restricted per the standards of the "GO" General Office District.

9. Exterior lighting: All new exterior lighting shall be per the Unified Zoning Code, and shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction.

10. Trash times: Trash collection shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 p.m. within the subject property.

11. Amendments, adjustments, interpretations: Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this PUD shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

12. Transfer of title: The Transfer of title of all or any portion of land included within the Planned Unit Development (or any amendments thereto) does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land and be binding upon present owners, their successors and assigns.

13. Development plan: The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development.

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

D. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #70 MakeICT Planned Unit Development (PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

E. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved PUD shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of governing body approval, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood is mostly a single-family residential neighborhood and is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential. The subject property is adjacent to Gypsum Creek and the attendant drainage improvements on the north and west side. The Cessna East Park is located to the southeast on the south side of East Mount Vernon Road. The is some MF-29 Multiple-Family Residential zoning and LC Limited Commercial zoning on the south side of Mount Vernon to the east of the subject property at Edgemoor Drive, however that property is occupied with a church.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed Planned Unit Development for this project would maintain the same character of the former school use and would be more compatible with uses of the nearby properties. The development concepts and guidelines established within the PUD will provide appropriate mitigation of any potential

detrimental effect on nearby properties.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property was recently used as a church.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for commercial uses. The commercial designation states these locations encompass areas that reflect the full diversity of commercial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. The site is in the Established Central Area (ECA), where infill development and higher density is encouraged. The plan also strongly supports the expansion of existing businesses to surrounding properties. Supporting the new use for this former school facility is consistent with the overall spirit and intent of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

6. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the destruction of the value of plaintiff's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowner: The proposed changes will create no issues to the public health, safety or welfare.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There will be no impact on community facilities.

YEAROUT presented the staff report.

FRED BRITTAN (?), 11955 S. W. TERRACE, TOWANDA, KS, stated he agreed with staff recommendations except they would like to leave the parking as is. The two drives to the north are paved. There is a concrete area for the handicapped stall. It would be three-quarters the purchase price to pave the lot. They have proposed if there any additions they would then pave the parking. If they are not required to change the parking lot then they could leave the landscaping as is. Exhibition hours are typically 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.

GREENE stated that he had concerns about the parking lot surface.

BRITTAN stated that they intended to add gravel to improve the existing surface.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendations except an all-weather surface is permitted for parking and circulation areas.

McKAY moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). ______

4.4. PUD2019-00015-City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development for mixed use development of property generally located on the south side of West Maple Street and approximately ½ mile east of South Ridge Road (5929 West Maple Street), and describes as:

BEG 1300.1 FT E NW COR NE1/4 S 375 FT E 49.9 FT S 254.98 FT E 136.56 FT N 629.58 FT TO N LI NE1/4 W 189.27 FT TO BEG EXC N 50 FT FOR ST SEC 27-27-1W

BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to establish the Tru-Building Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD #71) located on the south side of West Maple Street and east of South Julia Street (5929 West Maple Street). The subject property is presently zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential and is essentially vacant.

The intent of this PUD is to: “…redevelop the existing nursery use with office, commercial, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. The PUD allows a certain level of flexibility with site development regulations which would

28 otherwise not be permitted under the existing zoning. The applicants are expecting to begin construction of the project in one phase soon after receiving development application approvals.”

The details of the proposed PUD are as follows:

General Provisions:

1. Total Land Area: 97,019.82 square feet +/- or 2.23 acres +/- Total Gross Floor Area: 34,000 square feet Total Floor Area Ratio: 35 percent +/-

2. A minimum of 35 parking spaces shall be provided for all uses within Parcel 1, and shall be constructed in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code. Outdoor storage areas and long-term equipment parking area may utilize an all-weather surface.

4. Screening along the east property line of the site shall be provided by a 6 to 8 foot tall fence and as indicated on the plan. Said screening fence may be constructed of wood, masonry or vinyl.

5. Landscaping shall be per the Landscape Ordinance.

6. Roof-mounted equipment and loading docks, trash receptacles, ground level heating, air conditioning and mechanical equipment, free-standing coolers or refrigeration units, outdoor storage, outdoor work area or similar uses shall be screened from ground level view from any residentially-zoned property.

7. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 35 feet from Maple Street; a minimum or 25 feet from Julia Street and University Avenue; and a minimum of 5 feet along the east property line. Established outdoor storage areas shall obey the same setbacks, except along the east property line where there shall be no setback required.

8. Signs shall be as permitted by the “OW” Office Warehouse District, with one ground sign or pole sign permitted along Maple Street and two signs permitted along Julia Street.

9. All exterior lighting shall be per the Unified Zoning Code, and shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction.

10. The design layout shown on the plan illustrates only one development concept. Slight modifications to the location of improvements may be permitted, provided they meet all requirements of this plan. Final access locations along Julia Street and University Avenue shall be determined at the time the property is platted.

11. Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this P.U.D. shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

12. The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included in the Planned Unit Development (or any amendments thereto) does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for development and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns.

13. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development.

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

15. A portion of Julia Street right-of-way (as indicated on the plan) is intended to be vacated at the time the property is platted.

16. All buildings within the PUD shall share a uniform architectural character, color, and similar predominate exterior building material, as determined by the Director of Planning. All building walls and roofs must have predominately earth-toned colors, with vivid colors limited to incidental accents, and must employ materials similar or complimentary to surrounding residential areas. The predominant exterior building materials shall be non-metal, unless approved by the Planning Director.

17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site circulation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning, in concurrence with the Fire Marshal and Traffic Engineer. The circulation plan shall assure smooth internal vehicular and pedestrian movements, pedestrian connectivity from abutting streets to all buildings within the PUD and ensure that the main drives are not blocked by parking spaces directly backing onto the main drive aisles. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the Julia frontage of the PUD.

18. The development standards and site development regulations of the “OW” Office Warehouse district apply unless specifically modified by the PUD. The compatibility height standards of the Unified Zoning Code shall not apply.

19. A Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate Engineer for approval during the platting process. Required guarantees for drainage shall be provided at the time of platting improvements.

Additionally, the proposed PUD drawing provides information for Parcel 1 as follows:

PARCEL 1:

A. Net Area: 97,019.82 square feet +/- or 2.23 acres +/- B. Maximum Building Coverage: 31,000 square feet or 13 percent +/- C. Maximum Gross Floor Area: 34,000 square feet D. Floor Area Ratio: 35 percent +/- E. Maximum Building Height: 45 feet, except for any other structures exempt by the U.Z.C F. Setbacks: See General Provision # 7. G. Permitted Uses: See General Provision # 3.

As shown on the PUD drawing, an area will be reserved for a wireless communication facility. This is intended to be a tower for AT&T and, according to the representative for them, it is to be a 125-foot tower at this location. The General Provisions will need to be modified to more clearly articulate the conditions and requirements associated with this land use.

Additionally, provision #10 should be revised to indicate additional right-of-way may be needed along Julia which could further change the proposed development layout.

The zoning of the neighborhood is a mixture of LC Limited Commercial and SF-5 Single-Family Residential zoning. Surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential and nonconforming construction and landscaping businesses, primarily to the east and south. To the southwest is property rezoned to LC Limited Commercial

30 with a Protective Overlay completed in 2018. That rezoning was submitted with the intention of accommodating a senior housing project of fourplexes, which have recently been constructed. Major commercial development exists further to the south of Taft Avenue. The property to the north of Maple Street is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential and is occupied by a church.

CASE HISTORY: The subject property is unplatted and will need to be platted in order for any development to occur. No other zoning actions are shown on the records for this property.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 church SOUTH: SF-5 residential EAST: SF-5 residential, commercial WEST: SF-5, LC residential, vacant

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property has access to Julia Street on the west and University Avenue on the south. It fronts on Maple Street, but no access to Maple is proposed. Julia Street is a paved, two-lane, street with a dedicated left-turn lane at the intersection with Maple Street. University Avenue is unimproved adjacent to the subject property. Public water and sanitary mains are in Maple Street but have not been extended to the subject property. These utility extension will be addressed in the platting process.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for commercial uses. The commercial designation states these locations encompass areas that reflect the full diversity of commercial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. Convenience retail, restaurants, small offices, and personal service uses are located in close proximity to, and potentially mixed with, Residential Uses. Major destination areas (centers and corridors) containing concentrations of commercial and office uses that have regional market areas and generate high volumes of traffic are located in close proximity to major arterials or highways and typically are buffered from lower density residential areas by higher density housing types.

The site is in the Established Central Area (ECA), where infill development and higher density is encouraged. The plan also strongly supports the expansion of existing businesses to surrounding properties. Supporting the expanded commercial development of the site would provide greater tax base and employment opportunities.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the concept of what is intended with this project; however, we believe there is some changes that need to be made to the PUD General Provisions. Therefore, based on the information available at the time of the public hearing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following condition:

A. Modify provision #3 to read as follows:

3. Uses in Parcel 1 shall be limited to those permitted by right in the OW Office Warehouse District, in addition to the following: Outdoor Storage without the limitations of Article III-15.e.2.b; Manufacturing, General (limited to inside a building), Asphalt or Concrete Plant, General (limited to the production of concrete in the on-site manufacturing of durable goods); Wireless Communication Facility; and restaurants. Any Wireless Communication Facility shall require a separate submittal for an Administrative Permit and shall be confined to the area shown on the approved PUD plan within the 50-foot by 50-foot tower compound. Said Wireless Communication Facility shall not exceed the maximum height permitted in the OW Office Warehouse District and shall not be subject to the Compatibility Height restrictions per the Unified Zoning Code.

B. Provision #10 needs to be revised to indicate additional right-of-way may be needed along Julia which could further change the proposed development layout.

C. Provision #18 needs to be changed to read as follows:

18. The development standards and site development regulations of the “OW” Office Warehouse district apply unless specifically modified by the PUD.

D. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #71 Tru-Building Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning of the neighborhood is a mixture of LC Limited Commercial and SF-5 Single-Family Residential zoning. Surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential and nonconforming construction and landscaping businesses, primarily to the east and south. To the southwest is property rezoned to LC Limited Commercial with a Protective Overlay completed in 2018. That rezoning was submitted with the intention of accommodating a senior housing project of fourplexes, which have recently been constructed. Major commercial development exists further to the south of Taft Avenue. The property to the north of Maple Street is zoned SF-5 Single- Family Residential and is occupied by a church.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject property is currently restricted to single-family residential development. Such development would be acceptable and consistent with the adopted plans of the City; however, the location along an arterial street and adjacent commercial uses make low-density use of the property less than suitable.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed Planned Unit Development for this mixed-use project generally maintains the same character and uses of the nearby properties. The neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial uses, including manufactured housing uses. The development concepts and guidelines established within the PUD will provide appropriate mitigation of any potential detrimental effect on nearby properties.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property has remained vacant and undeveloped for many years.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for commercial uses. The commercial designation states these locations encompass areas that reflect the full diversity of commercial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. Convenience retail, restaurants, small offices, and personal service uses are located in close proximity to, and potentially mixed with, Residential Uses. Major destination areas (centers and corridors) containing concentrations of commercial and office uses that have regional market areas and generate high volumes of traffic are located in close proximity to major arterials or highways and typically are buffered from lower density residential areas by higher density housing types.

6. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the destruction of the value of plaintiff's

property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowner: The proposed changes will create no issues to the public health, safety or welfare.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There will be no impact on community facilities. Extension of supporting utilities and provisions of additional right-of-way will be addressed at the time of platting.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

______

4.5. ZON2019-00040-City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to NR Neighborhood Retail with a Protective Overlay to allow commercial development on property generally located on the south side of East Central Avenue and one block east of North Edgemoor Drive (5717 East Central), and described as:

LOT 2 BLOCK 4 OAKWOOD ESTATES ADD.

BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential (SF-5) to NR Neighborhood Retail (NR) on a 0.21 acre site, generally located east of North Edgemoor on the south side of East Central Avenue (5717 E. Central Avenue). The applicant proposes the rezoning to allow retail and office uses permitted in the NR zoning district.

The background for this area provides the necessary policy considerations for this request.

In late 1986, a number of property owners of those properties on the south side of Central Avenue between Rockwood Road and Hillcrest Avenue requested rezoning from residential to a commercial use. The City Council, following considerable discussion, adopted a policy generally stating that all those properties would be supported for GO General Office zoning subject to a number of conditions relating to replatting and some improvement requirements to Central Avenue. The policy indicated requests for more intensive zoning (such as LC Limited Commercial) or expansions to the residential neighborhood to the south would not be supported.

Transition of this area along East Central Avenue was anticipated to be rezoned for commercial uses. In May of 1988, Wichita City Council approved Covenant #3 to protect the residential area immediately south of the properties that front East Central Street, which are located in the Oakwood Estates Addition. Protective Overlay (P.O.) #344 incorporates the conditions enumerated in Covenant #3.

Property immediately north of the subject site is zoned LC Limited Commercial and is developed with a retail strip center, an undeveloped commercial lot and a fast food restaurant. Located west and south of the site is SF-5 Single-family Residential developed with single-family residences. East of the site are SF-5 zoned lots. Between North Edgemoor Drive and Woodlawn Boulevard, on the south side of East Central Avenue, there are only three other lots that are currently zoned SF-5. The remaining 23 lots between Edgemoor Drive and Woodlawn Boulevard are zoned NR Neighborhood Residential and GO General Office occupied single-family residential structures. The property located at the southwest corner of East Central Avenue and Woodlawn Boulevard is zoned LC.

CASE HISTORY: The site was platted as Oakwood Estates Addition in July 1946. No other cases are associated with the subject property.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH: LC Retail Strip Center, Fast Food Restaurant SOUTH: SF-5 Single-Family Residences EAST: SF-5 Single-Family Residences WEST: SF-5 Single-Family Residence

PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has driveway access to East Central Avenue, which is a paved, five-lane, two- way Arterial Street at this location with a 100-foot right-of-way. There is no other public access to the site. All public services are available to the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as within the Established Central Area. The Future Growth Concept Map identifies the area as “New Employment.” The Plan identifies the area as appropriate for convenience retail in proximity to residential areas.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED with the following conditions in P.O. #344:

1. The property shall not be combined or utilized in any way with any residential zone lot to the south that fronts on North Oakwood Drive. This is intended to exclude off-street parking on a lot that fronts on North Oakwood Drive that could be used in combination with the subject property. 2. P.O. #344 shall not be altered, amended or terminated without a public hearing before the Wichita- Sedgwick County Planning Commission and the Wichita City Council. 3. P.O. #344 shall run with the property. 4. Uses shall be limited to those allowed by right in the NR zoning district, EXCEPT: businesses engaged in providing loans secured by car titles or other similar forms of security shall be prohibited. 5. A Certificate for Dedication of Access Control to limit the development to one point of access shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration. 6. A Certificate for Drive Closure shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council Consideration. 7. Submittal of revised site plan indicating location of single drive access. 8. Dedication of cross-lot access easement shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council Consideration should the properties to the west and east of the subject site be converted to non-residential-use.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Property immediately north of the subject site is zoned LC Limited Commercial developed with a retail strip center, undeveloped commercial lot and a fast food restaurant. Located west and south of the site is SF-5 Single-family Residential developed with single-family residences. East of the site are SF-5 zoned lots. Between North Edgemoor Drive and Woodlawn Boulevard, on the south side of East Central Avenue, there are only three other lots that are currently zoned SF-5. The remaining 23 lots between Edgemoor Drive and Woodlawn Boulevard are zoned NR Neighborhood Residential and GO General Office that occupy single-family residential structures.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is currently zoned SF-5 and continued use as single-family dwelling is not feasible and is recommended for Neighborhood Residential uses.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The property fronts a major five-lane arterial that has LC zoning on the north side of the street. The zone change to NR would provide a buffer area to the surrounding single-family residential use. Screening would be required along the east, west and south property lines along with some landscaping requirements on East Central Avenue.

4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Approval will provide a wider range of small commercial uses to the area. Denial would presumably represent a loss of economic opportunity to the applicant/property owner.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as within the Established Central Area. The Future Growth Concept Map identifies the area as “New Employment.” The Plan identifies the area as appropriate for convenience retail in proximity to residential areas.

6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: All services are in place. Increased demand on community facilities will be minimal based on proposed uses.

KATHY MORGAN, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report noting that staff is recommending the closure of one of the site’s two driveways. She noted that the applicant would like to keep both driveways.

BEN GARDNER, 150 NORTH MARKET STREET, WICHITA, reviewed the site plan, and noted that one of the driveways serves a garage and it would be a hardship to access the garage if the west access point were closed. It does not make sense to close the east driveway from a cross lot standpoint.

There were questions concerning the use of the garage and if the garage could be accessed without two driveways. RICHARDSON suggested that the compromise would be a motion that allows the two drives until the existing building is removed.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendations except both driveways remain open until the existing building is removed, then one driveway is to be removed.

RICHARDSON moved, J. JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). ______

4.6 ZON2019-00041-City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential and LC Limited Commercial to LI Limited Industrial for industrial development on properties generally located between North Market Street and North Park Place and between East 34th Street North and East 35th Street East, and described as:

Deferred to the MAPC meeting of January 9, 2020. ______

4.7 ZON2019-00042 with CUP2019-00036-County zone change from RR Rural Residential to GC General Commercial (associated with CUP2019-00036) for commercial development on property located on the northeast corner of East 21st Street North and North 143 Street East, and described as:

S 1/2 SW 1/4 EXC E 1717.18 FT THEREOF & EXC RD ROW ON S & W SEC 1-27-2E

BACKGROUND: This application is to change the zoning to GC General Commercial and establish the 21st and 143rd Commercial Community Unit Plan (DP-351) for the 16.2 acres zoned RR Rural Residential located on the northeast corner of East 21st Street North and North 143rd Street East. The subject property is unplatted and in the County. The applicant will be submitting a plat for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The property abuts the City limits of Wichita on the west side of North 143rd, and a request for annexation is expected to be considered concurrently with the plat. The text of the CUP states that all uses permitted by right in the LC Limited Commercial zoning district will be permitted on each parcel with several exceptions (see CUP text attached). The CUP text also states that “outdoor storage and display as permitted in the GC General

Commercial zoning district shall be allowed as an accessory use to an approved use in the CUP. Outdoor storage as a primary use shall be prohibited.”

When platted, the property will contain 7 parcels: one large parcel occupying the northern portion of the property and 6 smaller parcels fronting East 21st Street and North 143rd Street. The drawing currently shows three full- movement access drives onto East 21st Street and two-full movement openings along North 143rd Street. Staff recommends access to the property to be reduced to two full-movement driveways, one for each arterial, two additional right-in/right-out drives along East 21st Street (one on either side of the shown point of access), and one additional right-in/right-out driveway near the intersection along North 143rd Street. All parcels without access to the public street will be accessible through internal cross lot access.

The proposed language for the General Provisions provided by the applicant also address permitted uses. The recommended General Provision language is attached to this staff report. The applicant is proposing screening along the north and east property lines that is less than required by the Code when abutting residentially zoned property. Staff recommends that screening be provided in accordance with the Code requirements.

The applicant’s proposed CUP has the standard architectural, landscaping, lighting, drainage, cross-lot circulation, and parking language. All buildings within the CUP are to share uniform architectural character, color and similar predominate exterior building materials. Landscaping is to be per the landscape ordinance Light pole height shall be restricted to 15 feet when located within 100 feet of residential zoning. Rooftop mechanical equipment, trash receptacles, and loading areas shall be reasonably screened from ground level view. Outdoor storage and work areas, mechanical equipment, heating and air conditioning units and dumpsters located within 150 feet of a street require screening. Drainage is being addressed through the platting process. Cross- lot circulation agreements between parcels will be provided. Parking is to be per code unless specified otherwise within the CUP.

Signage is proposed to be per code for the LC district unless specified otherwise. The CUP establishes certain restrictions for signage as follows:

 No portable, banner, or pennant signs shall be permitted  Window signage shall be limited to 25% of window area.

Staff recommends that signage be further restricted in size, height, and type consistent with other similarly situated CUPs.

The land located south of the subject property is unplatted and undeveloped property in the County zoned SF- 20 Single Family Residential. Immediately to the west across East 143rd Street North is the Eastside Community Church of God. Further west of the church is SF-5 zoned property with single family residential development. Property immediately north of the site is zoned RR Rural Residential and is unplatted agricultural land in the County. However, further north is property zoned RR Rural Residential and is platted as large long single family homes. Property to the east is unplatted, agricultural land zoned RR Rural Residential in the County. However, a preliminary plat for the NDR Addition was recently filed to develop this land into a residential subdivision with single family lots.

On the southwest corner of East 21st and North 143rd is zoned LC Limited Commercial and is part of The Krug South Community Unit Plan (DP-302). This CUP was approved in by City Council in January 2007, but the commercial parcels have yet to be developed. DP-302 is being used as a standard against which the current request is being measured.

CASE HISTORY: Other than the current CUP proposal with a request for zone change, no other cases have been filed.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: RR: Agricultural land and large lot single family residential. South: SF-20: Undeveloped land East: RR: Agricultural land West: SF-5: Church and single family residential Southwest: LC: CUP-DP 302, undeveloped.

PUBLIC SERVICES: According to the City maps, all of the public utilities are in place in the area but have not all been extended to the subject property. As part of the platting approval, guarantees and arrangements will be made to extend all utilities to this property in conformance with the City of Wichita standards. West 21st Street North is paved, 5-lane arterial with 4 travel lanes and a center turn lane. North 143rd Street East is a paved, 2-lne arterial street. The intersection of the two has been improved with single left turn lanes in each direction. Guarantees to improve North 143rd Street to a commercial arterial with turn lanes and traffic signals shall be addressed at the time of platting.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept map indicates the site is appropriate for “new residential.” However, there are areas nearby that are indicated as appropriate for “residential and employment mix.” This area is located within Wichita’s 2035 urban growth area. The residential/employment mix encompasses areas of land that will likely be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses predominately of a mixed nature.

Community Investments Plan discusses Location Guidelines in section 3 of the Future Land Use Policies. In the subsection titled Development Pattern, guideline 1.a. states “development should occur where necessary supporting infrastructure and services exist or are planned for extension concurrently with development. Guideline 3.c. states “small, neighborhood-serving retail and offices uses and high-density residential uses not located at arterial intersections should be limited to the intersection of an arterial and a collector street. Guideline 3.e. states “new development areas be separated from existing developed areas by major barriers (such as: highways, railroads, waterways, and airports) or by significant open space or undeveloped areas should be discouraged unless the scale of the development is sufficient to support the cost of extending infrastructure and services in a manner that supports additional development on surrounding sites.” In the subsection titled Land Use Compatibility, guideline 1.c. states “Residential development should not encroach upon existing or planned heavy industry, airfields, and military installations.”

In the subsection titled Design, guideline 1.a. states “Commercial centers, office parks, and mixed-use developments should be designed with shared internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, combined signage, coordinated landscaping and building design, and combined ingress/egress locations.” Guideline 1.b. states “Ingress/egress locations to non-residential uses generally should not access residential streets unless such access will not negatively impact nearby residential areas, except that industrial traffic should not feed directly into local streets in residential areas.” Guideline 1.g. states “Building entrances should be oriented to the street or internal circulation drives that connect to the street and designated pedestrian connections should be provided from building entrances to the street.”

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared it is recommended that the request for GC General Commercial be DENIED, but a request for LC Limited Commercial be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The Development Guidelines shall be modified to read in accordance with the attached recommendation.

2. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the revised development guidelines and general provisions of the approved CUP. 3. The applicant shall record a CUP certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-351 21st and 143rd Commercial CUP) has special conditions for development on the property. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved CUP shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of final approval to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department or the amendment shall be deemed null and void.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is primarily residentially zoned except for the opposing corner to the southwest which is zoned LC with CUP DP-302. The land located south of the subject property is unplatted and undeveloped property in the County zoned SF-20 Single Family Residential. Immediately to the west across East 143rd Street North is the Eastside Community Church of God. Further west of the church is SF-5 zoned property with single family residential development. Property immediately north of the site is zoned RR Rural Residential and is unplatted agricultural land in the County. However, further north is property zoned RR Rural Residential and is platted as large long single family homes. Property to the ease is unplatted, agricultural land zoned RR Rural Residential in the County.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject property is zoned RR Rural Residential and could remain such. However, with land on either side already annexed into the City of Wichita, it is likely for this land to be redeveloped with more intensity either with residential or commercial.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: GC General Commercial zoning is not appropriate base zone for this area. It does not fit sound reasoning to permit GC zoning simply to allow outdoor storage as an accessory use to an approved use within the LC restricted CUP, when outdoor storage as an accessory use is permitted in the LC district, Sec.III-B.14.e(3). With the recommended development standards, approval of the proposed CUP should have minimal detrimental impact on nearby property.

4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Approval of the request would add commercial and office development to this area, which is generally considered a gain to the public welfare in that it expands the employment and tax base. Denial would presumably represent a loss of economic opportunity to the applicant and/or land owner.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept map (MAPC approval November 19, 2015) indicates the site is appropriate for “residential” and “residential employment mix,” and is located within Wichita’s 2035 urban growth area. The residential/employment mix encompasses areas of land that will likely be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses predominately of a mixed nature.

6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The platting of this property will provide guarantees for needed community facilities to be obtained.

ZEVENBERGEN, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report.

LEVI BOND, KAW VALLEY ENGINEERING, 200 NORTH EMPORIA, SUITE 100, WICHITA, AGENT, stated the GC zoning request was made to allow outdoor storage. The screening limits the amount of outdoor storage so if there was a nursery that wanted to go in and is over 10 percent of the floor area then they would not be able to do that. (LC zoning limits outdoor display to 10 percent of the floor area of the building in which the merchandise is offered for sale; only items offered for sale inside the building can be displayed outside and the displayed items have to be located within 10 feet of the building. Material stored outdoors must be accessory to the use and must be screened from street level view.) They felt like it was better to have GC zoning from the start and limit the CUP back to LC. If GC uses popped up it would be easier to adjust or amend the CUP and not have to go through another zone case. With respect to the CUP he was generally in agreement with staff comments. The setbacks on number 2; they recommended 60 feet just to make sure the buildings were pushed back and no one was hogging the frontage as the buildings were leased; to protect the sight lines and to maintain building uniformity. Condition 4, by allow the outdoor storage and display as requested he avoids the LC limitations and allows the developer with more flexibility. At this point they do

38 not have a tenant that needs outside storage. Finally, on the screening for condition 8 F that it say solid screening instead of screening wall. There is a 100-foot wide pipeline easement and setback located along the north property line so a wall is not necessary because of the width of the pipeline easement.

NICK WALKER, 2402 NORTH SPRINGDALE CIRCLE, WICHITA, 67228, showed a PowerPoint presentation of his objections to the project. He expressed three major concerns with the project. Declining home prices if multi-family residential is to be allowed. Safety is the second concern. 143rd Street is not built to handle additional traffic. The last concern had to do with the Andover School system. The system is nearing capacity without building new schools. Additional multi-family will add to the capacity issues and trigger the need for new school facilities for which there is no funding.

RICHARDSON asked for, and received, confirmation that the proposal would allow multi-family residential regardless of if the base zoning was LC or GC.

TRACEY ORGAN, 2434 NORTH SPRINGDALE CIRCLE, WICHITA, 67228, passed out a handout. She stated one of her main concerns dealt with flooding. Water from the east side of 143rd Street crosses over to the west side and has flooded every basement on her segment of 143rd. All of her neighbor’s basements have flooded. Her handout showed newly designated floodplain areas. There are a lot of teenage drivers using 143rd and it is in bad condition. There was a fatal accident on 143rd Street. She is concerned about losing property value. There is a 20-acre commercial site across the street that has been for sale for 12 years. She is worried if more commercial is approved she will lose the tree buffer located on the west side of 143rd Street.

BOND stated the intention is for the site to be a commercial development, not multi-family. Improvements to 143rd Street will be determined at the time of platting. Probably an additional lane and installation of shoulders are likely. Since multi-family is not contemplated there should not be any impact on schools. There will be a new single-family subdivision going in to the east of the site and he does not know what is going to be developed on the land located north of the application area. Drainage would be addressed at platting. Improvements associated with the project might help with the drainage.

WARREN asked if he would be agreeable to eliminating multi-family as a use.

BOND stated his client was not here and he hated to guess as to their agreement with the proposal but he would agree to the restriction.

McKAY for a clarification on why they objected to LC zoning versus GC.

BOND explained it give them GC outdoor storage rights instead of LC requirements and if they have a GC use pop up they would not need to seek rezoning, just a use adjustment or amendment.

RICHARDSON asked in whose jurisdiction 143rd Street was located. The answer was it is located in the City. It was RICHARDSON’S opinion that if the project were to be approved and with it being located in the City there was a greater likelihood of drainage improvements. He also asked if BOND knew if the hedgerow noted by ORGAN was in the right-of-way. BOND stated that based upon the aerial it looked like they were in the right-of-way but his firm had not done any surveys to confirm the location of the trees. McKAY noted that he had a problem with granting GC as the base zoning.

FOSTER asked who would maintain the pipeline easement, and was advised by BOND all but 25 feet of it was on the property to the north so they would maintain it while the applicant would maintain the 25 feet on the application area.

NICKS asked there was a CIP project planned for 143rd and was advised by KNEBEL there was not.

In response to a question by RICHARDSON, KNEBEL added that the CUP requires the applicant to commit to his share of road improvement, and the extent of improvements and associated guarantees would be

39 obtained at the time of platting.

FOSTER asked if BOND had seen the diagrams provided by one of the speakers that shows multi-family as a possible use. BOND replied that he had not seen the diagram and as far as he knew it was inaccurate.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation except multi-family residential is prohibited and screening along the north property line shall be solid screening (per UZC Section IV) instead of a wall.

RICHARDSON moved, HARTMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).

THIS CASE WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER AND WAS THE FIRST ZONING CASE REVIEWED. ______

4.8 ZON2019-00043-County zone change from RR Rural Residential to SF-20 Single-Family Residential for expansion of an existing school on property generally located on the south side of West 29th Street North and 3/8 mile west of North 183rd Street West (19001 West 29th Street), and described as:

BEG 567 FT E & 365FT S NW COR NE1/4W 160 FT S 220 FT W TO PT 305.25 FT E OF W LI NE1/4 S 710.46 FT E 261.8 FT N 933.39 FT TO BEG EXC BEG SE COR LOT 1 BAALMAN ADD TH E 120 FT S 60 FT W 120 FT N TO BEG SEC 5-27-2W

BEG 607 FT E NW COR NE 1/4 S 205 FTE 100 FT N 205 FT W 100 FT TO BEG SEC 5-27- 2W EXEMPT 6540-0

BEG 859 FT E NW COR NE1/4 S 205 FT E 276 FT N 205 FT W TO BEG EXC ST SEC 5- 27-2W

BEG 607 FT E & 205 FT S NW COR NE 1/4 W 80 FT S 160 FT E 80 FT S 220 FT E TO W LI OF E 10A NW 1/4 NE 1/4N 380 FT W TO BEG SEC 5-27-2W EXEMPT 6540-0

BEG 567 FT E & 365 FT S NW COR NE1/4 S 933.39 FT E 427.37 FT N 721.56 FT W 387.29 FT N 220 W 40FT TO BEG SEC 5-27-2W EXEMPT 220-3

BEG 587 FT E NW COR NE 1/4 S 205 FTE 20 FT N 205 FT W 20 FT TO BEG SEC 5-27- 2W EXEMPT 6540-0

BEG 707 FT E NW COR NE1/4 S 205 FT E 152 FT N 205 FT W 152 FT TO BEG SEC 5-27- 2W EXEMPT 6540-0

BEG 330 FT W & 205 FT S NE COR NW 1/4 NE 1/4 S 380 FT E 145 FT N 380 FT W 145 FT TO BEG SEC 5-27-2W EXEMPT 6540-0

BACKGROUND: This application was filed to rezone the subject property from RR Rural Residential to SF- 20 Single Family Residential in order to allow for the expansion of an existing school. The site is generally located on the south side of West 29th Street North and 3/8 mile west of North 183rd Street West.

The applicant, the Renwick Unified School District No. 267, currently operates a school on the un-platted property. Due to the RR zoning, this is a non-conforming use. With plans to expand the school building to the east, the school district is platting the property and requesting the zone change to bring the property into compliance.

The subject property is 19.34 acres and is developed with several buildings including the school. The proposed school addition would be subject to all applicable setback requirements of the SF-20 district.

The majority of property in the area is zoned RR Rural Residential. The lots adjacent to the north (across 29th Street), adjacent to the east (Across 29th Court), and adjacent to the south are all zoned RR. Lots adjacent to the west are zoned a mix of RR and LC Limited Commercial. Most of the property in the area does not conform to the minimum lot size or other requirements of the RR district. Please see the attached area map so see all adjacent zoning.

CASE HISTORY: The property is in the process of being platted, case SUB2019-00046.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: RR; Single-family residences and agriculture South: RR; Single-family residences and agriculture East: RR; Single-family residences and auto dealer West: RR and LC; Single-family residences

PUBLIC SERVICES: West 19th Street North is a paved, 2-lane arterial street. West 29th Court North is an un-paved, 2-lane local street.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept map (MAPC approval November 19, 2015) indicates the site is appropriate for “Rural Growth”. The rural growth category encompasses land outside the 2035 urban-growth areas for Wichita and the small cities and will likely be developed or redeveloped as agriculture, rural-based businesses, and larger lot residential exurban subdivisions.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared it is recommended that the request for SF-20 zoning be Approved.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The majority of property in the area is zoned RR Rural Residential. The lots adjacent to the north (across 29th Street), adjacent to the east (Across 29th Court), and adjacent to the south are all zoned RR. Lots adjacent to the west are zoned a mix of RR and LC Limited Commercial. Most of the property in the area does not conform to the minimum lot size or other requirements of the RR district. Please see the attached area map so see all adjacent zoning.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently being used as a school, and the request to have the zoning changed to reflect the use is not unreasonable.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The property is currently being used as a school, and the request to have the zoning changed to reflect the use should not detrimentally affect nearby properties.

4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Approval of the request will allow the expansion a school which is generally considered a gain to the public welfare. Denial would presumably represent a loss of educational opportunity to the applicant and/or community.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies:

The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept map (MAPC approval November 19, 2015) indicates the site is appropriate for “Rural Growth”. The rural growth category encompasses land outside the 2035 urban-growth areas for Wichita and the small cities and will likely be developed or redeveloped as agriculture, rural-based businesses, and larger lot residential exurban subdivisions.

6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The property is currently being used as a school, and the request to have the zoning changed to reflect the use should not have a large impact on community facilities.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0). ______

4.9 ZON2019-00044-City zone change from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to OW Office Warehouse to develop a wholesale nursery on property generally located north of East Kellogg Avenue and east of Zelta Street, and described as:

BEG 200 FT E SW COR SE 1/4 TH E 130FT N 1320 FT W 130 FT S TO BEG EXC HWY & EXC S 1/2 NOW PLATTED AS PART OF REYNOLDS ADD & EXC COMM SW COR SE 1/4 E 200 FT N 661 FT TO POB TH E 130 FT N 30 FT W 130 FT S TO BEG SEC 22-27-2E

BEG 330 FT E SW COR SE1/4 E 396 FT N 1320 FT W 396 FT S TO BEG EXC TH PT BEG 2319.61 FT W & 87.64 FT N SE COR SE 1/4 TH N 45.9 FT NELY 170.42 FT SELY 226.96 FT S 40.49 FT TO NLY ROW LI US 54 HWY W 396 FT TO BEG & EXC TH PT COMM SE COR SE 1/4 TH W 2319.61 FT N 628.28 FT TO POB BEING A CUR SELY ALG CUR 417.92 FT SELY 74.26 FT N 101.43 FT TO CUR NWLY ALG CUR 466.69 FT S 60.28 FT TO BEG SEC 22-27-2E

TH PT SE 1/4 COMM SE COR THEREOF TH W 2319.61 FT N 628.28 FT TO POB BEING A CUR SELY ALG CUR 417.92 FT SELY 74.26 FT N 101.43 FT TO CUR NWLY 466.69 FT S 60.28 FT TO BEG SEC 22-27-2E

BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to change the zoning classification from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to OW Office Warehouse in order to accommodate the establishment of a wholesale nursery on land located north of east Kellogg Street and east of South Zelta Street. The OW Office Warehouse zoning district will allow both a nursery and garden center and wholesale and service business uses. Under the Unified Zoning Code, those uses are defined as follows:

g. Nurseries and Garden Center means a place of business where retail and wholesale products and produce are sold to the consumer. These centers, which may include a nursery and/or greenhouses, import most of the items sold, and may include plants, nursery products and stock and other garden and farm variety tools and utensils; this use may be subject to the special provisions of Sec. III-D.6.z when located in the LC District.

o. Wholesale or Business Services means an establishment primarily engaged in the display, storage and sale of goods or services to other firms.

The other uses permitted in the OW Office Warehouse district are reasonable for the property at this location, which is on the eastern edge of the portion of Wichita in transition from being accessible to US 54/400 Highway frontage with direct access thereto; to lands that need to seek uses compatible with the highway becoming less directly accessible. The office warehouse uses achieve that objective in a reasonable manner. The subject

42 property is unplatted and will require platting prior to any buildings being permitted. The interim use of open plantings for a wholesale nursery without buildings is a reasonable use.

The surrounding neighborhood has a mixture of uses and zoning patterns. The property to the north and east are vacant and used agriculturally. The land to the north is in the county and is zoned SF-20 Single-Family Residential. The land to the east is in the city and zoned SF-5. The property to the west that lies north of Lewis Street is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential or TF-3 Two-Family Residential. The properties are occupied residentially, with new duplexes on the TF-3 properties. The property south of Lewis Street on the west is zoned GC General Commercial and occupied with commercial businesses. The properties to the south across Kellogg Street are also zoned GC General Commercial and used commercially.

CASE HISTORY: The subject property is unplatted. There has been no other recent activity on this property.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-20 Commercial uses SOUTH: GC Parking Lot EAST: SF-5 Commercial uses WEST: SF-5, TF-3, GC Residential and Commercial uses

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property currently has access East Lewis Street, which is a newly paved local street. Water and sewer mains have not been extended to the property, which would be necessary to develop the property with buildings and structures; which would be addressed when platting occurs. Other utility services could be extended as needed.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood has a mixture of uses and zoning patterns. The property to the north and east are vacant and used agriculturally. The land to the north is in the county and is zoned SF-20 Single-Family Residential. The land to the east is in the city and zoned SF-5. The property to the west that lies north of Lewis Street is zoned SF-5 Single- Family Residential or TF-3 Two-Family Residential. The properties are occupied residentially, with new duplexes on the TF-3 properties. The property south of Lewis Street on the west is zoned GC General Commercial and occupied with commercial businesses. The properties to the south across Kellogg Street are also zoned GC General Commercial and used commercially.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential, which given the location does not seem to be a suitable classification adjacent to a freeway. The proposed changes expand the development opportunities.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed zone change will not detrimentally affect nearby properties. The entire area already has a mixture of uses and there will not be significant changes by reason of this change.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property has been used agriculturally and the change proposed will allow a transition to higher uses in an appropriate manner.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There will be no impact on community facilities.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation.

BLICK moved, MILES seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0). ______

McKAY exited the meeting.

5. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

5.1 DER2018-00011-Business Improvement District for the Douglas Design District.

SCOTT KNEBEL, PLANNING STAFF, introduced the item, and the BID is required to be presented to the MAPC.

RENE DUXLER, presented a Power Point show that reviewed the history and purpose of the Douglas Design District (DDD). She discussed the number and general kinds of businesses and assessment rate for businesses within the district. Currently membership in the DDD is voluntary. With the BID membership will a requirement. She noted that the DDD BID is similar to the Downtown Wichita model but is a little different.

J. JOHNSON asked if membership was voluntary.

DUXLER replied that it was mandatory.

KNEBEL explained that if the City Council approves the BID, the BID assessment would be mandatory. The business would pay into the City and the City would then contract with the DDD to provide services on a contractual basis

WARREN commented that Advanced Plans Committee heard this and he thought the fee was very reasonable. There seemed to be a lot of buy-in from a large majority of the businesses.

NICKS asked what happens if one chose not to pay the dues.

KNEBEL commented that failure to pay would be treated the same as any other failure to pay an invoice from the City, and would be turned over to a collection process.

GREENE stated he was concerned that the 550 or so businesses don’t really have a say. It amounts to a fine that these businesses would have to pay if they are not in favor of the BID.

DUXLER clarified that there are 183 businesses located within the assessment area. They have a total membership of 550. There will be public comment opportunity at City Council and a 45-day protest period after Council action. If over 50 percent of the businesses protest then the BID fails.

BLICK noted that only those businesses with store fronts on Douglas will be assessed.

MILES there are only 56 out of the 183 businesses that have bought into the assessment. She also expressed concern that vacant property owners will also be assessed the same as a developed site.

DUXLER pointed out that under the BID the fee structure will be reduced when compared to the current voluntary assessment so more owners will support the plan. With the BID they will develop an inventory of vacant properties so someone wanting to establish a business in the DDD could call the DDD staff person and be advised of what opportunities are available. Currently they can’t do that so that would be a new service to vacant property owners.

RICHARDSON asked what it is a homeowner and will the assessment become a tax lien if it goes unpaid. Could the process be set up to exempt vacant property.

KNEBEL noted that single-family and duplex units are exempt from the assessment and because it is not a tax it will not become a lien on the property. Yes, fees are established each year. The fee for vacant properties could be waived or reduced.

J. JOHNSON asked how the fee was established.

KNEBEL noted that the fee is established on an annual basis by the City Council through the budget process. There is an advisory committee appointed by the City Council that, by May 15th of each year, submits a budget proposal and work plan to the City Council that recommends the fee for the following year. He explained how the assessment could be halted by the protest process.

JUSTIN STRELOW, OCCIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, 8111 EAST 32ND STREET NORTH, SUITE 101, stated this is the first he has heard of this and does this affect the TIF program.

DUXLER clarified that the two districts do not overlap. The DDD goes from Glendale to Washington.

MOTION: To approve.

J. JOHNSON moved, RICHARDSON seconded the motion and it carried (7-2-1). Deny: GREENE and MILES. Abstained: GROSS

______

5.2 N/A-Conformity of Project Plan Area 3 for the Union Station Redevelopment District with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, generally located south of East Douglas Avenue and west of South Washington Avenue.

Background: A tax increment finance district is a tool available under Kansas Statutes to stimulate economic redevelopment. It allows a city to finance in blighted or deteriorating areas, all or a portion of public infrastructure and redevelopment costs using captured incremental real estate tax revenues or sales tax revenues generated by the redevelopment activity.

In October 2014, the City of Wichita established the Union Station Redevelopment District in order to encourage (using tax increment financing) the redevelopment of a 10 parcel area centered on the historic Union Station Depot in downtown Wichita. This TIF redevelopment district is bounded on the west by the elevated rail corridor, on the east by an irregular line roughly following S. Rock Island Avenue and S. Mead Street, on the north by E. Douglas Avenue and on the south by E. Waterman Street.

On February 5, 2015, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission passed a resolution finding the proposed

Union Station Project Area 1 Plan for the Union Station Redevelopment District to be substantially consistent with the adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

On July 26, 2018, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission passed a resolution finding the proposed Union Station Project Area 2 Plan for the Union Station Redevelopment District to be substantially consistent with the adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

A new project plan called Project Plan Area 3, covering an area to the east of the existing Union Station Redevelopment District, has been submitted to the MAPC for a determination of consistency with the Wichita- Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

Project Details - The Project Plan Area 3 will include the renovation and expansion of the 27,000 square foot existing Ice House building and a 13,000 square foot three story addition. The proposed private and public improvements will consist of the following: o Improvements to the Ice House Building (internal and external improvements to the building structure). o Site improvements (planters, sidewalks, pavement, irrigation, landscaping, site lighting, and street furniture amenities)

The Developer will privately finance the project, including various public infrastructure improvements. The City will provide public funding in the form of pay-as-you-go financing to reimburse the Developer for TIF eligible expenditures and will provide additional funds for installation of certain public utilities and public access to parking facilities. It is estimated that eligible TIF project costs in the Project Plan Area 3 will have a total estimated cost of $317,170. Tax increment financing will be used to finance these improvements.

The original total assessed valuation of the Project Plan Area 3 as of January 2014 was $44,288. The projected total assessed valuation as of January 1, 2022 is estimated to be $1,214,489. Therefore, the captured assessed valuation for the Project Plan Area 3 as of January 1, 2022 is estimated at $1,170,201. The resulting property tax increment in 2022 has been calculated to be $112,003. It is the City’s intention to use the property tax increment revenues generated by this TIF District to reimburse the Developer on a pay-as-you-go basis. No TIF bonds will be used to finance eligible expenses.

Analysis: The Project Plan Area 3 for the Union Station Redevelopment District falls within the Project Downtown Master Plan which has been adopted as an element of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the Project Plan area falls within the Downtown Master Plan’s designated ‘Old Town South District’, one of 15 unique districts that constitute Downtown Wichita.

The Project Plan Area 3 will specifically accomplish certain elements of the following key vision theme identified for the ‘Old Town South District’: o “Revive Union Station, adjacent sites, and Douglas Avenue with office, hotel and/or other uses” It is the opinion of staff that the Project Plan Area 3 dated November 21, 2019 is substantially consistent with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

Legal Considerations: Pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1772, each redevelopment project plan undertaken as part of a tax increment finance district must be prepared in consultation with the planning commission. Accordingly, the MAPC has a responsibility to review the proposed Project Plan Area 3 and make a determination of its consistency with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

Recommended Action: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission pass a resolution finding the proposed Project Plan Area 3 for the Union Station Redevelopment District dated November 21, 2019 to be substantially consistent with the adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

MATT WILLIAMS, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report.

MARK ELDER, CITY OF WICHITA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, presented a

PowerPoint, and noted that this is the third phase of redevelopment of Union Station, specifically dealing with the Ice House. He noted the developer has been meeting deadlines.

JUSTIN STRELOW, OCCIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, 8111 EAST 32ND STREET NORTH, SUITE 101, reviewed the overall project.

MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation, which is to find the project in conformance with adopted plans.

WARREN moved, RICHARDSON seconded the motion, and it carried (10-0).

______

6. Other Matters/Adjournment

The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission adjourned at 3:31 p.m.

State of Kansas ) Sedgwick County ) SS

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

Given under my hand and official seal this ______day of ______, 2019.

______Dale Miller, Secretary Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

AGENDA ITEM: 4.1 WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DATE: December 5, 2019

TO: Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

FROM: Matthew Williams, Associate Planner, Advanced Plans Division

SUBJECT: DER2018-12: Briefing and Public Hearing on the South Central Neighborhood Plan

Background: On June 22, 2018, the City of Wichita awarded the South Central Neighborhood Association with a grant for the creation of an updated South Central Neighborhood Plan. RDG Planning & Design was the recommended consultant and was contracted by the City.

On October 18th, 2018, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) voted to initiate the process to amend the South Central Neighborhood Plan. The City Manager appointed a South Central Neighborhood Plan Advisory Committee in December of 2018. The Committee included local residents, non-profit leaders, developers, and a representative from the MAPC. The plan took approximately nine months to complete and involved input from hundreds of community stakeholders. The end result was the development of the attached South Central Neighborhood Plan.

The South Central Neighborhood Plan is a neighborhood-wide vision for improvements and capital building in the South Central Neighborhood. The Plan is broken into five themes that include goals, a vision, and a list of actions to take. These five sections include: Building Social Capital, Maintaining and Improving our Homes, Positioning Our Neighborhood for Reinvestment, Enhancing the Experience of Moving in the Neighborhood, and Creating Places for All. The action items for each section have been broken into two sets: What Locals Can Do and What the City Can Do. The organization of the plan has been tailored to foster grassroots support for future change.

The Advance Plans Committee has been briefed throughout this process. The Plan is a community-wide vision for improvements and development in the South Central neighborhood over the next 15 years.

Recent cases at the MAPC have brought into focus the Location Guidelines included within the South Central Neighborhood Plan. These guidelines list “Least Desirable Land Uses” that include used car lots. At the October 10, 2019 MAPC meeting, in response to a proposal for a Conditional Use to allow a used car lot in the South Central Neighborhood, the MAPC requested that the upcoming South Central Neighborhood Plan include recommendations on how used car lots could be permitted within the neighborhood. Staff’s recommendation is to amend the language of the “Least Desirable Land Uses” section within the Location Guidelines of the South Central Neighborhood Plan to the following:

• The “Least Desirable Land Uses” for the neighborhood include motels, bars, used car lots, and resource processing industries. In the case that the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission finds that a Conditional Use for a used car lot is an appropriate use within the neighborhood, the following conditions should be included: 1. The use should be limited to three years; at which time the applicant should be required to return to obtain additional time for the conditional use approval. 2. In addition to uses permitted in the “LC” Limited Commercial district, the site should be limited to the sales of cars and light trucks. No sale or rental of trailers, vehicles or trucks larger than pickups should be permitted. The vehicle sales lot shall not be conducted in conjunction with any use not directly related to such a business.

Analysis: The South Central Neighborhood Plan is a neighborhood-wide vision for improvements and capital building in the South Central Neighborhood. The Plan is broken into five themes that include goals, a vision, and a list of actions to take. These five sections include: Building Social Capital, Maintaining and Improving our Homes, Positioning Our Neighborhood for Reinvestment, Enhancing the Experience of Moving in the Neighborhood, and Creating Places for All. The action items for each section have been broken into two sets: What Locals Can Do and What the City Can Do. The organization of the plan has been tailored to foster grassroots support for future change. More detailed information regarding The South Central Neighborhood Plan is available online at: www.wichita.gov/Planning/Pages/SouthCentral.aspx

Legal Considerations: The resolution has been reviewed and approved as to form by the Law Department.

Recommended Action: That the MAPC adopt the attached resolution adopting the South Central Neighborhood Plan, including the updated “Least Desirable Land Uses” section within the Location Guidelines, as an amendment of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan.

Attachments: South Central Neighborhood Plan Resolution

RESOLUTION

WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the statutes of the State of Kansas, in K.S.A. 12-747 et seq., the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission developed a Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City of Wichita in 2015 and Sedgwick County in 2016, and amended in 2017 and 2019; and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be amended as needed to ensure it reflects timely and relevant information and the needs of the community; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on October 18, 2018 did initiate the development of the South Central Neighborhood Plan to document an agreed upon revitalization strategy for South Central; and

WHEREAS, before the adoption of any Comprehensive Plan or amendment thereto, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission is required by K.S.A. 12-747 et seq. to hold a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission did give notice by publication in the official City newspaper on November 14, 2019 and County newspaper on November 13, 2019, of a public hearing on said area plan; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on December 5, 2019, did hold a public hearing at which a quorum was present, and did hear all comments and testimony relating to said area plan;

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission hereby adopts the South Central Neighborhood Plan as an official amendment to the Wichita- Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of this action be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Wichita and to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and adoption.

ADOPTED at Wichita, Kansas, this 5th day of December 2019.

______Chuck Warren, Chair Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Attest: Approved as to Form:

______Dale Miller, Secretary Jennifer Magaña, Director of Law Wichita-Sedgwick County City of Wichita Metropolitan Area Planning Commission SOUTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN building Creating social Places capital for all

WICHITA,, kansas TAKE ACTION! August 2019 DRAFT Plan Snap Actions

What Locals can Do 1A Connect with neighborhoods on social media and neighborhood associations. 1B Activate the neighborhood association orts that improve into strategic the neighborhood zones. and 1C Organize volunteer eff bring neighbors. Building Social 1D Reactivate the business association. Capital 1E Volunteer. What the City can Do Theme 1 1F Assign a neighborhood liaison to attend neighborhood meetings. 1G Continue to police the neighborhood. 1H Update this plan by 2035.

What Locals can Do 2A Schedule a Spring and Fall neighborhood cleanup. 2B Report nuisance and code violations. orts. 2C Organize volunteer eff Maintaining and 2D Launch an interfaith-based coalition. What the City can Do improving our homes 2E Enforce the code. 2F Create Best Practices guide for improvements. Theme 2 2G Grow city-sponsored incentives, loans, grants or tax abatements for home improvements and/or educate home owners about programs from other sources.

DRAFT / august 2019 2 apshot

What Locals can Do 3A Patronize businesses. 3B Support development projects. 3C Recruit businesses. 3D Participate in the planning process. positioning our What the City can do 3E Activate Community Development Corporation. neighborhood 3F Leverage available incentive mechanisms to encourage investment, like Opportunity Zone and Tax Increment Financing. for reinvestment 3G Provide incentives for upgrades to commercial properties. Theme 3 3H Assemble property for redevelopment. 3I Adopt design guidelines for new development in older neighborhoods. 3J Maintain and enforce the Land Use Guide Map and Location Guidelines.

What Locals can Do 4A Update the neighborhood brand. 4B Lobby for circulation enhancements. enhancing the ciencies to the city. 4C Report street and sidewalk defi experience of 4D Turn on the porch light. What the City can do moving in the 4E Prioritize circulation improvements to study in more detail. 4F Redesign Main Street. neighborhood 4G Build new sidewalks that connect institutions. Theme 4 4H Facilitate a retree program. 4I Improve street lighting.

What Locals can Do 5A Develop a plan for the Boston Commons Pilot Project creating places What the City can do 5B Commit to studying the Boston Commons Pilot Project. for all 5C Create a continuous pathway from the dam to Herman Hill Park 5D Implement Interim Riverfront Pathway. Theme 5 5E Retrofi t Greenway Boulevard for Active Transportation. 5F Build Clark Park.

3 DRAFT / August 2019 themes

4 Introduction 8 building social capital Maintaining and 14 improving our homes positioning our neighborhood 19 for reinvestment enhancing the experience of 32 moving in the neighborhood 38 creating places for all 48 Acknowledgements

DRAFT / august 2019 4 A letter to the Residents of South Central by Adam Barlow-ThompsoN Executive Director, The Neighboring Movement by SoCe Life

The South Central Neighborhood is rich In 2019, the City began an update of the in assets and able to defi ne its own future. South Central Neighborhood Plan. The The neighborhood has unique historical seven-month process included numerous characteristics and is a diverse, multi- public meetings, a neighborhood issues cultural neighborhood with a strong base workshop, design workshop, and of infrastructure. These characteristics celebratory open house during the SoCe in the neighborhood create a quirky Neighborhood Showcase event. A group atmosphere for expression and belonging. of local residents acted as the steering The residents of the neighborhood are committee and met at milestones in the resilient folks who are able to survive and process to provide input and direction. The thrive. People within South Central are result of everyone’s commitment to the working to be good neighbors to build process is this document. While previous upon and restore the social fabric of the plans were successful in administering community. This neighborliness is to the improvement, the organization of this plan implementation of this plan. The leaders is tailored to foster grassroots support for of this community aspire to understand future change. the neighborhood and reframe its unique stigma as part of their quirky identity and culture. There is a sense of readiness to enlighten Wichita on its many hidden treasures. 5 DRAFT / August 2019 introduc

While the City of Wichita has experienced The South Central Neighborhood has many changes over the decades, so has the great potential. The neighborhood has South Central Neighborhood. Planning the unique historical characteristics and is future of the neighborhood has been going a diverse, multi-cultural neighborhood on since 1995. The fi rst plan was created with a strong base of infrastructure. in 1995 and updated in 2006 and 2009. Yet over the decades, the perception of The previous plans were useful guides for the neighborhood has been poor in the city offi cials to administer initiatives with community. Some properties are not as good success. This new plan considers the well-maintained, having overgrown yards, changes in who lives in the neighborhood, junk cars, and litter. The poor condition its emerging leadership, and the reality of one property infl uences the perception of the city’s challenging economic of the entire block. Major routes through position to fund signifi cant projects and the neighborhood have limited to no retain low taxes. The new South Central landscaping and need repair. Alleys are Neighborhood Plan focuses on creating a neglected, and street lighting is low. series of short- and long-term campaigns. All of these attributes contribute to the Like all very successful plans, ensuring stigma but also present opportunities for implementation is largely based on the correcting and attracting new investment mobilizing grassroots campaigns to attract along the way. support and funding from city leaders.

How to use a QR code

QR Codes, or Quick Response Codes, are used in this document to link the reader to additional resources. Similar to any other barcode, a QR Code stores information in a machine-readable label. To use the label, scan the code with a smartphone scanner app. Your phone will then take you to related links referenced in this plan. Scanning applications can be downloaded for free on Google Play or iTunes.

DRAFT / august 2019 6 plan organization

The organization of this plan is not tra- ditional to other neighborhood plans, it retains the goals from the 2006 Plan ction and are incorporated throughout the literature. 2006 Plan Goals:

Strengthen citizen involvement

Improve the visual Appearance of the neighborhood

Improve neighborhood safety

Improve neighborhood infrastructure

Promote the unique character and historical significance of the neighborhood The plan identifi es fi ve distinct themes for Increase homeownership improving the neighborhood: Building Social Capital, Maintaining & Improving Our Homes, Improve existing housing stock Positioning Our Neighborhoods for Reinvestment, Enhancing the Experience of Moving in the Preserve the character of residential areas Neighborhood, and Creating Places for All. Promote economic opportunities Each theme begins with identifying why the Reduce the negative impact theme is important. The VISION for each theme of incompatible businesses represents a desired outcome or what we want Increase education and employment people to perceive of the neighborhood. opportunities for residents Promote the river as a community destination The GOALS for each theme represent the

neighborhood’s agreed interest for doing a plan, Increase recreational opportunities while the strategies represent ideas for actions to achieve the vision. Some ideas are bold, Increase use of existing neighborhood facilities possibly game-changers, and require residents and businesses to campaign and act for their Strengthen citizen involvement improvements. 7 DRAFT / August 2019 building social capital OUR GOALS Strengthen existing alliances while building new collaborations Mobilize residents to campaign for projects Educate/Inform Residents on where to go for assistance

Have a strong online presence for residents to connect with each other Foster inclusivity for all

DRAFT / august 2019 8 theme 1

The South Central Neighborhood has long been a place for people and families of all ages, providing aff ordable homes and close proximity to downtown. We are fortunate to have a mix of many long-time residents, along with a steady stream of newcomers.

To see real change occur, our neighborhood will need to foster a grassroots movement. Support for projects needs to come from many, not just a few. Also, the more we connect with each other, the more we build partnerships to improve the safety of the neighborhood. WHY? ourvision

We envision a neighborhood with a diverse mix of people of all ages and backgrounds. We see kids playing, riding their bikes, and visiting the neighborhood park. We stop and talk with our neighbors, celebrate with them at annual neighborhood events, and perhaps worship together. We know that developing neighborhood leaders that advocate for our mutual interests improves the quality of our neighborhood.

9 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 THEMEour 1 strat What can locals do?

Follow the Facebook page for the South Central Neighborhood Action 1A Association and Neighboring Movement by SoCe Life. Use the Connect with neighbors NextDoor app to learn about ongoings in the neighborhood. Participating in neighborhood association meetings is a great on social media and at way to get involved as well. neighborhood associations.

The South Central Neighborhood Association is an active organization, yet different parts of the neighborhood experience different issues. Action 1B Establishing three zones into north/central/south will help residents connect on issues that are closest to them and allow them to meet more Activate the frequently as a subgroup of the association. While the neighborhood Neighborhood association will remain the voice of the area, these strategic zones can Association into operate and manage neighborhood block parties, progressive dinners, Strategic zones neighborhood gardens, and maybe even a walking school bus. Meeting with city staff would still happen during association meetings.

Volunteer eff orts can be managed on the neighborhood association level or strategic zone. This could include: A) Hosting celebratory events such as the SoCo Showcase event, block parties, BBQ cookouts and other new events at Lincoln Park, garden tours, picnics, historic tours, holiday events, or fun runs; B) Promoting a neighborhood curbside cleanup day’ Action 1C C) Establishing a volunteer program to help neighbors, particularly the Organize volunteer efforts elderly, who need assistance with home maintenance, yard work, or that improve the neighborhood running errands; and bring neighbors together D) Organizing a Community-wide National Night Out event at Her- man Park. The event intends to foster community partnerships with the police and strengthen neighborhood spirit. Spaces within the park could be setup as a fair, restoring the area’s original use as the county fairgrounds.

DRAFT / august 2019 10 tegies theme 1

The South Central Improvement Alliance, once a coalition of businesses Action 1D to focus on business-oriented needs, has since disbanded. There’s a few Reactivate the possible objectives for reinstating the business association, including: Business Association

Support joint marketing efforts The business community could pool resources to provide joint marketing for the area as a district. The association could sponsor banners, advertising, and special events. Support the city’s capital improvements If the city were to invest in an improvement project, such as enhancing Main Street, then a formal agreement between the business association and the city could be brokered where the city would agree to building enhanced infrastructure that is uncommon to other areas of the community while the business association could agree to contribute to its maintenance. Volunteer for city commissions, boards, or committees to improve understanding of the city’s challenges and support advancement Action 1E of important civic work. Spread the word for opportunities for Volunteer engagement, civic events, and neighborhood needs. k Leadership Wichita, managed by the Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce, is an excellent program for residents to apply and Action 1F participate. Leadership training will help residents connect to deci- uence resources to the neighborhood. Conduct leadership training sion-makers and help infl 11 DRAFT / August 2019 THEMEour 1 strat What the city can do

to Presently, the city’s resources are tight to commit staff attend every neighborhood meeting. As city projects are Action 1G being developed within the neighborhood, a leading resident Assign a neighborhood of the neighborhood should be assigned to stay informed on liaison to attend neighborhood projects. The city will continue to engage residents neighborhood meetings and businesses for input and feedback.

The police department should continue to patrol the Action 1H neighborhood, respond to calls, and perform undercover Continue to police operations, with special attention to Broadway. the neighborhood

Action 1I This plan should be reviewed and updated before 2035. If signifi cant changes occur, such as major development or street Update this plan enhancements, then the plan may want to be updated sooner. by 2035

DRAFT / august 2019 12 tegies theme 1

1313 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 20120199 maintainin & improvin our homes

Celebrate neighborhood character Improve property conditions Improve andour maintain the Goals condition of our housing d Make improvements to streets to enhance the neighborhoo Broaden the mix of housing choices DRAFT / august 2019 14 theme 2

ng The aff ordability of the housing stock has been, and continues to be, a draw for our neighborhood. However, many of our houses were built in the early 20th Century, and as a result, a large portion of our homes and ng neighborhood infrastructure are starting to show their age all at once. We need to get ahead of this trend and make sure that we take the proper steps to enhance the quality of our neighborhood, before it becomes a greater issue. WHY? OUR VISION

All of the houses are well maintained, since support is readily available to residents who need it. Mixed in with our single-family homes we have several additional housing options that blend in seamlessly with the neighborhood- townhouses, apartments, and duplexes here and there. The streets, sidewalks and other infra- od structure are in top condition and receive regular maintenance. The South Central Neighborhood is known for its safety and diversity.

1515 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 THEMEour 1 strat What locals can do Neighborhoods are responsible for getting volunteers, distributing information to residents, and organizing the event. Action 2A The city sponsors an annual program that requires mandatory training for volunteers and covers 75% of the cost of the Schedule a cleanup. More information is available on the city’s website. The Spring and Fall neighborhood association can assist in supplementing the cost neighborhood Cleanup for an additional cleanup.

Residents should contact the neighborhood inspections Private property - division of the Metropolitan Area Building and Community Development (MABCD) to report potholes, ti, sidewalk tree problems, issues, broken street lights, damaged signs, graffi dilapidated building, inoperable vehicle storage, tall grass, Action 2B trash, debris/dumping and other street repairs. For private Report nuisance Public Property - property issues visit the city’s portal to record the complaint on the city’s website or visit: https://www.sedgwickcounty. and code violations org/mabcd/neighborhood-issues/. For public property issues visit: https://access.wichita.gov/help. Learn about how to use QR codes on page 6.

Some residents don’t have access to resources or have the physical ability to maintain their home. Painting, mowing, and other maintenance is diffi cult for people with impairments, particularly if elderly. The neigh- liates can facilitate a volunteer program Action 2C borhood association and its affi orts. Join the neighborhood association to learn how Organize volunteer efforts for some of these eff to get involved or contact MABCD’s Comunity Liaison for assistance.

Faith-based organizations give back to the neighborhood through Action 2D volunteer eff orts and contributions. Across the country, faith-based u- Launch an organizations in communities are uniting to maximize their infl ence through partnerships and respond to basic human needs. Interfaith-based Coalition DMARC in Des Moines, Iowa began as a Protestant-based organization that grew to include 130 member congregations of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Unitarian. Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are also included. Their joint partnership provides a food pantry network, leadership training, and even a housing stability fund to DRAFT / august 2019 16 prevent families from becoming homeless. tegies theme 2 what the city can do Action 2E Action 2F Create Best Practices ENFORCE THE CODE e guide for improvements

Compelling owners to improve their property involves helping the owner before the citation. However, problem providing “carrots and sticks”. Carrots, like the fi rst properties will be subject to immediate citation.The city action to provide incentives, encourages the owner to can create a best practices guide for informing home- make improvement through assistance. Sticks include owners on third-party funding sources or in-kind servic- sending citations to the owner to correct the problem. es that are already available to them for home improve- Neighbors already consistently request more code ments. Possible funding sources could include churches, enforcement. The city’s intent is to exhaust attempts for neighborhood assiciations, or business coalitions.

Action 2G Grow city-sponsored incentives, loans, grants or tax abatements for home improvements and/or educate homeowners y about third-party programs from other sources.

- The city should improve and expand the current program that provides fi nancial incentives to homeowners for ow home upgrades. This would require an annual budget allocation and would be overseen by a city staff person and/or a community development authority. The program can be targeted in several diff erent ways, depending on the areas of greatest need:

Target Incentives

DRIVEWAY/ GARAGE Roof Repair & SIDING SIDEWALK PAINT REPAIR OR Dump Vouchers Replacement REPLACEMENT REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT

17 DRAFT / August 2019 positioning our neighborhood for reinvestmen

Maintain affordable living a supportive business climate Attract new businessesOUR to GOALS Become a stronger candidate area for small- and mid-sized development

Transition aging and obsolete uses to new uses

DRAFT / august 2019 18 theme 3

r While much of our neighborhood fabric remains strong and contributes to the community, there are areas that need redevelopment and nt infi ll development to build value for the area. WHY? ourvision

We envision a neighborhood that experiences gradual investment along its main corridors with the repurposing of older buildings and possible new construction on some sites. As investment becomes apparent through possible ownership transitions, momentum will shift to increasing investment and renaissance of the neighborhood. The area is considered an aff ordable place to live and the intent of the plan is to retain that as an asset and build off of that strength.

1919 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 THEMEour 1 strat What locals can do residents and businesses

Shopping locally and eating-out at nearby restaurants helps the local fi nd a good business in the neighborhood, con- Action 3A economy. When you sider promoting it to friends and commenting on social media. patronize businesses

Support development projects. As investments for new projects are proposed, residents should consider supporting investments that might stimulate further investment from businesses and compel a homeowner to repair Action 3B their home or property. Not all uses contribute to the neighborhood and support development may even reinforce a stigma that might deter future investments. Residents projects should work through their neighborhood association to create a supportive business climate.

Residents are consumers and recruiters. Many work, nd a shop, restaurant and seek entertainment in other communities. When we fi Action 3C or store that we like, we need to comment to the manager that they should consider being part of the positive changes happening in Recruit businesses South Central.

ed about proposed development (although Property owners of a site are notifi most are not the resident), and so too are the neighborhood associations. Lead- ers in the neighborhood should encourage residents to participate in the plan- Action 3D ning process by committing to better communication. Residents should act as Participate in the planning champions of community projects that better their neighborhood. This commit- process ment to participate in the planning process should be matched by commenting at public hearings.

DRAFT / august 2019 20 tegies theme 3 developers DRAFT Action 1 Consider the goals of this plan

When deciding how to develop or redevelop a site in the South Central Neighborhood, developers should seek input from the city and neighborhood early in the process. Develop- ers should recognize that the neighborhood is vulnerable to gentrifi cation and share how their project addresses the topic. Action 2 Support development of affordable housing

Wichita has a shortage of new aff ordable include vacant lots within the neighbor- housing. The Great Recession led to many hood, underused lots like dilapidated mo- homes being purchased below market rate, tels and car lots, and the northwest area of making it diffi cult for builders to compete in the neighborhood near the riverfront. The the marketplace with the increasing price of redevelopment of the northwest area (see building materials. These conditions have page 27) should be developed as a single left a gap in the city’s inventory of housing project and consider multi-family housing that is aff ordable, which continues to strain and leverage the proximity of the trail as an with the city’s growing labor market. amenity. Candidate sites for aff ordable housing did you know?

Over the last 50 years, industrial businesses grew signifi cantly along the rail lines in the eastern portion of the South Central Neighborhood. Most of these industrial businesses were located on relatively small lots with little or no building setbacks, with residential uses typically only separated by an alley. Industrial businesses continued to grow at a relatively steady pace, and today, nearly all of the properties along the rail lines in the neighborhood are developed with warehouses and other industrial buildings. The lack of buff ers between these industrial businesses and residences is a major issue aff ecting the quality of life of neighborhood residents. Through community activism and leadership, many of the problems that have plagued the South Central Neighborhood have started to be resolved since the 1995 plan was prepared. 21 DRAFT / August 2019 THEME 3 what the city can do

Activate a Community Development Corporation to be involved in the neighborhood. A Community Development Corporation, or t organization that undertakes challenges ranging Action 3E CDC, is a nonprofi Activate Community from providing social services, to developing low-income housing, to Development Corporation initiating commercial and retail activity.

supermarket, aff ordable housing, and college Wichita has several Community Development scholarship. Similarly, Wichita Downtown Corporations that could be models for the Development Corporation is a private 501(c)3 t corporation that focuses on downtown. neighborhood or the neighborhood could be non-profi incorporated as an expansion of their programing. Both organizations focus strictly within their Power CDC focuses on providing community boundaries yet aim to make Greater Wichita an redevelopment in central-northeast Wichita. even better place to live. Establishing a CDC for the The boundaries for their focus include the area South Central area could be an initial beginning from 29th Street to Central Street, from Oliver that broadens to include other neighborhoods with Street to Washington Street. The organization similar needs. has contributed to establishing a full-service

Wichita should consider providing incentives to residential and commercial Action 3F property owners who update and upgrade their facilities, particularly busi- incentive Leverage available nesses so that they can remain competitive in the Metro’s marketplace. Any incentives to be considered for projects should occur prior to the develop- mechanisms to encourage investment, ment review process and should adhere to goals of this plan. like Opportunity Zone and Tax Increment Financing.

The City should consider providing incentives to commercial property owners who upgrade their facilities. Also, developers who nancial exceed assistancethe minimum Action 3G requirements for new projects may need additional fi to ensure success. Projects should build on the surrounding assets and Provide incentives for businesses. Any incentives to be considered for projects should be discussed upgrades to commercial with city staff prior to the development review process. Target incentive properties. areas for investment are shown in the map. Opportunity Zone

Targeted incentive areas are sites that are subject to change. Some of these sites include older motels and car lots. Check out the demonstration for Harry Street and Broadway.

DRAFT / august 2019 22 South Exchange st. Included in the Opportunity Zone Area S. Palisade St.

Greenway Blvd.

Housing Rehab S Gold St. Possible park

W. Clark Street

What is an Opportunity Zone?

The U.S. Department of Treasury as population decline, lack of jobs, and has designated part of the South crumbling infrastructure. The program Central Neighborhood as a Qualifi ed provides deferral and reduction of Opportunity Zone. Opportunity Zones capital gains taxes when the gain is are a new economic development tool invested in a Qualifi ed Opportunity enacted by the Federal Tax Cuts and Fund and maintained for at least fi ve Jobs Act of 2017 that off er local citizens years. Additional tax incentives are the opportunity to invest back into available for investments held for their communities and proactively be periods of seven and 10 years. a part of the solution to problems such

The area designated for an Opportunity Zone includes the area north of Funston Street to downtown and from the Arkansas River to St. Francis Street.

The housing along Clark Street, Incentives in Action 3B should east of the Greenway Boulevard, concentrate on rehabilitation and could be an initial reinvestment new development for the adjacent area. The street, which is now properties. The open lot at Clark O

Opportunity Zone a dirt road, could have gateway Street and Exchange Street could features at Greenway Boulevard be improved to a small park to o d and improved to be walkable yet help facilitate reinvestment. shared with vehicles.

23 DRAFT / August 2019 legend THEME 2 Kellogg avee Northwest Redevelopment Area U.S. Route 400 housing Reinvestment areas active transportation connections parks and green space industrial buffer Gilbert St. Green parking lot

public/civic asset

S main S

S market S S Broadway S S Topeka Ave Topeka S morris st. commercial rehab/redevelopment Retention/maintenance

st. francis st. restore/preserve Lincoln st. Lincoln st. street retrofit study area Baylay St. bikeways East/west entryway corridor commercial activity node “green” connector Sidewalks Neighborhood gateway boston st. arkansas river Opportunity Zone Area

harry st. harry st. Definitions Urban Family Neighborhood osie St. More dense single-family and duplex housing.

Funston st. Housing Reinvestment Areas Area to target incentives and housing programs, Action 2G Retention/Maintenance Retain successful existing busi- Mt. Vernon nesses/buildings. Restore/Preserve Clark ST. Target incentives for restora- tion/preservation. Street Retrofit kinkaid st. Adjust street for two way traffi c with three lane section. See Theme 4. Pawnee St. Green Connector Defi ned trail connections with lighting and trees.

Targeting enhancements for the crossroads of major streets like Harry Street and Broadway could result in a catalytic reaction. The diagram shows how new development could emerge for underused sites to complete gaps and stimulate more activity for the area that would spread to adjacent areas. New construction should be built closer to the street at less than 15 feet from property lines, rather than set back to help frame the district, while parking could be reoriented to serve multiple properties. DRAFT / august 2019 24 THEME 3

s 1 Residential & Mixed- Uses for population to support business 1 2 Street Oriented Buildings 1 3 Upgrade Alleys by 2 lighting and repaving 4 Reconfigure 3 Parking for Efficiency 4

family dollar walgreens

1 S Broadway S

harry street 2 1

4 3

1 4

Harry street & Broadway 1

25 DRAFT / August 2019 THEME 3

The city should facilitate through partnering agencies to acquire obsolete and abandoned properties to manage and transfer for reinvestment, taking cues from the land banking recommendations in the Wichita Places for People Plan. These properties may Action 3H include abandoned buildings, dilapidated motels and used car lots. Assemble property Assembling properties that are contiguous could be later sold to a for redevelopment developer that would build a higher-density development project, such as multi-family housing or mixed-use development. This plan does not commit the city to take action to land bank property.

Adopt design guidelines for new development in older neighborhoods, taking reference from and coordination with the Wichita Places for People Plan. As new development is proposed, the developer should consider the context and character of the neighborhood. The Delano Neighborhood Plan includes design Action 3I guidelines for new construction. These guidelines can be adapted for other older Adopt design guidelines neighborhoods in Wichita like South Central and be approved as an amendment to the city’s zoning regulations. Conditions to consider include the architectural for new development in t the older neighborhoods style, setback, and garage. For example, conventional suburban at roof lines homes do not with fi ga- rages in front (snout houses) and modern homes with fl architectural character of the historic neighborhood and should be prohibited.

orts by including This plan must build from previous planning eff Action 3J the Land Use Guide Map and Locational Guidelines. This action Maintain and enforce the allows the city to provide guidance for decision-making when Land Use Guide Map and proposals for new development are received. Locational Guidelines

DRAFT / august 2019 26 northwest area development idea

The northwest area of the South Central Neighborhood is a possible opportunity for a redevelopment project that could be used for new housing that leverages the existing street network. 3

W. Indianapolis

1 Single-family dwellings e 2 2 bi-attached housing

1 Ave. S. Waco 3 townhomes

4 commons arkansas river 4 Gilbert St. 5 lighted riverfront 5 pathway

Morris St.

27 DRAFT / August 2019 THEME 3 Land usE CATEGORIES

The administrative function of this plan needs a Future Land Use Map. Many of the land use categories refl ect existing land uses in the neighborhood as the neighborhood is well-established. Other land use categories refl ect the desired outcomes of neighborhood redevelopment.

Low-Density Residential Industrial The predominate land use in the neighborhood is low- Industrial consist of employment-based uses, such as density residential, which consists of single-family, manufacturing, research, and warehousing. Resource detached dwellings that are typically developed at a gross processing industries should be limited to locations where density of less than 10 dwelling units per acre. Accessory appropriate buff ers from residential uses are provided. dwelling units and duplexes could be appropriate in locations where compatibility with surrounding single- Institutional family uses can be maintained. This plan intends to protect existing low-density residential uses from encroachment Institutional includes schools, non-profi t agencies, by incompatible land uses. churches, museums, and government facilities. Compact residential parks & open space

Compact residential includes residential areas with a gross Park and Open Spaces include developed parks and public density of 10 dwelling units per acre or more. Multiple open space including Lincoln Park and riverfront. dwelling units are appropriate and include: single-fami- commercial redevelopment node ly detached, single-family attached, duplex, townhouse, and apartment. Existing individual residential properties Commercial Redevelopment Node includes lots fronting developed with compact residential uses are not shown on Broadway that can be combined with lots across the alley the “Land Use Guide Map.” Rather, this category indicates to create a larger redevelopment project. Commercial areas of contiguous development of numerous small lots or uses may include medium-intensity commercial, such as large individual lots with compact residential uses. community-destination retail and restaurant uses that Mixed-use Residential are developed in a node rather than a strip commercial pattern. The node should have consolidated access points Mixed-use residential includes areas originally developed to public streets, and commercial structures should with low-density residential uses that have transitioned be interconnected and constructed with high-quality to commercial use due to strip commercial zoning along architecture and landscaping. arterial streets. Commercial development for low-intensity uses is encouraged and includes: offi ce, neigh- Residential redevelopment district borhood-serving commercial uses, and specialty retail. Mixing commercial and residential uses is encouraged, Residential Redevelopment District includes a specifi c such as apartments located above shops or offi ces. Com- opportunity area where residential redevelopment con- mercial uses that preserve existing single-family structures sisting of multi-family, townhouse-style dwellings linked are particularly encouraged. by pedestrian greenways to the proposed East Bank River commercial Center and WaterWalk is encouraged. Northwest Redevelopment Area Commercial development are located at major intersections, along highways and arterial streets. These The Northwest Redevelopment includes a specifi c area areas can support higher-intensity commercial uses such where mixed-use redevelopment is encouraged along the as auto-oriented retail, major retail, and/or offi ce centers riverfront. Uses shown in the concept on page 27 include and regional-serving commercial uses, including chain bi-attached housing and small lot single family residential. hotels and restaurants. Bi-attached housing is residential development similar to a duplex, but with lot line separating units.

DRAFT / august 2019 28 Future Land Use Map

legend Commercial Redevelopment Node Northwest Development Area Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Park and Open space institutional study area

29 DRAFT / August 2019 LOCATIONTHEME 3 GUIDELINES

Policies of the Land Use Plan are intended to protect existing low-density residential uses from encroachment by incompatible land uses. The Guidelines represent best planning practices that encourage desirable patterns of development, strive for compatibility of land use, and promote attractive urban design principles. The guidelines establish the framework Land Use Guide Map and provide policy guidance for future decisions for rezoning and changes to development standards while being fl exible.

DRAFT / august 2019 30 The “Location Guidelines” of the South Central Neighborhood Land Use Plan supplement the “Location Guidelines” contained in The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. Where the “Location Guidelines” of the South Central Neighborhood Land Use Plan and The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan are inconsistent, the “Location Guidelines” of the South Central Neighborhood Land Use Plan apply.

The “Least Desirable Land Uses” for the neighborhood The “Property Development Standards,” include motels, bars, used car lots, and resource “Supplementary Use Regulations,” and “Site processing industries. Development Regulations” of Wichita-Sedgwick County Unifi ed Zoning Code and the requirements The “Most Desirable Land Uses” for the of the “Landscape Ordinance” and “Sign Code” Neighborhood include residential, parks and open should be strictly followed for the “Least Desirable space, institutional uses, neighborhood-serving Land Uses” or any land use proposed to be retail, specialty retail, restaurants, medical services, established in a manner that is inconsistent with professional offi ces, personal care/improvement the recommendations of the “Land Use Guide services, and high-employment commercial and Map” and “Locational Guidelines.” A reduction or industrial uses. waiver of these requirements should be reserved for “Least Desirable Land Uses” should be restricted to instances where the use of an existing single-family properties that currently permit the use by-right. residential structure is converted to commercial Changes in zoning classifi cation and approval of use in an area identifi ed as appropriate for “Mixed- Conditional Use Permits that allow “Least Desirable Use Commercial” on the “Land Use Guide Map” Land Uses” are strongly discouraged. or for instances where a “Most Desirable Land Use” is proposed to locate in accordance with the Changes in zoning classifi cation and approval of recommendations of the “Land Use Guide Map” and Conditional Use Permits should be accompanied “Locational Guidelines.” by conditions of approval, if necessary, to mitigate any negative impacts of signage, traffi c, lighting, Any reduction or waiver of the requirements of the and noise on adjacent properties; to encourage “Property Development Standards,” “Supplementary architectural compatibility with the surrounding Use Regulations,” “Site Development Standards,” area; and to establish landscaping, screening, and/or “Landscape Ordinance,” or “Sign Code” should be buff ering to maintain compatibility among uses. accompanied by conditions of approval, if necessary, to mitigate any negative impacts of signage, Changes in zoning classifi cation in areas indicated traffi c, lighting, and noise on adjacent properties; as appropriate for “Mixed-Use Commercial” to encourage architectural compatibility with the on the “Land Use Guide Map” should be to NR, surrounding area; and to establish landscaping, Neighborhood Retail or a more restrictive zoning screening, and/or buff ering to maintain compatibility classifi cation. among uses.

The preservation of historic resources is particularly encouraged, including adaptive reuse in accordance with the “Land Use Guide Map” and “Locational Guidelines.”

31 DRAFT / August 2019 enhancing the experience of moving around the neighborhood

OUR GOALS

Improve the appearance and function of major corridors

Create a connected sidewalk network, especially along arterial roads, schools, parks, rails, river, and retail Provide safe and pleasant streets that allow travel by car, foot, or bicycle

DRAFT / august 2019 32 theme 4

Streets are South Central’s largest public space, provide the fi rst impression for many visitors and have a daily impact on how people view their area.

Well-maintained street, landscaping, street furniture, public art, and other attractive features should be considered an investment in community character and a tool to attract customers and development.

Streets should be safe and accommodate walkers, bicyclists, and bus riders, as well as drivers. The physical design of streets infl uences the behaviors and safety of all users. Wide, multi-lane, one-way streets encourage speeding and should be calmed through design. The fi rst impression of the South Central Neighborhood, by way of Main Street, has long been a concern for neighborhood pride and is arguably a

WHY? deterrent for some to invest in nearby businesses and homes. Improving the corridor, even if subtle changes, will improve the street’s appearance and thereby infl uence perceptions of the area. ourvision

We envision a refreshed front door to the neighborhood that conveys that the health of the area is changing – improving for the better. The commitment for improvement is matched between the city, its businesses and residents to give the neighborhood a comfortable feel for walking and bicycling, attracting people who want to have the convenience of living near downtown yet have access to a variety of retail services.

3333 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 THEME 4 What locals can do

update the Action 4A neighborhood brand

Cites oft en update their logo and brand. Similarly, South Central should update their brand to identify themselves on banners, fl yers and general marketing. lobby for circulation Action 4B enhancements

The city has many street improvement projects that are overseen by the Bicycle and Pe- destrian Advisory Board and residents can campaign for their projects to become a higher priority. This plan presents possible enhancements that can be implemented over time. Yet without engagement from the residents and businesses, the projects may take further time to realize. Likewise, residents can campaign the city to prepare a lighting study. report street & sidewalk Action 4C deficiencies to the city Let the city know about trouble spots for vehicle confl icts and poor conditions, or where there is a lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle routes. Oft en issues are unknown and need to be brought to the attention of administrators. Residents can report public property defi ciencies to the Access Wichita website. The city will inspect the problems and program for their improvement. However, reporting issues does not obligate the city to resolve it with various other funding priorities. Action 4D turn on the porch light

Adding additional lighting along neighborhood streets is a signifi cant expense for the neighborhood. However, neighborhood streets with porch lights turned on provides better visibility and sense of security.

DRAFT / august 2019 34 community investments plan

“Take better care of what we already have. Similarly, this plan identifi es possible improvements for infl uencing people’s perception of the area.” - Resident. 3535 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 our strategie What THE CITY can do

“The redesign of Main Street retains the curb in place and converts the street from one-way to two-way circulation with a center turn-lane. The median or non-elevated median similar to the Douglas Design District could be established to provide landscaping and vehicle separation. Ensuring a continuous sidewalk setback from the curb allows for a landscaped edge and space for walkers.” Action 4E Prioritize circulation improvements to study improvements in more detail The city has many improvement projects throughout the city. One or several concepts in this plan could be advanced for further study and implementation through its Capital Improvement Program. Action 4F Redesign MainStreet Converting Main Street from one-way to two-way will provide greater accessibility for moving along one of South Central’s major corridors.

DRAFT / august 2019 36 theme 4 es st. francis

E CLARK ST. playground

recreational Trail field

Clark CommonsConcept Action 4G Build new sidewalks that connect major institutions. The redevelopment concept on page 24 identifi es critical pathways that connect some of South Central’s civic institutions, including school, churches, and social services. Establishing this spine route can lend a framework that feeds into adjacent neighborhood streets, providing greater connectivity. Action 4H Facilitate a ReTree Program. Many of Wichita’s older neighborhoods have mature trees lining the street. In some places, trees have died leaving a gap in the neighborhood’s tree canopy. Having a canopy of trees is desirable for all neighborhood streets. As a first priority, planting trees along major collectors will have significant influence on the perception of the adjacent neighborhood by both residents and visitors. Also, creating a pleasant approach to schools and parks will encourage parents to select South Central as their new neighborhood as they are prospecting houses to raise their children. Action 4I Improve street lighting Street lighting for South Central meets the city’s standard spacing, yet residents feel that lighting is insuffi cient. Dark areas contribute to people’s perceived sense of safety for the area. The city should study converting lights to LED and phasing in more lights to collector and local streets.

37 DRAFT / August 2019 CREATING PLACES FOR ALL our Goals Establish a series of green spaces for new neighborhood open space

Transform our alleys from areas of detractions to attractions

rfront and downtown Celebrate our proximity to the rive

DRAFT / august 2019 38 theme 5

The South Central Neighborhood has several signature public spaces for gatherings like the Fire Fighters Museum, Lincoln Park, and Herman Hill Park. Despite these, the neighborhood has signifi cantly less park space than the city’s standard and residents frequently comment that they want more convenient spaces sprinkled throughout the area. Our public spaces are opportunities where people can interact, play, and enjoy the outdoors, especially with our proximity to one of the city’s greatest resources - the river! WHY? ourvision

We envision a neighborhood where people walk to parks routinely and for special events, visit with their neighbors while strolling down the street, tend to community gardens, and explore the Riverfront connecting to downtown and across the river. Our neighborhood is alive!

3939 DDRAFTRAFT / AAugustugust 22019019 THEME 5

what Locals can do?

Action 5A Develop a Plan for the Boston Commons Pilot Project

A frequent statement by residents is the lack of convenience to park spaces in the neighborhood. Lincoln Park, Herman Hill Park, and OJ Watson Park are accessible, yet are more oft en places to drive to rather than walk. The concept of building commons throughout the neighborhood emerged as a possible solution.

What are these commons? program Commons convert a section of the street from the The program for each commons can be unique. alley to the cross street. The alley itself can be im- Establishing the program and design warrants proved for pedestrians to support greater connection their own process and should have buy-in from into surrounding blocks. The commons could be neighbors. Some spaces may be passive areas with mirrored on both sides of the cross street to create an fl owers and walkways, while others may be active even larger space. with playgrounds.

The commons pilot project will only be realized possible locations through strong support from residents. The residents Commons include areas along Boston, Funston, and adjacent to each space gain a park next to their home Clark. Other locations can be considered. as an amenity for themselves and future owners, while residents in the neighborhood gain a new loca- Boston Street tion for them to be outdoors. • Between Water Street and Waco Street • Between St. Francis Street and Topeka Avenue The pilot project can begin as a temporary installation that could be retained or returned to its original Funston Street state aft er its pilot status. Alternatively, the pilot • Between Palisade Street and Wichita Street could become a permanent installation, enhanced with more amenities and durable features. The func- • Between St Francis St and Topeka Avenue tionality and performance of the space could warrant additional commons being constructed in the neigh- Clark Street borhood. • Between Emporia Street and St. Francis Street

DRAFT / august 2019 40 This is just a concept, an idea of one possibility.

boston commons possibility

Boston Commons Area Commons Area

Boston St E harry st.

Boston Ave. Funston St

Commons Area Commons Area

Mt. Vernon

Clark ST.

West Clark St. Commons Area 41 DRAFT / August 2019 THEME 5

Trail playground d a

Clark CommonsConceptr g alley upgrade emporia avenue

what can the city do?

Pending neighborhood interest, the city could advance the study of the Boston Commons as a pilot project, a linear park on Boston Street. Aft er the project’s completion, the city will need to evaluate its usage c to determine if the pilot project is a template Action 5B and impact on traffi Commit to studying the Boston for exploring future Commons in the community. Any future design Commons Pilot Project should include nearby residents to determine the space’s feasibility and use.

cant natural amenity for the City of Wichita The Arkansas River is a signifi that has been leveraged as a catalyst for reinvestment in downtown. Likewise, it could be leveraged to stimulate investment in the South Action 5C Central Neighborhood while providing greater connectivity in the Create a continuous community. The trail along the river stretches from South Riverside Park, past Veterans Park and A Price Woodward Jr Park to the Lincoln pathway from the dam Street at Bayley Street. From here, the trail follows the railroad tracks to Herman Hill Park east to end at St. Francis Street. A plan should be developed to explore the continuation of the trail adjacent to the riverfront.

DRAFT / august 2019 42 recreational field st. francis avenue st.

The timeline for commissioning a study and building the riverfront trail is uncertain. As an interim step, Palisade Street from the railroad Action 5D tracks to Harry Street should be signed as a connector route to Implement interim Herman Hill Park. Signage should direct users where to cross Harry Street to link to Greenway Boulevard bytted way for of active an upgraded transportation. alley. The riverfront pathway Greenway Boulevard should be retrofi Existing Trail Railroad

bicycle boulevard s palisade st. s palisade

New Riverfront trail s palisade st. s palisade

s Harry st. alley upgrade greenway boulevard connection 43 DRAFT / August 2019 THEME 4 what can the city do? (CONTINUED)

Greenway Boulevard is a wide street that could accommodate an on- street pathway. Restriping the street and even painting the pathway Action 5E will alert motorists of the presence of slower-moving space. Some cities have placed bollards and temporary curbs between the trail and Retrofit Greenway Boulevard traffi c lane to create further separation. This improvement could be transportation for active an interim solution to a later permanent trail following the roadway.

phase 1: interim retrofit

Greenway Boulevard Looking North retrofit

phase 2: riverfront trail addition

trail addition

DRAFT / august 2019 44 THEME 5

The open lot at the southeast corner of Clark Street and Exchange Street could be converted into a small Action 5F neighborhood park that sits adjacent to an improved Clark Street. The street itself can be a continuation of Build Clark Park the park, designed for pedestrians and leading to the new riverfront trail. our parks!

Lincoln Park and Herman Hill Park are South Central Neighborhood’s signature parks.

Lincoln Park, a 2.7-acre park, is located on Broadway, immediately south of the Bayley rail and pedestrian pathway. It contains the Kansas Firefi ghters Museum, an interactive Lincoln Park water fountain, and playground equipment.

Herman Hill Park, a 31.5-acre park, is located at Broadway and Pawnee contains the Water Center, a disc golf course, and playground equipment.

Herman Hill Park

A skate park is located underneath the Kellogg overpass at St. Francis.

In addition to parks, the South Central Neighborhood has open space along the Arkansas River, which runs the along the entire western and southern borders of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is also served by pedestrian and bicycle paths that run through the Bayley rail corridor, and is indirectly served by a path along the west bank of the skate park Arkansas River. 45 DRAFT / August 2019 legend THEME 2 Kellogg avee THEME 5 Urban Family Neighborhood U.S. Route 400 housing Reinvestment areas active transportation connections parks and green space industrial buffer Gilbert St. Green parking lot

public/civic asset

S main S

S market S S Broadway S S Topeka Ave Topeka S morris st. commercial rehab/redevelopment Retention/maintenance

harry stst. harry st. COLN PAR LIN K

osie St.

Funston st.

Mt. Vernon AL BAPTIST U CH AN U M R M C Clark ST. I H

kinkaid st.

Pawnee St.

ONT RFR TRA VE IL RI

Invest in Quality of Our Community Life The people of the South Central Neighborhood have a lot to celebrate and we want more.

DRAFT / august 2019 46 Acknowledgements

Funding for this project is provided by the City Council District 3 Neighborhood Grant and was administered by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Planning Department. Special thanks to the residents and businesses of the South Central Neighborhood for their commitment and excitement for seeing the betterment of their community.

MAYOR SOUTH CENTRAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Jeff Longwell Adam Barlow-Thompson, Representing the Neighboring Movement CITY COUNCIL Jackie Landen, Representing the Neighborhood Association Nolan Nez, Representing District III Brandon Johnson, District I Cindy Miles, Representing the MAPC Becky Tuttle, District II James Clendenin, District III David Gear, Representing Local Non-Profi t Jeff Blubaugh, District IV Catherine Johnson, Representing DAB III Bryan Frye, District V Jeff Jones, Representing Local Developer Cindy Claycomb, District VI Teresa Cooks, Representing District III STAFF Richard Schodorf, Representing Local Developer Pastor Ricardo Harris, Representing Local Church Matthew Williams, Project Manager Scott Knebel AICP, Planning Manager Supporting Documentation Mary M. Hunt AICP, Principal Planner Visit the city’s website to view the existing conditions report Consultant Team and survey results that contributed to the development of RDG Planning & Design this plan. www.RDGUSA.com

Professional Engineering Consultants www.PEC1.com

47 DRAFT / August 2019 did you know?

The South Central Neighborhood is one of Wichita’s oldest neighborhoods. By the early 1900s most of the South Central Neighborhood had been subdivided for urban development, and the neighborhood was a rapidly growing residential neighborhood served by street car lines trans- porting people to their jobs in downtown and throughout the community.

One of the feature attractions of the early neigh- The tremendous growth in the use of the automo- borhood was the Fair Grounds, which were located bile during the 1950s and 1960s resulted in signif- along the east bank of the Arkansas River near the icant changes to the South Central Neighborhood. south end of the neighborhood (in close proximity As traffi c increased on Highway 81, many of the to present-day Pawnee Avenue). houses along the highway were torn down and were replaced with highway-serving commercial For decades, the South Central Neighborhood was businesses such as motels, restaurants, and service almost exclusively a residential neighborhood, with stations. By the 1970s, most of the properties along some small, predominately neighborhood-serving, the highway had been converted from residential to businesses located primarily along major streets commercial use. The same also occurred along U.S. and a few industrial businesses located along rail Highway 54 aft er it was routed along Kellogg Ave- lines. The residential areas were almost fully devel- nue at the north end of the neighborhood during oped prior to World War II, while the remainder of the 1960s. In the 1980s, the rerouting of Highway 81 the housing was constructed in the south end of the along the newly opened I-135 decreased the demand neighborhood during the post-World War II hous- for commercial businesses along Broadway. Many ing boom. Today, the South Central Neighborhood of the motels became havens for prostitution and remains predominately a residential neighborhood many service stations and other businesses became consisting primarily of single-family houses. How- vacant, many of which subsequently were convert- ever, the routing of U.S. Highway 81 (present-day ed to used car lots. These changes had signifi cant Broadway Avenue) and the rail lines led to changes and detrimental impacts on the South Central in the character of the neighborhood over the last Neighborhood and are some of the major issues 50 years. Today, the neighborhood also contains a that community leaders have been working hard to large number of commercial businesses and indus- address for decades. trial enterprises that serve the region.

DRAFT / august 2019 48 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.2 STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019

CASE NUMBER: CON2019-00043

APPLICANT: Doreen and Paul Hardiman (owners & applicants)

REQUEST: Kennel, boarding, breeding and training

CURRENT ZONING: SF-20 Single Family Residential

SITE SIZE: 4.5 acres

LOCATION: Approximately ¾ miles east of South Rock Road and approximately ½ mile south of East 39th Street South (East MacArthur Road). (9025 E 42nd Street south.

PROPOSED USE: To operate a dog training and boarding kennel. BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use approval for a “kennel, boarding/breeding/training” use to continue operating a training and boarding kennel in her personal residence. The property is addressed as 9025 East 42nd Street South and is generally located three-quarters of a mile east of South Rock Road and one-half mile south of East 39th Street South (East MacArthur Road). The subject site is zoned SF-20 Single Family Residential and is four and one-half acres in size.

The applicant is a certified professional dog trainer and has been training for 12 years. She has operated out of this location since July 2017. She is seeking a Conditional Use after she was cited by a Zoning/Nuisance Inspector who instructed her to do so.

The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) defines Kennel, Boarding/Breeding/Training as:

Premises that houses five or more Adult Dogs, three or more of which are owned by someone other than the property resident, and premises housing over ten Adult Dogs.

The UZC allows Kennel, Boarding/Breeding/Training by Conditional Use approval in the SF-20 zoning district. However, the use is subject to the Supplemental Use Regulations portion of the code as well. Per Art. III Sec. III- D.6.k.:

1. The minimum lot size for Boarding/Breeding/Training Kennels shall be five acres, unless all animals are harbored indoors with no discernible noise or odor at the property lines.

2. Outside runs, holding pens or other open-air type enclosures and shelters shall be located behind the Front Setback Line and located at least 200 feet from any Dwelling Unit other than the Owner’s and at least 50 feet from Contiguous property lines.

3. Screening shall be provided except for those facilities located 600 feet or more from Contiguous property lines. Screening shall be provided by Structure, solid or semi solid Fencing, landscape materials, earth berms or natural Site features maintained for the purpose of concealing the view of the animals behind such (screening)... from activities on Contiguous properties. (See attachments for full description of property screening from Sec.III-D.6.k (3)).

The applicant currently conducts group training sessions in an accessory structure on the property. This structure is separated from the main residence by a paved courtyard that is suitable to accommodate the necessary parking for her training classes. The classes have 6 sessions each that run year-round with a one to two week break in between. The classes during the week have the following schedule. These classes are for up to 6 dogs. These dogs are only on premises during the time of their class. • Classes are 45 minutes to 1 hour in length • 4 classes held 2 days per week in the evening with 2 classes each day started at 6pm and 7:30pm. • 1-2 classes held during the day, 4 days per week during the day starting at either 9:00am or 1:00pm or both. • 2-4 classes held during the weekend with 1-2 classes each day starting at 8:00am and 9:30am.

She indicated that class times can depending on the season as there are times of year where business is naturally slow. All but one class is held inside with the exception of the Loose Leash Walking class which is held outside during 2 of the 4 weeks. It generally is only held once per year. Though this class is outside, the dogs are required to remain silent. The class takes place inside an enclosed dog run.

The applicant would like to add additional services to her business in the near future. She would like to provide dog Socialization sessions—where dogs are taught good behavior around other dogs and social skills. She proposes to have 1-2 classes per week. Additionally, she is considering the opportunity to provide a boarding and training

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 service for up to 4 dogs. The boarding and training would be held exclusively inside except for when the dogs are brought outside to relieve themselves, for which she will be present at all times. The dogs that are boarded are not counted in the previously discussed class numbers.

The applicant’s property is 4 and one-half acres which does not meet the threshold set forth in the supplemental use regulations. The application is requesting a waiver of the minimum 5 acre lot size requirement. As seen on the site plan, all distances to nearby dwelling units and contiguous property lines are in compliance with the Supplemental Use Regulations. Dwelling units are at least 200 feet away and contiguous property lines are at least 50 feet away. The current fence for the designated outdoor dog run associated with the business is a solid-screened fence on all sides but the south side. That side is a wrought-iron fence. This does not meet the minimum standard set forth in the supplemental use regulations. The applicant is also requesting to have screening requirement waived for the south property line since it is undeveloped, agricultural land. If this request is denied, then the screening will need to be upgraded to a material and opacity as required in by Sec. III-D.6.k.(3). The property has additional chain-link fenced in areas that are used for the applicant’s personal dogs. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the screening requirement set forth in the Code.

Properties north, east, and west of the site are zoned SF-20 and are developed with single family homes built on lots of similar size or larger. Property to the south is zoned SF-20 is undeveloped, agricultural land.

CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted. There is no other case history for this property.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: SF-20 Large lot single family residential South: SF-20 Agricultural uses. East: SF_20 Large lot single family residential West: SF-20 Large lot single family residential

PUBLIC SERVICES: East 42nd Street South is a gravel local street with 70 feet of right-of-way and a 25-foot bidirectional travel lane. East 39th Street South (East MacArthur Road) is a paved, 2-lane County arterial. The property is part of Rural Water District III and uses a septic sewer system with lagoon.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, The Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as being located inside the 2035 urban growth areas for Wichita and the small cities. The Plan describes these areas as “adjacent to Wichita that are primarily undeveloped but have the potential to be developed by the year 2035.” The site is depicted as suitable for residential uses. This indicates that site is suitable for the full range of residential development. The UZC permits boarding, breeding and training kennels with Conditional Use approval, subject to Supplementary Use Regulation Section III-D.6.k noted above, unless modified or waived by the County Commission upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The Conditional Use shall permit a “kennel, boarding/breeding/training for up to 10 dogs at any given time for training sessions in addition to up to 4 dogs for boarding. All dogs shall be accompanied outdoors at all times. Dogs shall only be outside for the duration of an appropriate training session and/or to relieve themselves. Any outdoor training shall be confined to a property screened dog run. No dogs shall be boarded outdoors overnight. 2. The minimum lot size shall be waived and the screening requirement shall be waived for the south property line following approval from the Board of County Commission. CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan for review and approval by the Planning Director within 30 days of approval. 4. The kennel shall be developed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the approved site plan and with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, resolutions, or statutes. 5. The kennel shall have on file proof of rabies vaccinations for all dogs harbored at the facility. 6. Cleaning of the boarding kennel facility shall be performed as often as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. A suitable method of eliminating excessive water from any kennel enclosures shall be provided. Interior surface materials shall be constructed of a non-porous materials or materials approved by The Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department. (MABCD) 7. Sufficient quantities of food and water shall be provided to keep the dogs in good physical health. The animals shall be fed at least once daily and provided clean water at all times. Food and water containers shall be located to minimize contamination and shall be cleaned as often as necessary to maintain sanitary conditions. 8. All waste materials shall be disposed of in such a manner to minimize odors and disease hazards. The kennel shall be maintained in a sanitary manner as required by applicable codes. All solid waste generated by the kennel must be removed from the site. 9. The animals confined in the kennel shall be maintained in good physical condition, free of infectious disease and parasites. 10. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits including, but not limited to, building, health, and zoning. 11. The boarding facility shall be open to the unannounced inspection by MABCD personnel during normal business hours. 12. The Conditional Use shall be valid for 5 years. Upon which the Conditional Use shall need to be renewed or it shall be considered null and void. The renewal of the Conditional Use can be done by Administrative Adjustment. 13. If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare the Conditional Use null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Properties north, east, and west of the site are zoned SF-20 and are developed with single family homes built on lots of similar size or larger. Property to the south is zoned SF-20 is undeveloped, agricultural land.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned SF-20, which permits boarding, breeding and training kennels with Conditional Use approval.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of the request should not detrimentally impact adjacent properties provided the kennel is developed, operated and maintained in compliance with Code requirements and conditions of approval.

4. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant: Approval would provide the public with additional kennel and training services. Denial would presumably represent a loss of economic opportunity to the applicant.

5. Opposition or support of neighborhood residents: At the time this report was prepared, staff received one comment with concerns regarding noise, increased traffic, and possible reduction in property value.

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 6. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, The Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as being located inside the 2035 urban growth areas for Wichita and the small cities. The Plan describes these areas as “adjacent to Wichita that are primarily undeveloped but have the potential to be developed by the year 2035.” The site is depicted as suitable for residential uses. This indicates that site is suitable for the full range of residential development. The UZC permits boarding, breeding and training kennels with Conditional Use approval, subject to Supplementary Use Regulation Section III-D.6.k noted above, unless modified or waived by the County Commission upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The size of this kennel and training facility may produce an increase in local traffic. Existing street infrastructure is adequate to handle the increase.

Attachements 1. Screening Supplemental Use Regulation UZC Section III.D.6.k (3) 2. Aerial Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Site Plan with Distance Study

Supplemental Use Regulations for “Kennel, Boarding/Breeding/Training and Hobby Screening

UZC Section III.D.6.k (3)

(3) Screening. Screening shall be provided except for those facilities located 600 feet or more from Contiguous property lines. Screening shall be provided by Structure, solid or semi-solid Fencing, landscape materials, earth berms or natural Site features maintained for the purpose of concealing the view of the animals behind such Fence, landscape material, berm or natural feature from activities on Contiguous properties. If Fencing is used, it shall not be less than four nor more than eight feet in height. If Fences over six feet in height, landscape materials or earth berms are used, a plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator. Fences used for Screening may have no more than five percent open surface. Landscape materials must provide the desired Screening effect within the first growing season following installation and throughout the year every year thereafter.

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 8

CON2019-00043 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 9 CON2019-00043 Statements of Support

From: Eskew, Debbie D Lt Col USAF 193 SOW (USA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:34 AM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: CON2019-00043

This letter is in support of K9 Kudos. My goldendoodle was very timid and he attended private classes for socialization and obedience training. The facility was very safe and my the location helped him to feel safe since there was no traffic. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 316-239-8701

Thank you for your consideration

Debbie Eskew

From: Brittany Reed [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 6:11 PM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: In Regards to:CON2019-00043,

To Whom It May Concern, First, let me introduce myself. I’m a school psychologist and have extensive background in behavioral modification. When choosing a socialization group for my very hyperactive Boston Terrier puppy, I did my research on trainers who use best behavioral practice. She was the only person who met those high standards. Mrs. Hardiman’s business provides dog socialization classes that not impact the families she works with but enhances the communities awareness of how to socialize dogs as well as how to interact and approach unfamiliar dogs. To lose the ability to train and socialize dogs would be a detrimental loss to large community of individuals she reaches.

My dog would be an unsocialized mess if not for her patience in training us both. Please consider the continuation of her business so she can continue making an impact for the greater good of the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Brittany Reed, Ed.S

From: Durrel Kelley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:57 PM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: Case # CON2019-00043al

I wanted to make a positive recommendation for Doreen Hardiman - We have a new golden retriever pup and have taken two training classes with Doreen. During these classes we received invaluable input from Doreen that has benefited both our pup and my wife and I. We will be considering more advanced classes in the future. Doreen is very professional and imparts a lot of wisdom through her training.

Durrel E Kelley

Senior VP of Operations Great Plains Health Alliance, Inc. [email protected] M 316-841-6884 PH 316-685-1523

From: Tim Brown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:55 AM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: K9 kudos

I am writing to you to encourage K9 kudos daycare to be reopened. Case number CON2019-00043. My dog is missing playing there. Doreen runs a top notch business and the dogs are so well taken care of and she is so knowledgeable about dog behavior. My dog would become so excited upon hitting her road each time we went and we are very sad to see it closed and eager to get my baby girl back in there. Thank you for your time. Sarah Brown

From: RaNee Chronister [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 2:44 PM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: Case CON2019-00043 - Mrs. Doreen Hardiman

Ranee Chronister

[email protected]

C: 316.258.9675

November 20, 2019

Via Email: [email protected]

Case: CON2019-00043

I’m writing this letter of support for Doreen Hardiman.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates half of all children 12 years of age and under have been bitten by a dog. That’s an opportunity for education that anyone who loves kids and dogs simply cannot ignore. Studies show that educating kids on how to act around dogs significantly increases appropriate behavior.

Doreen is extremely knowledgeable regarding dog training and is excellent at educating the public about dogs. Our surrounding community benefits from Doreen’s knowledge through her community service by teaching bite prevention for school age children - I Speak Doggie and Dog Stars programs which focuses on teaching kids how to RESPECT dogs – whether they own one or not. In addition, she teaches pet CPR training, basic/advanced obedience training, and addresses behavioral issues with dogs. A win-win for people and dogs!

Doreen’s location makes training convenient to the residents of south, southeast Wichita, and surrounding cities. Her training facility is one of the nicest, cleanest, modern, and dog friendly facilities that I’ve seen. I know this because, Doreen has helped us with our dog Rose. Rose was abused prior to us adopting her from a local pet rescue. With Doreen’s help through training, Rose is starting to trust people again. A huge feat. I'm forever grateful to Doreen for all her support!

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ranee Chronister C: 316.258.9675 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 8:24 AM To: Pagan, Betsy Subject: Case # CON2019-00043

I am writing on behalf of a very wonderful lady named Doreen Hardiman. I wanted to tell you how wonderful her facility is and how amazing she is with her clients and their 4 legged loves of our lives. She works so hard to help our pets be on their best behavior and she works with pets that we thought would never learn to be a good pet and she has made the most amazing 4 legged friends out of each of them. Just please know she is a wonderful lady and has done so much to fix this place to be the best training facility anywhere around for so many.

She has gone through many certified classes to be where she is today. We sure don’t’ want to lose this special place for our animals to learn and play. I hope we can save K-9 Kudos.

Thank you

Jeannie Vangas

AGENDA ITEM NO. _____

STAFF REPORT

MAPC: December 5, 2019 DAB IV: December 2, 2019

CASE NUMBER: CON2019-00044

APPLICANT/AGENT: Manuel Roman Cortez (Applicant)

REQUEST: Conditional Use for Outdoor Vehicle Sales

CURRENT ZONING: LC Limited Commercial

SITE SIZE: 0.66 acres

LOCATION: On the northeast corner of South Meridian Avenue and West Harry Street.

PROPOSED USE: Outdoor Vehicle Sales

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 1 BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use to allow outdoor vehicle sales on property zoned LC Limited Commercial generally located on the northeast corner of South Meridian Avenue and West Harry Street. The property is currently undeveloped and has no address. The property has two drive entrances to the paved areas on the east and west sides in addition to alley access on the east. As seen on the site plan, the applicant intends to pave the middle portion of the site, construct a 10-foot by 6-foot office, and display up to 6 cars on the west side of the property. The site will provide one employee parking space and 2 customer parking spaces, one of which will be accessible. Access to the employee parking spaces will be from the western driveway. Access to the customer parking will be through the alley, which means the eastern driveway shall be closed. Per the Unified Zoning Code (UZC), outdoor vehicle and equipment sales may be permitted with a conditional use in the LC zoning district. Vehicle repair will not be provided as part of the car sales business on this site. Outdoor vehicle and equipment sales uses are subject to supplementary use regulations control in UZC Section III-D.6.x. which are attached to this staff report.

The property to the north has an abandoned motel, which was constructed approximately 2-3 feet north of the contiguous property line with exterior doors fronting the sidewalk that abuts the property line. Parking barriers will need to be put in place to ensure display vehicles do not encroach over the property line. The site plan shows the location of the proposed office being built on this north property line. Given the close proximity of the neighboring structure, a setback of 5 feet shall be imposed on the north property line of the subject property. UZC Section III- B.14.d.(5) permits structures in the LC zoning district to have a zero-foot interior side setback, but if a setback is required, it shall be at least 5 feet. The site plan also indicates that a sign will be installed along South Meridian. The sign shall comply with the Wichita Sign Code.

Property north of the site is zoned LC Limited Commercial and is the abandoned motel. Property east across the alley from the site is zoned TF-3 Two Family Residential and is single family home. West of the site is zoned LC and is a vehicle repair shop with a Conditional Use for vehicle sales (CON2004-00043). Property south of the site is zoned LC and is a drinking establishment with a Conditional Use for a Night Club in the City within 300 feet of residential zoning (CON2016-00012). Southeast across the intersection is zoned LC and is a flooring discount store. This property also has Conditional Use approval for used vehicle sales (CON2000-00025) even though the site it currently is not being used in that manner.

CASE HISTORY: The site is platted as Lot 91, Meridian Block, Stiles & Smith Addition in 1887.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: LC Abandoned Motel SOUTH: LC Drinking Establishment with Conditional Use for Night Club EAST: TF-3 Single Family Residence WEST: LC Vehicle Repair Shop with Conditional Use for Vehicle Sales

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property is at the intersection of South Meridian Avenue and West Harry Street. South Meridian is a paved, 5-lane arterial. West Harry Street is a 2-lane collector. The intersection has recently been improved and includes left turn lanes in all directions. Municipal water and sewer services are available on the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The adopted Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as within the Established Central Area - the downtown core and mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three-mile radius. The Plan encourages infill development within the Established Central Area that maximizes public investment in existing and planned infrastructure and services. The Future Growth Concept Map identifies the area as a mixture of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial with the non-residential uses primarily along the arterial frontage of South Meridian and the residential further away from the arterial. The Plan indicates this site can be suitable for Commercial development which reflects the full diversity of commercial development found in a large urban municipality.

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, MAPD staff recommends the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions.

1) The Conditional Use shall be limited to the sale of cars and pick-up (light) trucks. No sale or rental of trailers, boats, motorcycles/scooters, recreational vehicles or trucks larger than pick-ups are permitted. All conditions of the Unified Zoning Code, Section III-D.6.x, outdoor vehicle and equipment sales shall be in effect.

2) The Conditional Use shall limit the total number of vehicles displayed for sale to 6 vehicles.

3) All improvements to the property must be finished before car sales is permitted. Those improvements shall include, but not limited to, paving the remainder of the site, clearly marked customer and employee parking and the display area, proposed lighting, parking barriers along the north property line, and closing of the eastern driveway.

4) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the construction of the required improvements and before the selling of any cars or light trucks, prior to car sales is permitted. The site plan will include, but not be limited to, a five-foot building setback along the north property line, internal circulation that will remain open at all time to allow access, parking barriers along the north property line, any existing or proposed signs, existing or proposed lighting. The site will be developed according to the revised site plan.

5) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Article IV, Sec. IV-A of the UZC. No vehicles for sale shall be displayed in required off-street parking spaces.

6) The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations.

7) If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the conditional use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set forth in Article VIII of the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare that the conditional use is null and void.

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

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Property north of the site is zoned LC Limited Commercial and is the abandoned motel. Property east across the alley from the site is zoned TF-3 Two Family Residential and is single family home. West of the site is zoned LC and is a vehicle repair shop with a Conditional Use for vehicle sales (CON2004-00043). Property south of the site is zoned LC and is a drinking establishment with a Conditional Use for a Night Club in the City within 300 feet of residential zoning (CON2016-00012). Southeast across the intersection is zoned LC and is a flooring discount store. This property also has Conditional Use approval for used vehicle sales (CON2000-00025) even though the site it currently is not being used in that manner.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned LC and is currently vacant. Outdoor vehicles sales is permitted in the LC district by Conditional Use subject to Supplemental Use Regulations found in the UZC Section III-D.6.x.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Vehicle sales on a site this size when developed with the conditional use, will have minimal negative effect on the area. Two other properties in the immediate vicinity have been previously approved for Conditional Uses to permit Outdoor CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 Vehicles Sales (CON2004-00043 and CON2000-00025).

4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The adopted Wichita- Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the site as within the Established Central Area - the downtown core and mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three- mile radius. The Plan encourages infill development within the Established Central Area that maximizes public investment in existing and planned infrastructure and services. The Future Growth Concept Map identifies the area as a mixture of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial with the non-residential uses primarily along the arterial frontage of South Meridian and the residential further away from the arterial. The Plan indicates this site can be suitable for Commercial development which reflects the full diversity of commercial development found in a large urban municipality.

Staff Report Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan Submitted by Applicant 5. Zoning Code Excerpt (Sec. III-D.6.x)

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5 CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 8 EXERPTED UNIFIED ZONING CODE Art. III, Zoning District Standards Sec. III-D.6.x USE REGULATIONS x. Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Outdoor, in LC. Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Sales shall be subject to the following standards when located within the LC District.

(1) Location shall be Contiguous to a major Street as designated in the Transportation Plan adopted by the Governing Bodies, and as amended from time to time.

(2) Visual Screening of areas Adjacent to residential zoning Districts shall be provided to protect Adjacent properties from light, debris and noise and to preserve Adjacent property values even when the change in use to Vehicle and Equipment Sales replaces a previous use that is of equal or greater intensity. In no case shall Screening be less than that required by Sec. IV-B.1-3.

(3) All Parking, Outdoor Storage and display areas shall be paved with concrete, asphalt or asphaltic concrete or any comparable hard surfacing material. Parking barriers shall be installed along all perimeter boundaries. Abutting streets, except at driveway entrances or where Fences are erected, to ensure that parked vehicles do not encroach onto public Street Right-of-Way.

(4) The lighting shall be in compliance with the lighting requirements of Sec.IV-B.4. No string-type or search lighting shall be permitted.

(5) The noise levels shall be in compliance with the compatibility noise standards of Sec. IV-C.6. Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted.

(6) No repair work shall be conducted except in an enclosed Building, and further provided that no body or fender work is done.

(7) Only those Signs permitted in the LC District shall be permitted on this Site, except that no portable, flashing, moving or off-site Signs shall be permitted and no streamers, banners, pennants, pinwheels, commercial flags, bunting or similar devices shall be permitted.

(8) There shall be no use of elevated platforms for the display of Vehicles.

CON2019-00044 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 9 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.4 STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019 DAB II December 9, 2019

CASE NUMBER: PUD2019-00012

APPLICANT/AGENT: N & J Ventures – Jake Hartman (owner/applicant) - Kaw Valley Engineering c/o Levi Bond (agent)

REQUEST: Create 37th Event Center Planned Unit Development (PUD #69)

CURRENT ZONING: SF-5 Single-Family Residential

SITE SIZE: 9 acres

LOCATION: North of 37th Street North and West of North Woodlawn Avenue

PROPOSED USE: Event/Entertainment Center BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to establish the 37th Event Center Unit Development (PUD #69) to permit the development of the property as an event/entertainment center. The subject property is presently zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential and is vacant and undeveloped. It is located on the north side of East 37th Street North and east of North Woodlawn just to the east of the Chisholm Creek Condominiums. The subject property unplatted and is heavily impacted by designated floodplains and other drainage ways associated with Chisholm Creek. Development on the subject property will require proper drainage studies and floodplain development permits approved by all local, state and federal officials with jurisdiction before anything happens. These facts will be addressed and resolved when the property is platted, including access from 37th Street North and extension of all utilities.

The applicant has submitted language within the proposed Planned Unit Development to restrict the uses on the subject property. The proposed language submitted with this application as follows:

PROPOSED USES: THIS PUD PERMITS AN EVENT CENTER, ALL OTHER USES PERMITTED BY-RIGHT IN THE LC ZONING DISTRICT ARE PERMITTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED OR LIMITED BELOW.

ALL RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, AND EXTRACTIVE USES ARE PROHIBITED AND, THE FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL TYPE USES ARE PROHIBITED: AUDITORIUM OR STADIUM; CEMETERY; CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; CORRECTIONAL PLACEMENT RESIDENCE, LIMITED AND GENERAL; GOLF COURSE; RECYCLING COLLECTION STATION, PRIVATE; RECYCLING COLLECTION STATION PUBLIC; RECYCLING PROCESSING CENTER; REVERSE VENDING MACHINE; ANIMAL CARE, LIMITED AND GENERAL; AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE; CAR WASH; CONSTRUCTION SALES AND SERVICE; CONVENIENCE STORES; ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT IN THE CITY; HOTEL OR MOTEL; MARINE FACILITY, RECREATIONAL; MONUMENT SALES; NIGHTCLUB IN THE CITY; PARKING AREA, COMMERCIAL; PAWNSHOP; PRINTING AND COPYING, GENERAL; SERVICE STATION; TAVERN AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT; VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT SALES, OUTDOOR; VEHICLE REPAIR, LIMITED; VEHICLE REPAIR, GENERAL; WAREHOUSE, SELF-SERVICE STORAGE.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. THE "EVENT CENTER" SHALL BE LIMITED TO A VENUE FOR HIRE WITH THE PURPOSE OF HOSTING A VARIETY OF GATHERINGS WHERE FOOD, BEVERAGES, MUSIC OR DANCING MAY BE OFFERED FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS LIFE CYCLE EVENTS (I.E. BIRTHDAYS, ANNIVERSARIES, WEDDINGS, REUNIONS); CORPORATE OR PROFESSIONAL FUNCTIONS (I.E. SEMINARS, MEETINGS, LECTURES, RETREATS); OTHER SPECIAL EVENTS INCLUDING CHARITABLE EVENTS, FUNDRAISERS, AND ART SHOWS; HOLIDAY FESTIVITIES; OR PHOTOGRAPHIC SHOOTS; AND OTHER SIMILAR EVENTS. SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES, AS DEFINED BY THE UZC, SHALL BE PROHIBITED.

2. NIGHTCLUBS AS A PRIMARY USE SHALL BE PROHIBITED. HOWEVER, EVENT CENTER USE WITH THE PROVISION OF ALCOHOL AND/OR ENTERTAINMENT AS ACCESSORY USES SHALL BE ALLOWED.

3. OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMITTED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH EVENTS AT AN EVENT CENTER. NO OUTDOOR SPEAKERS ARE PERMITTED, UNLESS OTHERWISE ADDRESSED BELOW. ALL LIVE PERFORMANCES, DISC JOCKEYS, AND SHOWS SHALL BE HELD INDOORS. LIVE PERFORMANCES PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 INCLUDE LIVE PRODUCTIONS OF MUSIC OR SOUND BY INDIVIDUALS, BANDS, MUSICIANS, KARAOKE, AND THEATRIC PERFORMANCES. OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT MAY BE PROVIDED, AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCES WITHOUT SOUND AMPLIFICATION. THE "EVENT CENTER" SHALL BE REQUIRED TO STOP ALL NOISE GENERATING ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS MUSIC, AT 9:00 P.M., OR MOVE SUCH ACTIVITIES INTO THE BUILDING.

4. PARKING FOR EVENT CENTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE RATE OF 1 STALL PER 3 OCCUPANTS. A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE TOTAL REQUIRED STALLS SHALL BE PAVED WITH AN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE SURFACE SUITABLE FOR PRIVATE PARKING. THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUIRED PARKING MAY BE PROVIDED USING A HARD COMPACTED ALL WEATHER SURFACE SUCH AS GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK. NON-ASPHALT/CONCRETE PARKING SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF THE PAVED PARKING LOT TO ALLOW FOR THE DISLODGING OF ANY MATERIAL BEFORE ENTERING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

5. EVENT CENTERS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 1:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, AND FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 12:00 A.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. FACILITY SET-UP AND CLEAN-UP SHALL BE ALLOWED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. TO 1:30 A.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, AND FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 12:30 A.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. ALL GUESTS OF AN EVENT SHALL BE DIRECTED TO VACATE THE PROPERTY IN A TIMELY AND ORDERLY MANNER WITHIN ONE HOUR OF THE CLOSING AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3.30.075 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE.

6. THE "EVENT CENTER" MAY PROVIDE A KITCHEN FACILITY, PROVIDED IT SHALL ONLY BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONSITE EVENTS. RESTAURANTS SHALL NOT BE AN ALLOWED USE.

7. THE PROPERTY OWNER/OPERATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF MITIGATING ALL NOISE IMPACTS PRIOR TO OPERATION, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ONGOING COST OF MONITORING NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVED USE. NO OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE PARKING LOT. ONLY NON-ELECTRIC, NON-AMPLIFIED STRING MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS SHALL BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE. NO NOISE GENERATED WITH THE OUTDOOR USE SHALL EXCEED A SOUND LEVEL OF FIVE DECIBELS AS MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION III-D, 6.W.(2) OF THE UNIFIED ZONING CODE.

8. PROOF OF INSURANCE: THE OPERATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR EVENTS HELD AT THE EVENT CENTER. LIABILITY INSURANCE SHALL INCLUDE COVERING DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON ADJACENT TRACTS AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC EVENTS HELD AT THE EVENT CENTER.

9. THE EVENT CENTER SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN A LIQUOR LICENSE AS REQUIRED FROM THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL AND/OR STATE AUTHORITY. OUTSIDE VENDORS SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN A LIQUOR LICENSE AS REQUIRED FROM THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL AND/OR STATE AUTHORITY.

10. TENTS MAY BE ERECTED SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. ALL TENTS SHALL BE DISASSEMBLED AND STORED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF AN EVENT.

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 11. NO TEMPORARY/PORTABLE RESTROOMS FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED ON SITE.

12. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONING AS ESTABLISHED IN THE U.Z.C. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AS DIFFERENT ON THE PUD DRAWING OR MODIFIED BY THESE GENERAL PROVISIONS.

13. COMPATIBILITY SETBACKS PER UNIFIED ZONING CODE SEC. IV-C ARE WAIVED.

14. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THIRTY-FIVE (35) FEET, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL, IF REQUIRED.

15. PARKING LIGHT POLES SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET IN HEIGHT, INCLUDING THE BASE, AND SHALL BE SHIELDED TO PROJECT THE LIGHT DOWNWARD AND AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION III-D, 6.W.(4) OF THE UNIFIED ZONING CODE. PARKING LOT LIGHTING SHALL BE EXTINGUISHED BY 12:30 A.M. SUNDAY THRU THURSDAY AND 1:30 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.

16. TRASH RECEPTACLES SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY SCREENED TO REASONABLY HIDE THEM FROM GROUND VIEW. SCREENING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS AND/OR LANDSCAPING COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILDING EXTERIOR.

17. LIGHTED BUILDING SIGNS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT FACE EAST AND NORTH.

18. ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM GROUND LEVEL VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NO ROOF TOP FENCING SHALL BE ALLOWED.

19. ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE C.U.P. SHALL SHARE A UNIFORM ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, COLOR, AND SIMILAR PREDOMINATE EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL, AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. ALL BUILDING WALLS AND ROOFS MUST HAVE PREDOMINATELY EARTH-TONE COLORS, WITH VIVID COLORS LIMITED TO INCIDENTAL ACCENTS, AND MUST EMPLOY MATERIALS SIMILAR OR COMPLEMENTARY TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE PREDOMINANT EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS SHALL BE NON-METAL, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

20. THE SITE SHALL MAINTAIN ALL NECESSARY LICENSES FOR THE OPERATION OF A "NIGHTCLUB IN THE CITY". THE SITE SHALL CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE LICENSES, CODES AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ZONING, BUILDING, FIRE, LIQUOR AND HEALTH.

21. IF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FINDS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, IN ADDITION TO ENFORCING THE OTHER REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THE UNIFIED ZONING CODE, MAY, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, DECLARE THE "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" NULL AND VOID.

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 22. THE SITE PLAN SHOWN HEREON IS FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. A FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, AT WHICH TIME THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SHALL APPROVE/DENY SAID FINAL PLAN BASED ON ITS CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PUD.

23. LANDSCAPED STREET YARDS, BUFFERS, AND PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF WICHITA LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED BY A KANSAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, INDICATING THE TYPE, LOCATION, AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL. THIS PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT (MAPD) FOR ITS REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. SCREENING SHALL BE REQUIRED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION IV-B OF THE UNIFIED ZONING CODE UNLESS MODIFIED ABOVE.

24. THE CIRCULATION PLAN SHALL ASSURE SMOOTH INTERNAL VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY FROM 37TH STREET NORTH TO ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN PUD AND ENSURE THAT THE MAIN DRIVES ARE NOT BLOCKED BY PARKING SPACES DIRECTLY BACKING ONTO THE MAIN DRIVE AISLES.

These provisions appear to have been copied from other similar uses approved in the City, including CON2014-00030 for an “Event Center” and “Nightclub in the City” at 1550 North Lindberg Circle in the Waterfront 6th Addition, north of East 13th Street North and east of North Webb Road (NOAH’s Event Venue). No specific information has been provided regarding the larger intentions for the subject property beyond the proposed PUD drawing and provisions contained therein.

The zoning and land uses of the neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial. The residential development to the west is a high-density condominium, residential development with the living units on the parcel of land owned by the condominium development as common area and is zoned MF-18. There are single-family residential developments to the north and east that are zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential. Both residential developments have homes associations that own reserves adjacent to the subject property which are devoted to open space and drainage improvements because of the presence of Chisholm Creek in this area. The land south of 37th Street North is zoned LC Limited Commercial to the southwest and SF-5 Single-Family Residential to the southeast. There is a commercial use to the southwest, with the land to the south and southeast either open space for the drainage of Chisholm Creek or residential uses.

CASE HISTORY: The subject property is unplatted and will need to be platted in order for any development to occur. No other zoning actions are shown on the records for this property.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 residential SOUTH: LC & SF-5 commercial, open space EAST: SF-5 residential, open space WEST: MF-18 condominiums

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property currently has no access to 37th Street North. Public water and sewer mains are in the area. The subsequent platting will need to address creation/extension of all public service improvement to current City standards if approved.

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5 CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The adopted 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the subject property as most appropriate for “residential/employment mix.” That designation is consistent with the intent to support more commercial development. As such, this proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the concept of what is intended with this project; however, we believe there is some changes that need to be made to the PUD drawing Proposed Uses and General Provisions to clarify the extent of the uses being conducted. The specific areas of further clarity are outlined in the conditions below. Therefore, based on the information available at the time of the public hearing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following condition:

A. The site plan of the proposed development needs to be more clearly dimensioned on the face of PUD. The PUD can state that the site plan is conceptual but needs to include a general provision requiring approval of the final site plan by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit.

B. Certain written language on the PUD Drawing shall be revised as follows:

PROPOSED USES: This PUD permits an Event Center and a Nightclub in the City only. All other uses permitted by-right in the LC Limited Commercial District are permitted unless specifically prohibited or limited below.

All Residential, Industrial, Manufacturing and Extractive uses are prohibited, and the following Commercial type uses are prohibited: Auditorium or Stadium; Cemetery; Correctional Facility; Correctional Placement Residence, Limited and General; Golf Course; Recycling Collection Station, Private or Public; Recycling Processing Center; Reverse Vending Machine; Animal Care, Limited and General; Automated Teller Machine; Car Wash; Construction Sales and Service; Convenience Stores Entertainment Establishment in the City; Hotel or Motel; Marine Facility, Recreational; Recreation and Entertainment, Indoor; Restaurant; Retail, General; Monument Sales; Parking Area, Commercial; Pawnshop Printing and Copying, General; Secondhand Store; Service Station; Tavern and Drinking Establishment; Teen Club in the City; Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Outdoor; Vehicle Repair, Limited or General; Warehouse, Self-Service Storage; Wireless Communication Facility; Sexually Oriented Businesses; Agricultural Research; and Agricultural Sales and Service.

GENERAL NOTES: General Notes 1 through 6 are eliminated and replaced with the following:

1. The “Event Center” and “Nightclub in the City” shall be limited to a venue for hire with the purpose of hosting a variety of gatherings where food, beverages, music and dancing may be offered for purposes such as life cycle events (i.e. birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, reunions); corporate or professional functions (i.e. seminars, meetings, lectures, retreats); other special events including charitable events, fundraisers, art shows; holiday festivities; or photographic shoots and similar events. Alcohol sales to the general public are prohibited. No individual liquor by the drink shall be sold or consumed on the property except by a cash bar in association with a private social function permitted herein.

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6

2. Outdoor Entertainment is permitted only in conjunction with authorized activities. No outdoor speakers are permitted. All live performances, disc jockeys, and shows shall be held indoors. Live performances include live productions of music or sound by individuals, bands, musicians, karaoke, and theatric performances. Outdoor Entertainment may be provided, and shall be limited to acoustic performances without sound amplification. The facility shall be required to stop all noise generating activities, such as music, at 9:00 p.m., or move such activities into the building.

3. Parking for the “event center” or “nightclub in the city” shall be provided at the rate of 1 stall per 3 occupants. Any unpaved parking is permitted only for the facility and shall be an “all weather surface” as defined by the Unified Zoning Code. Parking for all other uses shall be per the Unified Zoning Code.

4. The “event center” or “nightclub in the city” shall be allowed to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. Facility set-up and clean-up shall be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. All guests of an event shall be directed to vacate the property in a timely and orderly manner within one hour of the closing as required by Section 3.30.075 of the Wichita City Code.

5. The “event center” or “nightclub in the city” may provide a kitchen facility, provided it shall only be used in conjunction with onsite events.

General Provision #13 shall be removed.

General Provision #17 shall be revised to add the following: Signs shall be permitted per the Sign Code requirements for NR Neighborhood Retail. All ground-mounted signs shall be monument type.

General Provision # 19 shall be revised to reference the PUD, instead of a C.U.P.

All other proposed General Provisions are acceptable.

C. Because of the concerns with the drainage and other site conditions, the rezoning ordinance for this property, if approved, shall not be published and the zone change shall not be considered final until the property is platted.

D. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #69 37th Event Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning and land uses of the neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial. The residential development to the west is a high-density condominium, residential development with the living units on the parcel of land owned by the condominium development as common area and is zoned MF-18. There are single- family residential developments to the north and east that are zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential. Both residential developments have homes associations that own reserves adjacent to the subject property which are devoted to open space and drainage improvements because of the presence of Chisholm Creek in this area. The land south of 37th Street North is zoned LC Limited Commercial to the southwest and SF-5 Single-Family Residential to the southeast. There is a commercial use to the southwest, with the land to the south and southeast either open space for the drainage of Chisholm Creek or residential uses.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed Planned Unit Development for this project is felt to provide an economic use of the property with little impact on surrounding property because of the physical conditions or the subject property and the open space reserves to the east and north. The development concepts and guidelines established within the PUD will provide appropriate mitigation of any potential detrimental effect on nearby properties.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property has remained vacant and undeveloped for many years.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The impacts on community facilities will be addressed and guaranteed through the platting process.

Attachments Proposed PUD Drawing Neighborhood Opposition Letter

PUD2019-00012 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 8

XXXXXXX PUD 37TH EVENT CENTER

2019-10-28 1196PUD AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.5 STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019 DAB IV December 2, 2019

CASE NUMBER: PUD2019-00016

APPLICANT/AGENT: Starkey, Inc. – Colin McKenney (owner/applicant) Baughman Company, P.A. – Russ Ewy (agent)

REQUEST: Create Starkey Development Center Planned Unit Development (PUD #72)

CURRENT ZONING: GC General Commercial, B Multiple-Family Residential, SF-5 Single-Family Residential, and C.U.P. (DP-198)

SITE SIZE: 11.08 acres

LOCATION: North of West Maple Street and west of South West Street (4500 West Maple Street)

PROPOSED USE: Create a mixed use commercial development area BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to establish the Starkey Development Center Planned Unit Development (PUD #72) located on the north side of West Maple Street and west of South West Street (4500 West Maple Street). The subject property is presently zoned GC General Commercial (GC), B Multiple-Family Residential (B), SF-5 Single-Family Residential (SF-5) and is within an existing Community Unit Plan Starkey Development Center C.U.P. (DP-198). The subject property occupied and heavily used by Starkey for its present operations. The applicants recently acquired properties on the west side of their campus along Young Street zoned SF-5 and are expanding facilities and operations, which requires the rezoning request.

As stated in the submitted materials, the applicant indicates:

The intent of this Planned Unit Development to unify the zoning within the existing Starkey campus and allow for the expansion of the facility to better serve almost 500 people with intellectual disabilities.

Starkey provides many different programs, including:

• An employment program that provides training and in-house contract work for individuals with disabilities. Local businesses contract with Starkey for jobs ranging from small parts assembly to mailings, electronics recycling, boxing, shrink wrapping and sewing. Mobile crews also perform temporary contract work on-site at local businesses. • A community employment program that helps individuals find jobs at local businesses, then trains them on the job and provides ongoing support to ensure their success. • A life enrichment program that offers volunteer opportunities like delivering Meals on Wheels or creating items for local animal shelters, as well as educational activities and chances to explore a variety of community resources. • A community living program that offers 41 homes and two apartment complexes in Wichita designed to help people live more independently. Some homes offer 24 hours of staff support while others, such as the apartments, provide periodic staff support with specific tasks like cooking, shopping, paying bills or taking medication. • A day program for people who have a dual diagnosis of an intellectual disability and a mental illness. Individuals in this program typically have challenging behaviors and need intensive supports to ensure their success in daily living. • Support services such as transportation and health services. The transportation program, with its fleet of 110 vehicles, provides 250,000 one-way accessible rides each year for people going to and from home, day programs, places of employment, medical appointments and activities. Starkey contracts with Wichita Transit to participate in the paratransit program, a safety net for people who lack the functional abilities to ride the fixed route bus system, or who need vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and other accessibility devices. The health services program, housed at Starkey, offers ongoing health monitoring, medication administration and medical appointment scheduling and transportation.

PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 The PUD allows a certain level of flexibility with site development regulations which would otherwise not be permitted under the existing zoning. The applicants are planning to begin construction of a new phase soon after receiving development application approvals.

The details of the proposed PUD are as follows:

General Provisions:

Total Land Area: 482,616.5 square feet +/- or 11.08 acres +/- Total Gross Floor Area: 168,915 square feet Total Floor Area Ratio: 35 percent +/-

1. Parking requirements shall be per the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code.

2. Development standards shall be per the "GO" General Office district unless modified by the PUD. Compatibility Setback standards apply for new construction only.

3. At the time of site redevelopment, a drainage plan shall be submitted to the Wichita Storm Water Public Works Department for approval.

4. Signs shall be in accordance with the Sign Code of the City of Wichita requirements as permitted by the "GO" General Office District. Parcel 1 shall be allowed two ground signs along Maple Street, one ground sign along Young Street, one ground sign along Tracy Street, and one ground sign along Douglas Avenue. Signs shall be monument type and limited to 8 feet in height. One of the two signs for Parcel 1 along Maple Street is permitted to be a maximum of 64 square feet. No off-site, billboard, portable, or LED signs shall be permitted.

5. Uses in Parcel 1 shall be limited to those permitted by-right in the "B" Multi-Family Residential district and the following uses: Office (General), Medical Services, Daycare (General), Group Residence (General & Limited), and Assisted Living. Manufacturing (Limited and General), Warehousing, Retail, Vocational Training, and Recycling Processing Center as associated with a private, not-of-profit agencies, who qualifies to educate, teach and serve people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Any manufacturing use shall not require the entire ground floor of the building frontage to be office or display space. All accessory uses associated with the list of permitted uses above, including vehicle storage and light maintenance, shall be allowed.

6. Access shall be limited to three openings to Maple Street, one opening to Douglas Avenue, two openings to Tracy Street, and six openings to Young Street, as indicated on the Plan, and as approved by the City Engineer. Existing access to Douglas Avenue may remain until redevelopment occurs within the northern 630 feet of Parcel 1.

7. Screening and Landscaping:

A. Landscaping shall be in conformance with the Landscaping Ordinance of the City of Wichita. Existing trees may be included in calculating said landscaping requirements upon approval by the Director of Planning. The screening requirements contained herein may be waived or modified by administrative adjustment. PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 B. The six (6) foot high concrete/masonry wall constructed adjacent to the south property line of Lot 6, McComas Acres Addition and parallel with the east line of Lot 1, Starkey Development Center Addition shall be maintained.

C. A screening fence shall be provided along the western line of Parcel 1 where adjacent to the east line of Lot 7, McComas Acres Addition, and the along the northern line of Parcel 1 where adjacent to the south line of Lot 2, L.N. Lies Addition and an extended line from the southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the east line of Lot 7, McComas Acres Addition, as indicated on the plan.

D. A 10-foot landscape yard or screening fence shall be provided along the southern line of Parcel 1 where adjacent to the north line of Lot 1, L.N. Lies Addition and the north line of Lot 7, McComas Acres Addition, as indicated on the plan.

E. A screening fence or existing trees shall be provided along the northern and western lines of Parcel 1 where adjacent to the south and east lines of Lot 10, McComas Acres Addition. Said landscaping and/or screening fence shall be required at the time a new building permit is requested within the northern 630 ± feet of Parcel 1.

F. A 15-foot landscape yard shall be required along the eastern line of Parcel 1 where adjacent to Lots 1 through 5, McComas Acres Addition, as indicated on the plan. Said landscape yard shall be required at the time a new building permit is requested within the northern 630 ± feet of Parcel 1, and only that portion of the landscape yard adjacent to the area the new building is developing shall be required.

G. Trash receptacles, loading docks, outdoor storage, and loading areas shall be appropriately screened, with similar materials to the main building, to reasonably hide them from ground view.

H. The existing planting strip along Maple Street, as indicated on the plan, shall be maintained. No additional landscaping or screening is required along the southern and western line of Parcel 1 platted as Lot 7, McComas Acres Addition.

I. Landscaping shall be in conformance with the Landscaping Ordinance of the City of Wichita. Existing trees may be included in calculating said landscaping requirements upon approval by the Director of Planning. The screening requirements contained herein may be waived or modified by administrative adjustment.

J. A landscape plan shall be prepared by a Kansas Landscape Architect for the above referenced landscaping, indicating the type, location, and specifications of all plant material. This plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for their review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

K. A financial guarantee for the plant material approved on the landscape plan for that portion of the C.U.P. being developed shall be required prior to issuance of any occupancy permit, if the required landscape has not been planted.

PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 8. All exterior lighting shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 15 feet.

9. All buildings within the P.U.D. shall share a uniform architectural character, color, and similar predominate exterior building material, as determined by the Director of Planning. All building walls and roofs must have predominately earth-tone colors, with vivid colors limited to incidental accents.

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site circulation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning, in concurrence with the Fire Marshal and Traffic Engineer. The circulation plan shall assure smooth internal vehicular and pedestrian movements, provide pedestrian connectivity among the buildings within PUD and from building entrances to sidewalks on adjacent streets.

11. The design layout shown on the plan illustrates only one development concept. Slight modifications to the location of improvements may be permitted, provided they meet all requirements of this plan.

12. Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this P.U.D. shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

13. The Transfer of title of all or any portion of land included within the Planned Unit Development (or any amendments thereto) does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land and be binding upon present owners, their successors and assigns.

14. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development.

Additionally, the proposed PUD drawing provides information for Parcel 1 as follows:

PARCEL 1:

A. Net Area: 482,616.5 square feet +/- or 11.08 acres +/-

B. Maximum Building Coverage: 144,785 square feet or 30 percent +/-

C. Maximum Gross Floor Area: 168,915 square feet

D. Floor Area Ratio: 35 percent +/-

E. Maximum Building Height: 45 feet, except for any other structures exempt by the U.Z.C. Compatibility Height standards apply.

F. Setbacks: See General Provision # 2.

PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5 G. Permitted Uses: See General Provision # 5.

The zoning of the neighborhood is a mostly SF-5 Single-Family Residential zoning and single-family residential uses to the north, east and west, except along Maple Street. The property along Maple Street and also south of Maple Street is zoned LC Limited Commercial. The use to the southwest of the subject property has a gas station and car wash on the northwest corner of Maple Street and Tracy Street. On the south side of Maple Street is a church and a commercial restaurant. The property west of Young Street and north of Maple Street is zoned LC Limited Commercial, but is used as a single-family residence.

CASE HISTORY: Most of the subject property was included in the plat of Starkey Development Center Addition, which was recorded with the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds on September 20, 1991. The newly acquired property along Young Street is in the McComas Acres Addition, which was recorded with the Sedgwick County Register of Deeds on September 16, 1925. The establishment of the Starkey Development Center Community Unit Plan (DP-198) was approved by the Wichita City Council on July 16, 1991. There are no records of other zoning actions on these properties.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 residential SOUTH: LC commercial, church EAST: SF-5 residential WEST: SF-5, LC residential

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property has access to Maple Street which is a paved, four-lane, street with a dedicated left-turn lanes. The subject property also has access to Young Street on the west, which is a two-lane, paved residential street; to Tracy Street on the east, which is a two-lane, paved residential street; and to Douglas Avenue on the north, is a two-lane, paved street at this location. Public water and sanitary serves the subject property. All other utilities are provided to the subject property.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for both new residential and commercial uses. The site is in the Established Central Area (ECA), where infill development and higher density is encouraged. The plan also strongly supports the expansion of existing businesses to surrounding properties. Supporting the expanded development of the site would provide greater an enhanced service to the special population served by this business and expand employment opportunities to the community. As such, it is opinion of staff the proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the application as presented. Therefore, based on the information available at the time of the public hearing, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following condition:

A. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #72 Starkey Development Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

B. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved PUD shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of governing body approval, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning of the neighborhood is a mostly SF-5 Single-Family Residential zoning and single-family residential uses to the north, east and west, except along Maple Street. The property along Maple Street and also south of Maple Street is zoned LC Limited Commercial. The use to the southwest of the subject property has a gas station and car wash on the northwest corner of Maple Street and Tracy Street. On the south side of Maple Street is a church and a commercial restaurant. The property west of Young Street and north of Maple Street is zoned LC Limited Commercial, but is used as a single-family residence.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject property is currently occupied by the applicant’s business and services. The expansion proposed by this request is acceptable and consistent with the adopted plans of the City.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed Planned Unit Development for this project maintains the same character and uses of the subject property and will create no new impacts on nearby properties. The neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The development concepts and guidelines established within the PUD will provide appropriate mitigation of any potential detrimental effect on nearby properties.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property has been used for many years and is only seeking to expand.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is considered for both new residential and commercial uses. The site is in the Established Central Area (ECA), where infill development and higher density is encouraged. The plan also strongly supports the expansion of existing businesses to surrounding properties. Supporting the expanded development of the site would provide greater an enhanced service to the special population served by this business and expand employment opportunities to the community. As such, it is opinion of staff the proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There will be no impact on community facilities.

Attachments Proposed PUD Drawing

PUD2019-00016 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7 STARKEY DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - PUD #?? PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ·

GENERAL PROVISIONS:

PARCEL 1

REVISIONS:

PARCEL 1 PUD #?? STARKEY DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

SCALE: 1" = 50'

GENERAL PROVISIONS – STARKEY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD #72) November 25, 2019

Total Land Area: 482,616.5 Sq. Ft. ± or 11.08 Acres ± Total Gross Floor Area: 168,915 sq.ft. Total Floor Area Ratio: 35 percent ±

1. Parking requirements shall be per the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code.

2. Development standards shall be per the "GO" General Office district unless modified by the PUD. Compatibility Setback standards apply for new construction only.

3. At the time of site redevelopment, a drainage plan shall be submitted to the Wichita Storm Water Public Works Department for approval.

7. Screening and Landscaping:

B. The six (6) foot high concrete/masonry wall constructed adjacent to the south property line of Lot 6, McComas Acres Addition and parallel with the east line of Lot 1, Starkey Development Center Addition shall be maintained.

G. Trash receptacles, loading docks, outdoor storage, and loading areas shall be appropriately screened, with similar materials to the main building, to reasonably hide them from ground view.

8. All exterior lighting shall be shielded to direct light disbursement in a downward direction. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 15 feet.

12. Amendments, adjustments or interpretations to this P.U.D. shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of this Planned Unit Development to unify the zoning within the existing Starkey campus and allow for the expansion of the facility to better serve almost 500 people with intellectual disabilities.

Starkey provides many different programs, including:

The PUD allows a certain level of flexibility with site development regulations which would otherwise not be permitted under the existing zoning. The applicants are planning to begin construction of a new phase soon after receiving development application approvals.

A B C D E FOR MABCD USE ONLY

SITE PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES - SITE PROJECT INFORMATION

NEW BUILDING REMODEL - INSIDE EXISTING BUILDING NEW PAVING A. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS TO HAVE A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 1:50 PROJECT PURPOSE: ADDITION & RENOVATION FOR 1 IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. ADULT DAY SERVICES LOCATION: LOT 2 STARKEY DEVELOPMENT CENTER B. ALL NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS (INDICATED ON PLAN WITH ADD. EXEMPT NO. 995-83-TX ADA SYMBOL) TO RECEIVE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN IN 144 S. YOUNG ST. NEW SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK- TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDING- TO REMAIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF WICHITA OFF-STREET PARKING WICHITA, KS 67209 STANDARDS. EACH SIGN TO BE POST-MOUNTED AT CENTERLINE OF HEAD END OF PARKING STALL WITH BOTTOM OF SIGN AT 5' ABOVE OWNER: STARKEY, INC. SURFACE OF PAVEMENT. ALL NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS TO 4500 W. MAPLE ST. WICHITA, KS 67209 BE BLACK WITH WHITE TEXT AND GRAPHICS, TYP. PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENTS & SETBACKS DEMO OR POTENTIAL PROJECT AREA ARCHITECT: HUTTON MATT BYRUM 2229 SOUTH WEST ST. WICHITA, KS 67213 S.West2229 St., Wichita,316.942.8855|www.HuttonBuilds.com | 67213 KS ph. (316)942.8855 fx. (316)942.8881

RESPONDING FIRE DEPT: WICHITA FIRE DEPARTMENT

BUILDING INSPECTION: CITY OF WICHITA METROPOLITAN AREA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT

REGULATING AGENCIES: KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGING & DISABILITY SERVICES W C . E B H Y ZONING: CUP DP-198 T R T C ENS E B MULTI FAMILY I D U A L M 2 M 5 3 0 8 11/15/2019 K A N S A S A T R C C H I T E

S. YOUNG ST. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ALL WORK SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF HUTTON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN FH ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF HUTTON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. KEYED NOTES - SITE

1 ONLY PUBLIC ENTRY POINT. ALL OTHER ENTRANCES STAFF ONLY OR FOR PERSONS SERVED WITH ASSISTANCE. 2 EXISTING ADA STALLS TO REMAIN. CONFIRM THAT EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE COMPLIES WITH CITY OF WICHITA OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS. IF EXISTING SIGNAGE DOES NOT COMPLY, PROVIDE NEW COMPLIANT SIGNAGE TO MATCH SIGNAGE AT NEW 3 ACCESSIBLE STALLS. 3 3 DEMO 3 HOUSES & SHED. REF. CIVIL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 190206 INCLUDING ON DEMOLITION OR SALVAGE OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES. 2 1 4 REF. CIVIL SITE DIMENSION PLAN FOR CONDITION WHERE NEW AND EXISTING SIDEWALKS MEET.

3 EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING 5 NEW PARKING LOT STRIPING. TO BE DEMOLISHED 6 NEW ADA COMPLIANT ENTRY SIDEWALK. REF. CIVIL. 7 APPROX. EDGE OF NEW PAVING. REF. CIVIL. 8 NEW PERIM. SIDEWALK TO BE ZERO CURB WITH ADA COMPLIANT RUNNING AND CROSS SLOPES. REF. CIVIL. 7 9 NEW ADA STALLS. TOTAL CAMPUS PARKING COUNT = ~300 STALLS. 8 ADA 7 Project Number:Build STALLS PROVIDED. 3 10 REF. CIVIL FOR ALTERNATE FOR ADDED PAVING & STRIPING IN THIS AREA. 12 8 4 11 PROVIDE CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS WHERE INDICATED.

12 PROVIDE BOLLARDS AS ALTERNATE AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK PAVING FOR LIFE ENRICHMENT 3 ALONG WEST AND SOUTH EDGES AT NO MORE THAN 8' O.C. FIXED, STEEL 7 PIPE, 36" HIGH, DIAMETER BETWEEN 4" AND 6", PAINTED (COLOR TBD).

" 20,000 SF 0 5'-0"

5 " 12

'- NEW LIFE

8 1 ENRICHMENT 8,400 SF REMODEL 5 8 4 FOR GATEWAY 9 BUILDING - 6" 59' 5'-0" EXISTING BUILDING 24'-6" 9'-0" 11'-0" 26'-0" 6 DS19010

TYP. "

8 0 11 8

" 9'-0"

Y 11'-0"

1 '- TYP. 5

5 4 11'-0"5'-0"

7 '-

2 2 EXISTING LOADING DOCK Design Project Number: 144 S. YOUNG 144 S. WICHITA, KS 67209 STARKEY INC. STARKEY AND RENOVATION ADDITION & GATEWAY PROGRAMS W. MAPLE ST. 10 EXISTING STRIPING TO REMAIN

10 Issue: EXISTING BUILDING TO ADDENDUM 3 PROPOSED LOCATION EXISTING STRIPING TO REMAIN 10 BE DEMOLISHED OF NEW DRIVE AS Date: ALTERNATE. REF. CIVIL. 11.15.19 FH

5 NEW FIRE HYDRANT REVISIONS # Description Date 1 ADDENDUM 1 10.23.19 3 ADDENDUM 3 11.15.19

S. TRACY ST. 6

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A 1" = 50'-0" AS1.11 ARCHITECTURAL A B C D E SITE PLAN AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.6 STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019 DAB I December 2, 2019

CASE NUMBER: PUD2019-00017

APPLICANT/AGENT: SLG 13, LLC – Shawn Gilbert (owner/applicant) Levi Bond – Kaw Valley Engineering (agent)

REQUEST: Zone change to PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create SLG 13 Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD #73)

CURRENT ZONING: CBD Central Business District

SITE SIZE: 0.14 acres

LOCATION: South of East Douglas Avenue and East of South Washington Avenue (1207 East Douglas Avenue)

PROPOSED USE: Allow tattoo and body piercing parlor expansion BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to establish the SLG 13 Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD #73) on the 0.14-acre tract generally located on the south side of East Douglas Avenue and east of South Washington Avenue at 1207 East Douglas Avenue. The applicant has indicated the intent is to allow a mixed use of commercial uses on the property. The proposed language for this Planned Unit Development is as follows:

Project Description:

The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended to allow for the development of two commercial buildings into their best use as a mixed use commercial development. The project aligns with the City of Wichita’s focus on increased walkability and utilizing the expanded public transport along Douglas Avenue.

Proposed Uses:

All uses permitted by right, including commercial uses those with Supplemental Conditions, in the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning District and Office Warehouse (OW) Zoning Districts, subject to the conditions noted below.

The following uses are prohibited: Adult Entertainment and/or Sexually Oriented Businesses; Recycling Collection Stations; Recycling Processing Centers; Reverse Vending Machines; Construction Sales and Services; General Animal Care; Hotels or Motels; Recreational Marine Facilities; Monument Sales; Assisted Living; Group Homes; Group Residences; Cemeteries; Golf Courses; Hospitals; General Printing and Publishing; Service Stations; Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Sales; Vehicle Repair; Self-Service Storage Warehouses; Car Wash Facilities; Correctional Facilities and/or Correctional Placement Residences; and Industrial Uses.

General Notes:

1. Building setbacks will conform to the Central Business District setback standards.

2. Parking ratio will be in accordance with the appropriate Code of the City of Wichita for the Central Business District.

3. Signage shall be allowed per the Sign Code for the City of Wichita for signage allowed in the CBD Central Business District, with the exception that existing signs within the PUD may remain.

4. The transfer of the title on all or any portion of the land included in the development does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for development and be binding upon the present land owners, their successors and assigns and there lessees unless amended.

5. Trash receptacles shall be appropriately screened to hide them from ground view.

6. The architectural character of buildings shall be consistent with the existing structures. Prior to issuance of building permits, architectural renderings shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for final approval.

PUD2019-00017 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 7. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing the proposed development.

8. Amendments, adjustment or interpretations to this PUD shall be done in accordance with the Unified Zoning Code.

Legal Description:

Lots 119 and 121, Douglas Avenue, Hyde’s Addition to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.

Total Area: 0.14 +/- Acres.

The main purpose of the proposed change in use of the property is to allow the expansion of the tattoo parlor in the adjoining building. Otherwise, there are few changes in potential uses that could be established under the present zoning classification. Therefore, staff finds the proposed uses are not out of character with the intent to provide a wider variety of commercial uses consistent with the existing commercial properties along this major commercial corridor.

The property along Douglas Avenue is zoned CBD Central Business District (CBD). The area is intensively developed for commercial uses. This neighborhood is an active, urban commercial area.

CASE HISTORY: There has been no recent activity on this property. It was zoned CBD Central Business District as part of the rezoning initiated by the City of Wichita in Case No. DR2005-00024. The platting of the property creating the present lots was by the Hyde’s Addition to the City of Wichita, Kansas, which was recorded with the Register of Deeds of Sedgwick County, Kansas, on May 13, 1884.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: CBD Commercial uses SOUTH: CBD Commercial uses EAST: CBD Commercial uses WEST: CBD Commercial uses

PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property currently has access to all utilities and paved local streets. It also fronts Douglas Avenue, which a four-lane, major arterial.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The adopted 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the subject property as most appropriate for “residential/employment mix.” within the Established Central Area. That designation is consistent with the intent to support more commercial development. The subject property is also within the Central Northeast Area Plan Update which recognizes support for expansion of existing businesses. The recommended rezoning is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plans and the policies attached to the designation given to this property.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to the following conditions:

PUD2019-00017 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 1. The PUD drawing shall be modified with the General Notes to read as follows:

A. The following uses are prohibited: Adult Entertainment and/or Sexually Oriented Businesses; Auditorium or Stadium; Parking Area, Commercial; Pawnshop; Recycling Collection Stations; Recycling Processing Centers; Reverse Vending Machines; Construction Sales and Services; General Animal Care; Hotels or Motels; Recreational Marine Facilities; Monument Sales; Assisted Living; Group Homes; Group Residences; Cemeteries; Golf Courses; Hospitals; General Printing and Publishing; Secondhand Store; Service Stations; Outdoor Vehicle and Equipment Sales; Vehicle Repair; Self-Service Storage Warehouses; Car Wash Facilities; Correctional Facilities and/or Correctional Placement Residences; Manufacturing, Limited; Manufacturing, General; Warehousing; Welding or Machine Shop; Agricultural Research; and Agricultural Sales and Service.

2. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #73 SLG 13 Commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) has special conditions for development on the property.

3. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved PUD shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of governing body approval, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The property along Douglas Avenue is zoned CBD Central Business District (CBD). The area is intensively developed for commercial uses. This neighborhood is an active, urban commercial area.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned CBD Central Business District and can be developed for many commercial uses. The proposed change accommodates the expansion of the existing business and supports expanded development opportunities.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed zone change will not detrimentally affect nearby properties. The entire area is already commercially developed and there will be no changes by reason of this change.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject property has previously been used commercially and has recently been remodeled for new uses.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The adopted 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the subject property as most appropriate for “residential/employment mix.” within the Established Central Area. That designation is consistent with the intent to support more commercial development. The subject property is also within the Central Northeast Area Plan Update which recognizes support for expansion of existing businesses. The recommended rezoning is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plans and the policies attached to the designation given to this property.

PUD2019-00017 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 6. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the destruction of the value of plaintiff's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowner: The proposed changes will create no issues to the public health, safety or welfare.

7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There will be no impact on community facilities.

Attachments PUD Drawing

PUD2019-00017 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.7 STAFF REPORT MAPC-December 5, 2019

CASE NUMBER: ZON2019-00037

APPLICANT William Stuhlsatz

REQUEST: OW Office Warehouse

CURRENT ZONING: SF-20 Single Family Residential

SITE SIZE: 3.78 acres

LOCATION: On the south side of East Pawnee Road and one-half mile west of South 159th Street East.

PROPOSED USE: To build a facility and operate a landscaping business.

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 1 BACKGROUND: This application was filed to rezone the subject property from SF-20 Single Family Residential (SF-20) to OW Office Warehouse (OW). The subject property is located in Sedgwick County on the south side of East Pawnee Road and one-half mile west of South 159th Street East. With this request, the applicant would like to rezone the property to OW to build and operate a facility for a landscaping business. This case was initially heard by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) on October 10, 2019. At this meeting, two individual spoke in opposition to this case. The MAPC recommended approval of this request (11-0) subject a Protective Overlay (PO). The minutes are attached. Following the MAPC hearing, the protest period for this case expired on October 24, 2019, and no protests were filed. On November 20, 2019, this case was heard at the Board of County Commission (BoCC). At the meeting, four individuals spoke in opposition to this case. During the public hearing, the following general concerns were raised: due to the residential nature of the surrounding area, this equates to “spot zoning,” the recommended base zone is to intensive for the surrounding area and will have detrimental impacts, the language of the Protective Overlay does not provide enough clarity regarding the additional restrictions placed on the site, and the daily activity of the business would be a nuisance. The BoCC approved (4-1) a recommendation for this case to be sent back to the MAPC for further discussion and clarification regarding the language of the Protective Overlay and provide the opportunity for additional public comment. The minutes of this meeting are attached.

There were two specific items of discussion at the BoCC meeting that merit attention. The first is that those opposing this case state that the permitted use in OW identified in the Protective Overlay was not the same language as the approved motion of the Planning Commission. Director Miller suggested language for a motion stating “an appropriate PO would be one that limits the site to nursery and landscaping business plus use permitted by right in the SF-20.” The Planning Commission heeded this suggestion with a motion, a second, and an approval vote. In drafting the official language of the Protective Overlay, staff sought County Legal counsel regarding the language as it did not accurately describe the applicant’s business. The applicant does not, nor intends to operate a landscape nursery. In changing the language of the motion, staff sought to be consistent with the true nature of the applicant’s business while still adhering to the spirit and intent of the MAPC’s motion.

A second item discussed at the BoCC meeting was the possibility of this use operating as a home occupation and therefore not need a change of zoning classification. Director Miller clarified the details and limitations of a home occupation as found in the UZC Sec.IV-E.7. He discussed that this would not qualify as a home occupation in an SF-20 district for the following reasons: • The size of the proposed accessory structure is larger than the principle structure and it exceeds 3,000 square feet (Sec.IV-E.7.c). • The applicant’s business employs more than the allowable 4 employees on the business site (Sec.IV-7.E.e). • The parcel with the residence is separate and can be sold apart from the subject property. In addition, the applicants have not committed to living on-site.

The property is 3.78 acres and wraps around a smaller residential parcel under the same ownership. The smaller of the two parcels is located in the northwest corner of the property and has a dwelling unit and will remain zoned SF- 20. The applicant intends to construct a facility to store landscaping equipment for his business on the 3.78 acre property lies to the east and south of the residential parcel. The only landscaping material that will be stored on property will be rock, which will be stored in bins.

A landscaping business is a permitted use in the OW district under the use category of Construction Sales and Service. The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) defines this use category as “an establishment engaged in the retail or wholesale sale of materials used in the construction and/or maintenance of Buildings or other Structures and/or grounds, as well as the Outdoor Storage of Construction Equipment or materials on Lots other than construction sites.” ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2

The OW district has limitations on outdoor storage. Any items must be screened in compliance with Sec. IV-B.3. The Unified Zoning Code Sec.III-B.15.e.(2) states that storage of merchandise is allowed outside of an enclosed building only as an accessory use and in compliance with the following standards:

1. No required off-street parking space or loading space shall be utilized for storage 2. The area used for outdoor storage shall not exceed 100% of the floor area of all buildings on the zoning lot. 3. Items stored outdoors shall not be visible from any adjacent non-elevated street nor from ground level view in any adjacent lot. All properties surrounding the subject site area are zoned SF-20 and are agricultural land. Within one mile in all directions is a mix of large lot County subdivisions and City suburban subdivisions with typical SF-5 Single Family Residential lots.

CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted and there is no other case history except for that which relates to the current zoning matter.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: SF-20; Agriculture South: SF-20; Agriculture East: SF-20; Agriculture West: SF-20; Agriculture

PUBLIC SERVICES: East Pawnee Road is a fully improved, two-lane arterial street with open ditches. The property has one driveway off East Pawnee providing access to the residence. The subject property relies is in Butler County Rural Water District #8 and has onsite sewer.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Community Investment Plan depicts the subject site is within the 2035 Wichita Urban Growth Area and is depicted to be appropriate for “agricultural or vacant” uses. The agricultural or vacant use category lists appropriate uses as areas of undeveloped land or used for agricultural production. Though a commercial use is not explicitly stated as an appropriate use, a Protective Overlay can ensure the property harmoniously incorporates into fringe development as more development occurs in the future. The Land Use Compatibility Standards in the Community Investments Plan state that commercial uses in rural areas should be separate and distinct from lower intensity land uses and should provide appropriate screening and buffering. Additionally, compatibility setbacks and screening standards as outlined in the Unified Zoning Code (UZC) shall apply as adjacent properties are classified by a residential zoning district. Compatibility setback standards require a minimum of 15 feet plus one-foot for each five feet of lot (subject tract) width over 50 feet (with a maximum setback of 25 feet) (UZC Sec.IV-C.4). The width of the subject property is (+/-) 400 feet, which will require a maximum setback of 25 feet for structures used for commercial uses.

As stated in the UZC Sec.IV-B.2: screening shall be required on all properties for all uses except Single Family and Duplex when those uses are established on properties within, abutting, or across a street or alley from residential zoning districts, except when separated by a Major Barrier. Except for west property line with the row of trees, there is no screening around this property that would separate the commercial use from the residential zoning districts. Screening of the property shall comply with the standard set forth in Sec.IV-B.3.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, it is recommended the application be APPROVED subject to the following Protective Overlay #343

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3

1. All uses permitted in SF-20 Single Family Residential in addition to those uses associated with landscape and landscape maintenance services and equipment typically used in the operation of a landscape maintenance business as the only permitted use in OW Office Warehouse.

2. A site plan and screening/landscape plan shall be submitted to Planning showing the required screening. Screening regarding commercial zoning that abuts residential zoning shall comply with The Unified Zoning Code Section VI-B.3. The plan shall be submitted within 30 days of approval from the Board of County Commission, and it will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.

3. The site plan and screening/landscape plan shall also depict the location and screening of outdoor storage as permitted in OW Office Warehouse. Such screening is subject to the standards specified in the Unified Zoning Code Section III-B.15.3., which state that the area used for outdoor storage shall not exceed 100 percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the Zoning Lot and items in storage shall not be visible from any adjacent, non-elevated street nor from ground level view of any adjacent Lot.

4. All landscape buffers and/or screening shall be maintained in compliance with the approved landscape/screening plan and The Unified Zoning Code.

5. All State, County, and any other applicable permits, inspections, and standards shall be met.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: All properties surrounding the subject site area are zoned SF-20 and are agricultural land. Within one mile in all directions is a mix of large lot County subdivisions and City suburban subdivisions with typical SF-5 Single Family Residential lots.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site’s SF-20 zoning permits agricultural uses as well as low density residential development among a very limited number civic, commercial, and industrial uses. It currently has a single family dwelling unit which will remain in addition to the business.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Allowing the site to operate as a landscape and landscape maintenance business as allowed under Construction Sales and Service will have minimal negative impacts on the area through the use of a Protective Overlay. The site’s location on an arterial street between populated areas of Wichita and Butler County make this an appropriate location for commercial services.

4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Community Investment Plan depicts the subject site is within the 2035 Wichita Urban Growth Area and is depicted to be appropriate for “agricultural or vacant” uses. The agricultural or vacant use category lists appropriate uses as areas of undeveloped land or used for agricultural production. Though a commercial use is not explicitly stated as an appropriate use, a Protective Overlay can ensure the property harmoniously incorporates into fringe development as more development occurs in the future. The Land Use Compatibility Standards in the Community Investments Plan state that commercial uses in rural areas should be separate and distinct from lower intensity land uses and should provide appropriate screening and buffering. Additionally, compatibility setbacks and screening standards as outlined in the Unified Zoning Code (UZC) shall apply as adjacent properties are classified by a residential zoning district.

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4

The commercial buildings shall be constructed in compliance with the 25-foot compatibility setback as set forth by the UZC Sec. IV-C.4. Additionally, the site will have to be appropriately screened from residential zoning districts on all sides as set forth in the USC Sec. IV-B.2

5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Detrimental impacts on community facilities should be minimal. Attachments: 1. October 10, 2019 MAPC Minutes 2. November 20, 2019 BoCC DRAFT Minutes 3. Draft Site Plan 4. Area Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Land Use Map

EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2019 WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING—DISCUSSION ONLY

4.7. ZON2019-00037-County zone change from SF-20 Single-Family Residential to OW Office Warehouse to permit a landscaping business on 3.78 acres generally located one-half mile west of South 159th Street East on the south side of East Pawnee (east of 15209 E. Pawnee), and described as:

KATHY MORGAN, PLANNING STAFF, presented the staff report.

BILL STUHLSATZ, 120 EAST DOUGLAS, ANDOVER, KS, 67002, of Premier Landscaping, and WILLSTUHLSATZ, APPLICANTS, noted that at their present location they cannot expand their business. They bought the subject site in the hopes they can get it rezoned so they can operate their business from the location. They are remodeling the home. They will be transitioning to discharge mowers so they won’t have grass clippings to bring to the property. They will still have brush and shrub trimmings that will require disposal. At the new location they will have a dumpster in which to put the trimmings and they will haul of the dumpster when it is full. They have been in business 20 years and do big commercial jobs, including installing landscaping and irrigation. They have done work for Camping World, Gander Mountain, Cargill and MarkArts. Everything will be screened in like it should be. They will not accumulate waste.

FOSTER asked what kind of chemicals do they keep. WILL STUHLSATZ stated they will keep turf care products; pesticides, herbicides, insecticides associated with ornamental turf and landscape material care. They will also have palletized fertilizers that will be stored inside. They are shifting from just a landscape business to a turf care business that is not just mowing.

BILL STUHLSATZ noted that they do not do any retail. They do not store plants, trees or anything like that. He noted that he agreed to all the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report.

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5 BILL GILES, ON BEHALF OF LEE BANKS LIVING TRUST, noted that no specific site development plan has been submitted. (Editor’s note: none is required by code). The change to OW zoning allows a broad range of uses by- right that are concerning. The comprehensive plan shows this site as appropriate for low density residential. OW zoning is 12 zoning districts more intense than RR zoning. This is spot zoning and raises a concern because of the wide range of uses permitted by-right in the OW district even though the applicant states they are only interested in the landscaping use. They also have concerns with respect to the applicant’s proposed operation. He noted that the residence cited in the staff report is not located within the application area. He does not believe the business will serve residents in the immediate area. He also noted the proposed use does not match the comprehensive plan’s recommended land use. A Protective Overlay could address some of his concerns but one has not been proposed.

CHRISTOPHER LETT, 14900 EAST PAWNEE, just across the street. He showed images of their existing work location and stated he was concerned they have not submitted a site plan. He is concerned about runoff from their existing facility. He would like to see a denial or some limitations placed on the use.

WILL STUHLSATZ noted that no site plan is required. If it had been they would have provided one. The limitations placed on them by the owner of their place of business has hampered their ability to do things the way they would like. They will have plenty of gravel to drive on to control erosion as compared to their present site, if this is approved.

FOSTER noted that he thought a Protective Overlay would be helpful.

WILL STUHLSATZ stated they would be agreeable to a PO that would limit the site to their intended use. MILLER suggested that an appropriate PO would be one that limits the site to nursery and landscaping business plus use permitted by right in the SF-20 except for residential.

MOTION: To approve OW zoning subject to staff recommendation with the addition of a Protective Overlay to limit uses to those associated with a landscaping and landscape maintenance services and equipment typically used in the operation of a landscaping maintenance business plus non-residential uses permitted in the RR district plus submission of a site plan. J. JOHNSON moved, GREEN seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0).

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 8

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 9

ZON2019-00037 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 10

EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 2019

The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") of Sedgwick County, Kansas (the "County"), met in regular session at the County Commission Meeting Room at 9:00 A.M. The Chairman, DAVID T. DENNIS, presided and the following members of the Board were present:

PETER F. MEITZNER, MICHAEL B. O’DONNELL, LACEY D. CRUSE, JAMES M. HOWELL

The following members were absent: NONE

* * * * * * * * *

(Other Proceedings)

H. ZON2019-00037 - COUNTY ZONE CHANGE FROM SF-20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OW OFFICE WAREHOUSE TO PERMIT A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS, GENERALLY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF SOUTH 159TH STREET EAST AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST PAWNEE (EAST OF 15209 E PAWNEE). District 5

VISUAL PRESENTATION

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. At this time if you’ve had any exparte contact I’d like you to declare it at this time. Commissioner Howell.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is in my district, I’ve had a number of people contact me. The names are Mary Anne, Bill or Will Stuhlsatz, J.D. Munley, Bill Giles, and I think I had a couple emails which I can’t find this morning. All together I think I’ve had several opponents and proponents contact me. I’ll just tell you that I’ve done my very best, and I will tell you I am completely neutral right now. I have no opinion on this matter, it has not influenced my decision today.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Commissioner Meitzner.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Yes, Mr. Chair, I declare that I have had one exparte telephone call with one of the neighbors in the neighborhood.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Commissioner O’Donnell.”

Commissioner O’Donnell said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had two phone calls with some people in the neighborhood.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Very good. I appreciate that. Okay, Dale Miller.”

Mr. Dale Miller, Director, Metropolitan Area Planning Department, greeted the Commissioners and said, “As noted, this is a request for a zone change for approximately 3.78 acres to go from current SF- 20 which is single family to OW office warehouse. It is located as you can see here on the map, on the south side of east Pawnee approximately half a mile east of south 143rd street east. The applicant currently operates a commercial landscaping business in Butler county, they primarily do work for large commercial landscaping jobs where they install landscape materials and irrigation systems. They do not do retail sales, they don’t store plant material on site, most of their work, like I said, is installing irrigation systems and then they go to wholesale nurseries to purchase the plant material and have it delivered to the site. Their recent jobs include Cargill, Camping World, and Mark Arts to give you some idea of the work they do. The applicants have purchased this property, that’s the upside-down L there that you see, they also purchased the rectangle that is immediately west and north of the application area that would make a complete rectangle if it were included in the zone change. There is a house that you’ll see here in a minute on that property. They purchased both those tracts. As you can see here, the majority of the zoning in the area is all SF-20. This is the Wichita city limits, roughly half a mile away from the application area. As you can see all that pink color, or whatever that is, is SF-20. Here’s an aerial, shows the land use, you can see, it’s hard to see, but there is a house here, that’s on the applicant’s ownership but is not part of the subject zone change. The closest house is over here roughly 1,020 feet away from the application area, there’s also a house here that’s roughly 1,500 feet away, another house here that’s approximately 2,000 feet away, then down here is the other one from the application area. As you can see a lot of this ground is used for pasture or farming. Pawnee is paved. The current City of Wichita – Sedgwick County land use plan shows this as being located inside the City of Wichita’s urban growth area, and it identifies this site as being appropriate for new residential uses. The applicant submitted a site plan, as you’re aware a typical zone change, there is no requirement for a site plan. However the Planning Commission asked for one to be submitted as part of their consideration, so this draft plan has been submitted. I believe we provided copies to you as part of the briefings. The Planning Commission recommended approval 11-0 subject to a protective overlay. That protective overlay includes additional standards outside of what are the standard requirements for office warehouse. Office warehouse district allows for outdoor storage, but it has to be screened from ground level view, that’s a standard requirement. In addition to the basic standards, the Planning Commission recommended that they can’t use any parking spaces for storage or loading, that outdoor storage is not to exceed the floor area of all buildings located on the zoning lot, materials stored outdoors cannot be seen from ground level view, and that’s just a repeat of an existing standard. On top of that, to try and address the neighbors’ concerns about the number of uses and the type of uses that are permitted by right in OW, the protective overlay limits the site to only uses allowed by right in SF-20, which is what it is zoned today, basically residential uses on a half-acre, and the landscape and landscape maintenance business. That’s the only non-residential use they can have on here, other than what’s allowed by right in SF-20, like a church, or some of those things. Planning Commission, two individuals spoke in opposition, they cited the following concerns: they had not seen site plan, and as I have pointed out, the code does not require on the zone change that the applicant submit a site plan as part of the application like we do with a conditional use. They were concerned that the applicant’s existing site is unsightly, and I believe we provided copies of the photos that they had taken of their current site when we did the briefings. They were concerned that OW allows a broad range of uses by right, that they are concerned don’t fit in with the neighborhood. That was the reason for the requirement of the protective overlay, that it only be the landscape, landscape maintenance business, and then uses allowed by right in SF-20. That the comprehensive plan shows this site is appropriate for low density residential, and therefore this proposed zone change is out of character with the plan’s recommendation. The use will not serve the immediate residents, and if this were to be approved, it would amount to spot zoning. Now, I did take the liberty, and would defer to legal staff if there are more questions about spot zoning, but I did find a case where

2 in summary, the court said that the test for spot zoning was would the use differ significantly from prevailing uses in the area? Would the change benefit a single owner, and would the change benefit that single owner at the expense of surrounding owners or the general public? I’ll let you sort through that as you will, but I thought that would provide some additional guidance to you. The applicant in his rebuttal at the planning commission indicated his current location, the property owner that he is renting from, won’t allow them to improve the site. That’s why they are moving to this location, that they can have more control of the site, and do the things that they think they need to do to have a quality location. I believe there are people here that can speak for the applicant, and the residents are here as well. I won’t go into their arguments any further, basically, this is the house that’s on the site that is not part of the application area. It’s the property to the west and north. As I said, the applicant has purchased that house and from driving by and looking at it, it looks like they have extensive renovation work going on there right now. Again, this is the site from Harry where the property is, the application area is actually over here. Another shot of the area again, there’s the barbed wire fence, Harry looking back to the west. This is the eastern side of the tract where the house is, so the application area is this grassy area here, and then to the further east is part of the hedgerow that will be incorporated into the screening requirement that the PO (protective overlay) requires. Another shot of the house, looking further towards the southeast corner of the application area. I believe that’s it. I’ll try and answer questions.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Very good. Any questions for Mr. Miller? I don’t see any questions for you at this time. The one thing, Dale Miller only comes to us infrequently, and I know he is going to be retiring soon. I don’t know if he is going to be coming up before his retirement, I don’t know what the schedule looks like coming up. So I want to make sure that we recognize the service that he’s provided to us as Director of Planning, and one of the planners. I worked with him for nine years when I was on the MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Commission). He is also a graduate of OU (University of Oklahoma), I am also a graduate of OU, we have something in common there. I want to tell you, on behalf of the commission, thank you very much. I don’t know what the plans are in the future for being able to recognize you, but I know this is one of the last times, maybe, we might have a chance to recognize you in front of the commission. Thank you, sir.”

Mr. Miller said, “Thank you very much. I’ve got about 40 days left.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Commissioner Howell, do you have a question?”

Commissioner Howell said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was debating whether I should ask my questions now or later. I think I’ll ask questions now, so if anybody else has comments besides Director Miller they can also address my questions. I am looking at the backup material that’s in the agenda book, and I believe on page 25, it talks about the office warehouse district has limitations on outdoor storage. It goes on and lists a few things, three things, about parking, the outdoor storage should not exceed floor area. Are these standard pieces of language for all OW zoning, or are these developed specifically for this application?”

Mr. Miller said, “The protective overlay contains the standards that were developed specifically for this location, as part of the hearing request, in addition to the basic standards that the zoning code requires.

Commissioner Howell said, “Let me ask the question one more time, I’m not sure I said it quite right. The things I am listing here, are not actually listed in the protective overlay, these are listed on page 25. There’s three things listed here as limitations for OW. It says on street parking space or loading space should not be used for storage, the amount of outdoor storage should not exceed the size of the building,

3 and items stored outside should not be visible from adjacent or non-elevated street. Are these standard things for OW?”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.” Commissioner Howell said, “Or are these developed for this particular application?”

Mr. Miller said, “No, those are standard OW requirements. The one that was added specifically to address this case, because of the comments was the limitation that the only OW use is the landscape and landscape maintenance, in addition to the SF-20 uses.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Now to that point, I just want to say, apparently I did get this, but I didn’t realize this was the protective overlay, because I didn’t see it titled that. I did have information in my backup, although I didn’t know that’s what it was. I was able to get a copy of that this morning. Protective overlay number 343, does list the four criteria that are specific to this application, correct?

Mr. Miller said, “Right.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I would just like to say, I am reading this very carefully, and trying to find out where does it say… let me ask another question. OW normally would have other uses allowed.”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Correct?”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Where does it limit it to just the landscaping business, and the Single- Family 20 use?”

Mr. Miller said, “That’s the criteria on number four, I believe it is, no, number one on the protective overlay is where it specifically lists that. It says all uses permitted in SF-20, single-family residential, in addition to those uses associated with landscape and landscape maintenance service and equipment typically used in the operation of a landscape maintenance business as permitted in the OW office warehouse district.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I guess, if I were to have written that sentence I probably would have made it clearer that other uses under OW are not permitted. It doesn’t actually say that. I am not trying to be an English…”

Mr. Miller said, “Okay. Certainly we can modify the resolution, if ultimately you end up recommending approval, we can modify the language to reflect a more accurate…”

Commissioner Howell said, “…as we contemplate this today, let’s think about that for a minute. I see Justin nodding his head a little bit. I’d like to know maybe, if I’m by myself by seeing that in this or not? I don’t know if I am the only one that sees that. I don’t see any language that actually says other uses under OW are not permitted. I don’t know where that language would be anywhere in this material. I would present that as a question. And then, couple of other questions, with respect to the enforcement of the protective overlay, if the applicant is well intentioned, but let’s say a year from now, for whatever

4 reason they kind of fall out of compliance with this, what is the enforcement mechanism for keeping this, you know, agreeable to this permission today?”

Mr. Miller said, “As you know, Kelly Dixon is the County Zoning Enforcement Officer, and anyone can file a complaint with him. He would then go investigate and determine whether there’s a violation, and if there is, then he would take the appropriate corrective actions that can ultimately lead to court, to taking the applicant to court if they don’t voluntarily comply.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I have a number of code violation issues in my district right now that we are trying to work out, this would kind of fall into the same process that you have been trying to use on other properties?”

Mr. Miller said, “Depends on whether it is a zoning violation, or whether it’s another violation. If it’s a zoning violation that would be the standard process.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Okay. And then finally, maybe not finally, I have a couple more questions. I did receive a draft copy of a landscape plan. If we approve this today, does this become a filed copy, not a draft?”

Mr. Miller said, “No. If it’s approved, it depends whether there’s any changes here, but we wanted to provide you with what they had given us, to this point in terms of going through the process, but we will get a finalized plan that reflects whatever is approved, if it is approved.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I guess I would like to just know what we’re considering today, whether there’s any potential changes to this. If we approve this today, we don’t have a final copy of what’s been presented, so I am wondering if we approve this today, how do I know what I am approving if I don’t have a proposed…”

Mr. Miller said, “Well, I mean, the requirement is, there has to be solid screening that cannot be seen from street level, and staff typically reviews that, and determines whether the plan is accurate. We typically don’t bring plans back to either governing body for final approval, provided that we know what the standards are.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I think I have two more questions. I may have questions later as well. As I am looking at this plan, one of the things I noticed, the west property line, according to this map, I am not saying this is accurate, I don’t know if it is accurate or not, I have no idea, but it shows these trees on the west side of that dashed line, does that mean that they’re on the neighbor’s property?”

Mr. Miller said, “I’ll let the applicant speak to that. I don’t know for sure.”

Commissioner Howell said, “If they are on the adjacent property owner’s property, I am curious, if those trees weren’t there, does this applicant have a responsibility then to…”

Mr. Miller said, “What we’ve done in the past, if there’s landscaping on somebody else’s property, the abutting property, and the abutting property owner for some reason decides to take it out, then the applicant would then have to replace those, but we don’t make them double up, as long as the trees that are there comply.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I think that’s reasonable. I just wanted to make it clear. I don’t think either owner has the intent to take those trees out, I am curious what is the responsibility if the trees weren’t there, they would have the responsibility to screen their own property, essentially, similar to what we see on this map?”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Okay. Then finally, you mentioned this in the ICT Urban Growth area. I understand that Wichita owns property to the east and to the south of the subject property; is that correct?”

Mr. Miller said, “Owns property?”

Commissioner Howell said, “I should say, well it’s inside the city limits, inside the city. I’m not saying they own it, I don’t know who owns it.”

Mr. Miller said, “That is the existing City of Wichita city limits. That is a subdivision, and then over here, just west of 143rd, it’s not right on the street right-of-way, but just to the west of there is additional property, I think it’s Southeast High, is over there. So…”

Commissioner Howell said, “There’s really nothing on this view that shows, other than the top left corner, city limits of Wichita.”

Mr. Miller said, “Correct.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Okay, you say it is in their urban growth area. Have they weighed in on this in any way? Do they have a right to give us an opinion on this?”

Mr. Miller said, “Okay. Phillip is telling me that the city actually owns this property as well, even though it has not been annexed. But, no, the City of Wichita, because half of the Planning Commission is comprised of people appointed by the governing body, they don’t have a separate hearing like the second and third class cities do with their area of influence hearings.”

Commissioner Howell said, “That’s all my questions for now. Thank you for the answers. I look forward to hearing from the folks in the room. Thank you so much, Chairman.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you, appreciate it. Dale, I don’t see any more questions for you. At this time, I will open it up to the public. I have five individuals that are signed up, you’ll each have three minutes from the time that you approach the podium. I’ll ask each of you to state your name for the record. First person is J.D. Munley. State your name for the record, you’ll have three minutes.”

Mr. J.D. Munley, 14516 E. Pawnee, Wichita, greeted the Commissioners and said, “There will be other people here that will talk about the nuts and bolts of it, but a couple things I want to talk about are trust. Every one of us that bought property in this area, bought it under this current zoning. It’s been my experience that the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County have almost a total disregard for existing taxpayers and property owners. If somebody new comes in with something different, they will change the zoning in a New York minute no matter what the other property owners want, and you want us to trust that nothing else is going to happen to this piece of property, but when we bought our properties,

6 this was zoned agriculture residential. Now you’re changing the rules, I don’t think that’s right. I would like to state that based on an article in the paper, that piece of property that the City of Wichita owns, but isn’t in the city yet, was donated to the city with the requirement that it be a public park. You are going to put a commercial deal that’s eventually going to be a city park. At least that’s my understanding, based on the Eagle article. You know, if you guys were in our situation, you would spend a lot of money on homes, and then upkeep and all that, to have a spot zoning dropped in on you, does not seem right, and I don’t think any of you would appreciate it if it was your property. Thank you.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Next individual is Bill Giles. Please state your name for the record, you will have three minutes.” Mr. Bill Giles, 14615 E. Pawnee, Wichita, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I am representing the Lee Banks Family Trust. If I could have zero-zero. This particular image shows the subject parcel in bright red, along with the surrounding properties around it, which are all relatively large properties. The diagonal red lines represent those property owners who are against this zoning change. The diagonal gray represents the city’s property, of which we have recently heard third-party that some of the elected officials have finally become aware of this proposed zoning change and they’ve expressed personal interest that they are not in favor of this happening, although we don’t have it as an official statement of the elected officials’ body. Next, there we go. This particular property in green is in the middle of 4,000 acres, six square miles of residential use property, both historically, current, and forecasted into the future to 2035 for the comprehensive plan. This particular use is not in line with residential uses that have been there, that are there, and are likely to move into the future. Next, the comprehensive plan that the Director also brought up, in the next one after this, too, this is the entire sheet, but perhaps the next slide will focus in on this particular image. This is all intended to be residential area into the future as well, although there is commercial, limited commercial zoning, which does allow for their use already at 127th and Pawnee, 127th and Harry, and 143rd and Harry. There are places in this immediate area that can accommodate this use, that we do not have to take this suffer to have it in our backyard, but put it in the areas already provided. Next, please. The degree of increase, our zoning ordinance provides what is commonly held in planning theory, to separate intensity of use so that people of particular uses can have a certain degree of protection, than having something super intensive next to them. We have that structure in our zoning ordinance here, where currently a Single-Family 20 zoning, and we are anticipating that this is an increase of 12 steps of intensity of use over to OW. That is a seriously significant increase, and does result in this discomfort. I’m sorry, 30 seconds, we’re not going make it at all. This particular chart also shows that the particular use of OW does not allow residential. It is not a residentially acceptable use in theirs, and we are putting it in the middle of 4,000 acres of residential use. As well as the SPF 20 does not allow for the proposed use of construction sales and services. Next, and I am getting a red light as it is now.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Continue, you can continue.”

Mr. Giles said, “Thank you, sir. Golden factors was raised as a question by one of the planning commissioners during the Planning Commission meeting. An answer if it was given audibly, I didn’t hear it, or if it might have been motioned visually, there was no further question after the question that was raised. In actuality, there are golden factor issues here that do relate to the property and cause us a great deal of concern as well. Particularly number eight, no, it’s not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. This has always been, as it was previously pointed out, when we bought the property, it was low density residential, it’s being used as that. Even though the distance to existing houses may be a great distance, it doesn’t look into the future as to how changes may continue to develop on these properties, and houses continue to be built closer to it. As well as the concern while we

7 are making a zoning change to accommodate this particular applicant, this zoning change continues on into the future, well after this particular applicant may sell the property, and we don’t know who the attitude of the people that may come in behind. And it just opens up too many things to the future that are unknown, and are not comparable to being in a residential area. Next, please. If we had the opportunity to look at trends to see what our community says we should be doing, yes, the OW is a specific zoning district that does allow for construction sales and service identified land use. If we looked at the examples that are provided here, where are those located in our community? They certainly aren’t in OW zoning districts. Looking up a couple of competitors to the applicant, their properties are located in light industrial areas. When we look at the example of lumber yards and home improvement centers, Menard’s, Lowe’s, Home Depot, those are not in OW, they are in commercial and light industrial zones. While the OW may have as an acceptable use, we question as to whether or not it actually ever occurs. Next, please. This is an example of an OW property use in, it happens to be in the city, but our Planning Commission operates for both the benefit of the other. We can see that there is an OW use that is immediately adjacent to residential. What we see is in the context of where it is located, it is adjacent to commercial, and it doesn’t stand out on its own. As well, this particular land use that was asked, are there other land uses available in the OW besides construction sales and service. Yes, there are. Scroll down, please. What we see is that in this OW it’s an office building, which is one of those expected uses, not necessarily a landscape business, although it is specifically allowed. Where we find our landscape businesses are not in the OW zone. This is not a business application that is really conducive to being adjacent to residential. Next, please. The particular resolution has questions that was part of the major part of my presentation at the Planning Commission was trying to raise the issues that we have a staff report that’s flawed in support of the approval of the resolution that staff was recommending. It causes us to continue to bring question to the legitimacy of our planning staff, our professional planning staff, we rely upon and pay taxes and our fees to support them, because the intent of the zoning is to protect the public and protect ourselves. Just as was pointed out by one the other owners in the area, is that we come in to the area expecting some consistency, that’s why we do zoning and that’s why we do comprehensive plans. To arbitrarily put a zoning that’s so extreme increase in the intensity of use, in the middle of this enormously large area of low residential zoning, it’s an egregious use of spot zoning, and the basis of what our cause is, this should not be approved. Would you scroll down, please? The text of the protective order is convoluted, and I question the point that was made that the last sentence at the description of item number one says that, no exception, there will be no residential uses on this property. That was just a clarification from what the Director was providing, is that here is a use, OW does not allow residential. And we’re putting that zoning in the middle of 4,000 acres, six square miles of residential zoning. Egregious spot zoning. One of the recollections on my part about the actual recommendation and approval of the Planning Commission was for an approval of landscape and nursery, for which there was actually no discussion about a nursery, and the applicant hasn’t acknowledged that they’ve ever intended to do anything with a nursery, but that was the wording of the action of the Planning Commission, and we don’t see any reference to that. It’s been told to me staff and legal have the ability to make amendments to interpret what was meant over what was said. In the course of that action too, the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare the project overlay, which would occur after the Planning Commission action, which doesn’t give us the opportunity to review and comment on that to the Planning Commission. As well as the request of a site development plan. My recollection, there was a reference to ten days, ten business days, two-week period, that both would be done. We don’t believe that actually has occurred, as to what the Planning Commission has requested, but we see here the reference is made now, is that a development plan is not required until 30 days after action that you would take. Which again, is a question that the Planning Commission made certain statements in their action, and we are pursuing other details different from what they had requested. Next, please. In the course of the process, there has been a document that has been presented to planning

8 staff, for which a copy has been sent to me. We understand that the office warehouse zoning district requires a screening. We find it questionable that the density of the screening that’s described in the zoning. But what we see is that’s an obligation of the developer of the OW property to put it entirely inside their property, and it is a responsibility that they have to maintain it. The suggestions here in this draft concept plan of landscaping intends to use existing cedar trees on the east and on the north of the subject property, to which I recall cedar is actually an intrusive plant. It grows across fields if it’s not taken out, and it’s not actually a preferred plant, although I have not personally checked the list of approved plants for screening, for screens required by zoning to see that this is a legitimate plant for that, as well as the hedgerow on the west side. I think the comment here that the hedgerow is not on the neighbor’s property, which happens to be the neighbor’s property that I am representing, it is a point that I’m not certain that that, too, Osage Orange being a specific species on the approved list that you would propose to put into a screening installation to meet compliance. The other thing about the screening requirements is that we are talking about starting from fresh, with plants that are maybe six or eight inches tall, two-inch caliper, 20 to 30 feet apart, with six shrubs between them. Particularly when that would be installed, that’s no screen to obscure business operations on the property next door. As well as the amount of time it would take for it to grow to maturity. So we are not getting a screen, we are getting a bit of a filter. The evidence that’s particular here right now with the hedgerow is that they are deciduous trees, those leave are gone, you can see through them. A solid screen is not being provided here. We’re continuing to see observation of whatever the business activities are. Next please.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Sir, can you wrap it up please.”

Mr. Giles said, “Yes, sir. I think I’ve got just one more. The golden factors again, please, and scroll down a little bit. The extent to which item number four, the extent to which this will drastically affect the nearby property, is that we have conditions of business operation that are noise, that are traffic, that are odor, that are light pollution, that would not otherwise be expected to occur here in a use that would be within the current zoning limits, and we must suffer through that too. There’s no provision that these will not occur now, or particularly in the future, as a future owner may he acquire this property. We look to accommodate the wishes of the owner now, but we are putting into place conditions that extend off into the future, well past what they may be responsible for.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you, sir.”

Mr. Giles said, “Thank you very much.”

Chairman Dennis said, “I don’t see any comment or questions. Thank you. Next speaker is Chris Lette. Please approach the podium, state your name for the record, you’ll have three minutes, sir.

Mr. Chris Lette, 14900 E. Pawnee, Wichita, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I am here speaking on behalf of myself and Dr. Harrison. Dr. Harrison owns the property directly north of the property that is asking for the spot zoning. The zoning going from SF-20 to OW. Both of us are greatly concerned that the proposed change in zoning is out of line for the zoning area. What we have believed since we purchased our property is that we would never have to consider such a severe change in allowable land use would occur in SF-20 zoned area. I have spent a considerable amount of time and money improving my residential property, only to have this possibility occur. The proposed land use as a landscape business is way out of consideration as being compatible use to the remaining residential area properties zoned in this area. Director Miller did point that out. This benefits only one property owner. It hurts all the other surrounding property owners and residents. One of the property owners is the City of Wichita,

9 which has the property to the east and south of the proposed property. The city was purchased or donated this land for a park. Now, I would like to talk about the quality of life for myself and other residents living around the area in question. If this is approved, we would be subject to activities of landscaping business, the lighting pollution, the noise from the business activities, odors from the business activities, and run-off from the storm water. The water does run east to the future park, then north to Dr. Harrison’s property. As well as blight, based on existing facility, which I believe you were provided photos, we have this to use as a measuring stick. Trees and bushes will not completely cover this business. The applicants have stated they intend to get roll-off dumpsters to hold the waste from business activities. The applicants have stated they intend to get into larger bulk fertilizer sales. Both will increase noise and business activity in the area. Myself and Mr. Giles did meet with Philip Vettenberg, in discussion, it was pointed out that overlay conditions were not complete then, or as of today, things are still fluid. Mr. Vettenberg also said we should have protested the initial zoning board hearing, neither myself nor Mr. Harrison were able to do this. I asked Mr. Vettenberg if this failure meant that we have to live with this irregular zoning and the change in our quality of life. The project overlay is not firmed up as of yet, nor the restrictions that Mr. Vettenberg had spoke of. At the very least, the property owners have a chance to evaluate this before this spot zoning change. The applicants are out nothing if this does not pass or sent back to the zoning board. They purchased an SF-20 property, but if this is passed, the resident’s of the property and owners in the area will suffer quality of life and value of their properties. I am asking the commissioners to please deny or send this back to zoning board to review and finish the restrictions of the project overlay, and allow the affected property owners the chance to review. This is our homes, our lives, and we will not benefit from this business being allowed to be put in this residential area. I would like to point out, too, that the court case he is speaking of, it is just benefiting one owner, one property owner, affecting all the rest of the property owners. Thank you.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. I don’t see any questions, thank you for your time.”

Mr. Lette said, “Thank you.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Next is Kristi Ann Hill.”

Ms. Kristi Ann Hill, 15001 E. Pawnee, Wichita, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I’m also going to speak for my husband who just had surgery two days ago. We’re against this. We’re probably the newest people in this area. We, too, spent a lot of time and a lot of money to improve our property. We don’t want this. That’s really all there is for me to say. I appreciate your time, appreciate for you to think about us, not just that one particular area. Thank you.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Charles Hill is not going to speak then?”

Ms. Hill said, “No, he’s not going to get up.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Very good. That’s all the folks that I had signed up on this. Is the applicant in the audience, would you like to speak? Please state your name for the record. I’ll give you a latitude because I gave the other side a little latitude.”

Mr. Will Stuhlsatz, Applicant, Premier Landscape, greeted the Commissioners and said, “I’ll try to make myself sound a little more human than I’ve made out to be, I believe. Premier Landscape is a family-owned business that’s been in business for over 21 years. As a landscape construction and maintenance company, we pride ourselves on improving existing landscapes and creating new

10 landscapes that are healthy for our environment. We are a local pioneers of installing water efficient and irrigation systems and water harvesting. We encourage the use of organic fertilizers and discourage the use of non-direct pesticides. Much of our work has been done for many not for profits, including the YMCA, Boy and Girl Scouts, the Goodwill’s and Catholic diocese and charities. Over the last couple years we have landscaped Mark Arts on north Rock Road, and Cargill’s new HQ building in downtown Wichita. We are currently working on Steeple Bay project for the City of Wichita and south Wichita, where we did the new Camping World and Gander Outdoor landscape this last summer. Our current facility in Butler county is a rental property that we outgrew many years ago. Our hands have been tied and we have not been allowed to make improvements to help us do business more efficiently. It is our intentions to develop the property to service our business in a cleaner, more environmental-friendly way. It has been our dream for many years to build a facility that we can be proud of, and enjoy working out of. The proposed zoning change will allow us to build this non-combustible, less than 25-foot tall, beautifully landscaped building to complement the agricultural farmland surrounding us. This new site came with a farmhouse that we’ve spent the last few months rehabilitating and making it habitable again. We are excited to have a place for our children to play.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. I don’t see any questions for you. Do I see any questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Howell?” Commissioner Howell said, “Thank you. Appreciate the comments of all the people that spoke. I have one question for the Director Miller, probably. That is, this zone change is impacting both properties, the L-shaped, plus the corner next to that, or is this just for the L-shape only?

Mr. Miller said, “The OW is only for the area outlined in black, the upside-down L.

Commissioner Howell said, “Why do we need to have SF-20 included in the OW, inside the L. They have a house outside the L. Why is there need to be provisions in this for SF-20, you know, for allowances inside the L shape?”

Mr. Miller said, “Because of the concern about all the uses that were allowed in OW, what the Planning Commission was trying to do, was to craft a motion that allowed for other uses besides the one use that they’ve described, and their decision was that it would be uses allowed in SF-20, which is basically half- acre, single-family lots, and also a few other civic and public uses that are allowed by right. Basically it is a single-family district, plus the landscape, and landscape maintenance business. The whole point was to try and eliminate all the other uses that are allowed in OW which the neighbors were concerned could go in there if this was granted with straight OW with no protective overlay. Without that provision to allow the uses allowed in SF-20, this property would end up with only one use allowed, if it were approved without that language

Commissioner Howell said, “As it is being approved right now, as proposed today, if we approve this, they could have a warehouse and a residence on the L-shape?”

Mr. Miller said, “The only thing they can have is a landscape and landscape maintenance facility based on the site plan that gets approved, they’re showing a warehouse or a business building on the property, but it would have to be in substantial conformance in terms of size and location with the approved site plan. They couldn’t run, let’s say, a trucking business, needed a warehouse, and was going to store material. They would not be able to use the site for this the way the PO [Protective Overlay] is worded. It could only be used in association with landscape and landscape maintenance business.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Looking at some of the drawings I’m seeing here, it shows a parking requirement, parking lot. I see a number of spaces there. Is this a concrete driveway?”

Mr. Miller said, “I believe in the county they allow them to use rock. Rock is considered to be paved.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Some defined parking spaces here. Is that also rock?”

Mr. Miller said, “The parking spaces and the circulation area are required to be rock.”

Commissioner Howell said, “There is also an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) space showing here. I was just curious how that…”

Mr. Miller said, “The code requires for X numbers of parking spaces, you have to have an ADA space.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Okay. With that number of spaces, are we expecting very much traffic at this location? I mean, I don’t know in terms of, have you guys talked about traffic?”

Mr. Miller said, “I would let them respond. They said there’s no retail sales, so the only traffic would be what’s coming and going from their business, going from here to their site, and back, and their employees coming and leaving, would be my assume. I am told that they are going to concrete the parking lot, is what I am being told.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Okay. I am curious, under SF-20, if somebody wanted to build an outbuilding essentially like this building, would that be allowed under SF-20?”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes, as an accessory, for a garage, for you know, for a personal workshop.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Under the home occupation codes inside Sedgwick County, are they allowed to operate a landscaping irrigation business inside of a home occupation code?”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes, they would, if they complied with all the conditions of a home occupation, which is that there has to be a resident occupant on the property, and they have a limitation on outdoor storage, and their setbacks. Our understanding was that the residence may or may not be occupied for long term by someone who is operating the business. I don’t know if that’s what I was told by other staff. The size of their storage area, and the way they want to do, it didn’t meet the rural home occupations. There’s also a limitation on the number of employees that I understand they don’t meet. So that’s why we didn’t direct them to the rural home occupation. But, yes, there is an existing one that we are pretty familiar with northwest.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I’m just saying if this business didn’t have any employees that actually accessed the property, if there were employees that reported elsewhere, they never access this property, you understand that’s kind of the plan, I understand. If this was all one piece of property, then home occupation actually would be almost by right under Sedgwick County code.”

Mr. Miller said, “If they complied with all the setbacks and the maximum storage area, yes.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Based on what you know about Sedgwick County code, is there anything that’s popping off this proposal that would sound like it’s restriction on that being a potential…I’m not

12 saying we should do that, just saying if they were to go down that path, is there anything presented today in terms of setbacks, size of building or storage that you think would be something that would not be a conflict with the home occupation…”

Mr. Miller said, “Technically the home is not on the site. So it wouldn’t be.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I understand right now, but those properties could be joined together. Could they not?”

Mr. Miller said, “Potentially, I mean, they might be, but they’re limited to four employees, in a rural home occupation, and there is, like I said, there’s storage maximums, I think they are under that. It’s possible that they could operate this as a home occupation.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I am just thinking about other businesses in my district, for example, that have some outbuildings, and maybe have a piece of equipment in the building, they may have hundreds of employees, but they happen to live on the property that has an outbuilding. I am curious, if this business doesn’t have employees who are coming to the property to do work, then in effect they have employees in their business that don’t access the property, what’s the limitation of four, when does that come into play here?”

Mr. Miller said, “Well, if you as a homeowner and you are not running a business, you can build a barn as big as you can pay for, as long as you meet the setbacks. There is no minimum or maximum. But if you are doing a home occupation, then I believe there’s a limitation of 20,000 square feet of storage area, and there’s also a limitation on the outside storage, I forgot about that, that the outside storage area can be no larger than I believe 3,000 square feet, or the same size as the home on the site, and I believe their outside storage exceeds that. That would be problematic for them, but, I have a hard time responding to a "what if," when that’s not what we are discussing here.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I am wondering why this proposal came up packaged the way it is. I’m wondering what other options…”

Mr. Miller said, “Based on the information we had when they filed, this was the most appropriate zoning. OW is the first district that allows outside storage and it requires it to be screened. The limited commercial district allows outside storage, but it’s limited to being located within 10 feet of the building in which the material is being offered for sale and you can only have stuff stored outside, that is offered for sale inside the building, so LC doesn’t work. OW was specifically designed in 1996 to account for these kinds of businesses. We put it together for like plumbers, electricians, and people who don’t need primary retail space, but they need a location to store and to have their equipment, and have employees come to. So we created OW. There was no OW prior to 1996 in either zoning code.”

Commissioner Howell said, “I’ll sit back and listen to the conversation, but I may have a few more questions at some point. Thank you for the answers.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Commissioner Meitzner.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Thanks. Dale, while you are up there. When this came in front of the Planning Commission, I am reading the minutes, there was like two or three comments?”

Mr. Miller said, “I believe there were two speakers that were there, and I tried to represent what their comments were as accurately as possible.” Commissioner Meitzner said, “Okay. So there was protest information sent out, but no protest received?”

Mr. Miller said, “We sent out follow-up letters after the action of the Planning Commission to people who spoke at the Planning Commission or signed up, and give them here’s what the Planning Commission did. We provide the date if it’s going to move on to a governing body hearing, and then we provide specific instructions about the protest petition and when the deadline is, and which clerk is supposed to receive it. We also have that in the original notice, although it is not as detailed in the original notice, it does reference the ability to file a protest.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Okay. Part of my personal frustration is that I’ve been around these zoning cases for a few years, and seen change of use and things. The Planning Commission traditionally is the venue to where a lot of conversation and a lot of terms can be and adjustments and requirements, and everything else can happen. I take a little exception with Mr. Giles, you know, criticism of the Planning Commission. I don’t know what your exact quote was, Mr. Giles, but the Planning Commission, from my perspective, they are very intelligent people that study a lot, they know all the terms that frankly none of us really know. This venue for five people to consider all the things that we are talking about, and all the information you have all shared with us was not shared with the smarter people that are involved in zoning, planning requirements, restrictions, overlays. You’re telling us about lengths of trees and leaves and it was just not what I or this commission from my perspective, have to sit here and kind of make sausage at the bench, when there is already a venue that’s there, and it’s been around a long time, and it’s very obvious. I know that Commissioner Howell is probably a little more smarter about all the terms and restrictions and you’ve done a nice job of asking a lot of questions that are more technical in nature. This becomes difficult, my guess is, I don’t even know what the rules are, if this was returned to Planning Commission, I guess, A, we have to have a reason, B…”

Mr. Miller said, “If in your opinion, you feel like that there’s just too much confusion about what’s going on, you could return it to the Planning Commission, asking them to reconsider the case that you would need to specifically, if you want public testimony, advise them that’s what you are expecting. Because in the past we have said that’s up to the commission on whether they take additional testimony. But certainly, if you feel like there’s too much confusion, you could send it back and ask them to clarify anything that you think is not clear in the presentation today.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Okay. From the conversation I’ve heard, it appears that Mr. Stuhlsatz with the plan not required to be submitted, but he did require, but he did submit one, a development plan.”

Mr. Miller said, “Right.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “That maybe has a few gray areas in it and criticisms. So would that be in a venue at the Planning Commission where they could define…”

Mr. Miller said, “Certainly.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “…length, size of trees…”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “…leaves or not, those kind of things.”

Mr. Miller said, “Right. The basic fact is on OW any outside storage needs to be screened from street level. Whatever landscape and the code allows them to use landscaping, berms, or fencing, or some combination of the three. At the end of the day, whatever they do, it has to be solidly blocked from view, from ground level, and so that’s why the site plan is not finalized, and the other reason is, it depends on what happens here. You guys could add or delete conditions of approval, as you see fit based on the testimony, and so that’s why we are telling everybody discussing this that it is a draft because until it complies with whatever the final ruling is, it is not finished.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Right. I know when there’s a housing development, I mean, the plat is not even required to be delivered.”

Mr. Miller said, “Right, correct.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “It is just they are going to go housing and then if it’s cul-de-sacs or streets or whatever, that comes later.”

Mr. Miller said, “Yes.”

Commissioner Meitzner said, “Okay. Personally, from my perspective, I’m appreciative of what Mr. Stuhlsatz seems like he’s coming to the table with or the community with, and sounds like he has a resume of fantastic accomplishments in your previous business. I assume that he would try to keep that land to show off, as well as some of his clients, but I just wonder, if we would want to send this back, I would ask, we can make whatever decisions, and Commissioner Howell I kind of I respect your guidance on this. I would, if we do send it back, I would like for the Planning Commission to hear everything that we are hearing, or invite the people to voice their concerns and see if the smarter Planning Commission can make any adjustment that might satisfy some of the residents or not. I don’t mean to be kicking the ball down the road as much as I am just voicing my thoughts and concerns.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Commissioner Cruse.”

Commissioner Cruse said, “Thank you, Chairman. That’s kind of where I am at. I need a little bit more information. I think that I’ve heard from both sides now, and completely hate being in this situation, but that’s where I find myself. We’re talking about City of Wichita, talking about parks, talking about potential use of the land, and what kind of zoning changes that are similar like this that have happened in the past that maybe I can learn from. I just don’t know enough information I think about what’s happening here. I know that you briefed me for about 30 minutes, but I’ve had 30 minutes, I just need more time. Like Commissioner Meitzner, I don’t want to kick this ball down the field any longer than we have to, but this is clearly a big decision for both sides and I want to make sure I have enough information so that I am making a good decision, that I feel good about. I hope that you understand that, but that’s kind of where I am at, I don’t feel comfortable making a yes or no decision today. Just simply because I have more questions that I’d like to have answered in regards to, if we do change the zoning on this, what precedent are we setting?”

Mr. Miller said, “None.”

Commissioner Cruse said, “So we’re not setting any precedent at all for a rural residential (RR) to go to a different zone?”

Mr. Miller said, “Everything is either zoned SF-20 or RR in the country originally, so every zone change that has gone from today’s language SF-1 on up, has been a theoretically, a spot zone, depending on how big you think a spot is. We got LC zoning, we’ve got LI zoning, there’s all kinds of zoning districts that have been approved in the county in the past.”

Commissioner Cruse said, “I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but you say LC and… exactly… I haven’t been doing this as long as you.”

Mr. Miller said, “Limited commercial and limited industrial.”

Commissioner Cruse said, “Okay, I thank you for that. Like I said, I’d like a little more time to process this.”

Mr. Miller said, “Sure. No problem.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Commissioner O’Donnell.”

Commissioner O’Donnell said, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate everyone that spoke on this today. To kind of echo what Commissioner Meitzner was saying earlier, I do feel that the Planning Commission needs to get some of this information before. If there is a motion, I would support sending it back to the Planning Commission, but also allow for public comment from both the applicant and the neighbors and other individuals whose properties will be affected by it. That would be my suggestion, but I will also defer to Mr. Howell since that is his district. Thank you, Mr. Chair.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. Dale, point out the houses and how far away they are again.”

Mr. Miller said, “From here to the house here is roughly 1,000 feet.”

Chairman Dennis said, “One-fifth of a mile.”

Mr. Miller said, “From here to the house there is roughly 1,500 feet, from here to here, I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000, and then the one from here down to here was something less than that.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Okay, well thank you. I don’t agree that we need to send this back. I think we can make a decision today. The zoning that we have here in Sedgwick County is designed to make the highest and best use of a piece of property, that’s what we try and do, is the highest and best use. Am I right, Dale?”

Mr. Miller said, “From a real estate view point, the courts have ruled, that as long as there is economic value to the property, then there is no taking. The zoning can withstand a lawsuit, but most people think of it as highest and best use when they are discussing the activities. Is that correct Justin or Mike?”

Chairman Dennis said, “The properties that are concerned about this, first of all, it’s a paved road, it’s a

16 busy road. They are over a fifth of a mile from this, we’re worried about screening from a fifth of mile away. The whole thing doesn’t make sense that we have people that are concerned right now. The MAPC did their job, the MAPC heard this case, the MAPC said hey, maybe we want to restrict this a little further, so let’s put a protective overlay on it that protects these people that did speak. That’s what they did, they put a protective overlay on it that says, hey this thing can’t be anything other than a landscaping facility. That’s where we’re at today. I think the decision myself is pretty simple right now, I think we ought to approve this. The MAPC, who are the smart people that we were just talking about, heard this case and said 11-0, we’ll put a protective overlay on this, we’re going to protect the people that are over a fifth of a mile away that are concerned about this. We always have drafts of what the site plan is going to be, that can be finalized at the end. Talking about putting additional screening when there is already screening there because it’s not on their property is ridiculous. We don’t force that on anyone. I think today is the day that we make a decision and I certainly hope that the Commission does not kick this back to someone that’s already said 11-0 that this is a good idea. I would support approval of this. Commissioner Howell it’s your district, would you like to talk?”

Commissioner Howell said, “Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Just to kind of comment on some of your comments you just made a moment ago. I don’t think that I would support requiring additional screening on the west side of the property as long as that hedge row is already there, but I wanted to clarify that the applicant would have responsibility to ensure that the screening remain in place even if the hedgerow wasn’t there because it appears that hedgerow I think is on the neighbor’s property. I just wanted to clarify that truth. That’s why I asked the question. I’m not asking that we would require them to add additional screen on the west side at this time. Based on the comments of my colleagues, I don’t know that we have four votes for anything. The options right now, as I understand correctly, our legal folks give us a couple of clarifications on how many votes it requires to do different things. If we were so simply approve this or return this to MAPC requires a simple majority, three votes out of five. If we want to amend the protective overlay or deny the zone change, it requires four votes. The other option which I think is obvious to me at least, we have the option of deferring this, to give ourselves time to continue to contemplate this if we don’t feel like there’s any change is needed. That’s another option, to defer this for a future meeting, for us to take it back up again.

I think my biggest concern is that the protective overlay, as great as that is…let me back up just a moment. I want to say, I think Premier Landscape is a great company, clearly you have got a resume that shows that you’re high quality and very good at what you do, and I think we would love to have that in Sedgwick County. Butler County’s loss, and welcome to Sedgwick County. I think that’s awesome that you have a vision for that, but having said that, I think there’s been a number of things raised today that are legitimate. One of my concerns is the protective overlay, in my opinion, is lacking some clarity that it should restrict other potential uses for office warehouse, and it doesn’t do that. I don’t think the language is clear. You have a comment?”

Mr. Waggoner said, “I can understand the potential, your comment about clarity. I think I would add for clarity on what you’re talking about in terms of potential motions you may be able to make today. If it would be the will of the County Commission, one change that could be made would be to delete the ‘except for residential uses’ and add an additional sentence that would clarify that all other office warehouse uses are not permitted. I think it’s inferred because the point of protective overlay is to reduce the uses allowed under base zoning, but I think it would certainly be helpful to clarify that. That could be done with three votes, because that would not be amending what the Planning Commission voted to do, and so if the board would choose to do that, I think that would only require three votes. I just wanted to clarify that, because I realize the options you were given didn’t get that specific.”

Commissioner Howell said, “That’s helpful. We may ask you for help if we go that direction to get that language exactly clear. You might want to consider potentially drafting up an exact motion that would say what you just said so we could use that if we need to. One of my other frustrations about this is, and I appreciate the great work that MAPC does, I know they’re very thoughtful and do a great job getting through these very difficult, complex issues. One thing I wish they would do, at least for us as Commissioners, I wish they could kind of go through these nine golden factors and kind of talk about them in relation to the proposed change that’s being discussed.

I don’t have that help, it’s not in the minutes. I read the comments of the people that address the MAPC much like what we saw today, one of the things I’m hearing by talking to everybody, it seems like this was a little bit rushed. Some people, although they may have been notified legally, some of the folks who may have wanted to weigh in did not know about this when MAPC had its hearing. Apparently, through Mr. Munley, they’re presenting that through him today, the additional opposition. I guess my thought would be I wish that MAPC would speak to the golden factors. I will tell you my opinion is this is a half mile from the edge of the county, in terms of the character of the neighborhood. I don’t personally think this is a major concern of mine that this isn’t an appropriate use of that land, although I do think it’s relevant to the park to the east and to the south. I am a little concerned about that. I don’t know that Wichita actually thought that as an aspect to consider. I don’t know because it’s not in the minutes. I’m not sure they even knew that, so I guess I would like to know whether or not the Planning Commission was aware there’s city property that’s intended for city park just to the south and east of this subject property. I don’t know, because it’s not in the minutes.

To the extent that it continues to be agricultural, I think that the suitability of this property for the use that’s been proposed today is fine, in my opinion. I think the detriment to property values is generally overstated. I don’t know that that’s as big of a deal as people think it is. I’ve studied this for a while. I think people tend to name that as a major concern, although it wasn’t named that way today specifically. I know when I talk to people about that, there was some concerns about property values. I think that’s overstated usually, I don’t know if there is any evidence to back that up considering where this is. It’s a fairly small property. I’m still concerned about the fact that, I’m not sure this is the only way for the applicant to get there. I know that they’re using the wisdom and recommendations of MAPC.

Even if this was denied, I’m not sure this actually shuts down your plan, I think you have other options. At the end of the day, I think you’ll be successful in getting your operation up and running, even if it’s not through this process today, because I think there’s other options. With other things on this list, I don’t know how long the property has been vacant, I have no idea. I think there are some things you could do to make this a little bit more palatable to the opposition. For example, if you wanted to talk about odors and noise and traffic and height of buildings and some of the other things we talked about, the use of pesticides, the fact that the organic fertilizer is stored indoors, not outdoors. There’s no leaching of rainwater through that into the groundwater, for example. There’s a lot of things that could be identified in the protective overlay that would clarify some of the concerns. As it is currently written, it really doesn’t address any these things, I have to make the assumption, that all of those things could be whatever you want them to be, total freedom, because they’re not really addressed anywhere in this plan.

I guess I would say, my opinion is sending this back to MAPC with some of my comments just now, I would like to have them do more work on the protective overlay. I would prefer to send this back, give them a chance to clean things up a little bit and bring it back to us with, I guess, better language in the protective overlay. While that’s happening, maybe even reconsider whether or not this is really the best

18 plan for the applicant on how to get to where they want to be. I’m not so sure this is the only option you have. In my opinion, sending this back would be the best option, and I’ll be glad to make that motion if that’s where we’re at. I’m going to stop talking see where my colleagues are.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Thank you. I don’t see any other comments, so you’re welcome to make that motion. I think Justin probably has an amendment that he’d like to add if you wanted to change the overlay wording.”

Mr. Waggoner said, “Thank you, Chairman. I guess first, before I would get to that, I did want to point out, certainly there are numerous options you can make as a board on various motions. One thing I want to point out is, customarily Planning Department staff prepares a golden factors analysis, and they did on this item, it’s in your backup materials as part of their staff report for the MAPC agenda. Then the MAPC motion, adopted and incorporated the staff recommendation, which included those golden factors analysis into their motion. There has been an analysis, I think to Commissioner Howell’s point, they didn’t sit there and discuss each of the golden factors in some thorough fashion during their meeting. I think that was adopted and incorporated into their motion language with the staff recommendation. I just wanted to point that out in case you wanted to review those. With regard to actual language and the protective overlay for a motion, I can essentially restate what I stated before, which was two changes, one deletion, one addition, or Dale came up with additional language that he has. We could give you both of those and you could see if there are either one you would prefer to incorporate. I could kind of leave it up to the will of the board if you want to hear both of those options.”

Chairman Dennis said, “Commissioner O’Donnell has a comment here first before we get into those then. My preference would be that we look at options for rewording the protective overlay and we vote on whether or not we approve this zoning change. I think we have the knowledge, the information that we have, we rely on the MAPC. MAPC has the golden factors prepared when they make their decision. I don’t know that I need additional information. We’ll have to find out if the other commissioners agree with that or not. Commissioner O’Donnell.”

Commissioner O’Donnell said, “Thank you. I just wanted to ask Commissioner Howell if his motion also included the opportunity for more comment from the neighbors that are concerned, because I know that was addressed earlier, correct Justin? That has been part of our motion?”

Mr. Waggoner said, “I don’t think it has to be, but I think it would be helpful if that’s what your intent is to state that.”

Commissioner Howell said, “Thank you for the idea. The last time we sent one of these back, they didn’t really have a hearing that allowed additional comment, I don’t think.”

Mr. Waggoner said, “Actually, they did.”

Commissioner Howell said, “They did. Okay, I stand corrected. I apologize for that. If it would help, then I think it would be my desire that the MAPC would be very inclusive and allow any comments from proponents and opponents so they have all the information we have here today and other things that might come up. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion that we would return this matter to the MAPC with the recommendation they reconsider this item with respect to the protective overlay, any additional things that would clarify some of the issues raised today, I believe that the protective overlay is not as crisp as it could be, and I think it leaves a lot of things subject to, we don’t know exactly what

19 is being allowed and what is being restricted.”

MOTION

Commissioner Howell moved to return this Item back to MAPC.

Commissioner O’Donnell seconded the motion.

Chairman Dennis said, “I will not support this motion because I think we have the information we need. I think we could clear up the protective overlay. Planning staff does a great job, and they send out notices to every single person within the notification zone ahead of time. Every person had an opportunity to come and speak. Now we have someone saying, hey, I didn’t have an opportunity to speak. They were all notified. They did have an opportunity to speak. In addition, there is a protest period following MAPC action. They took no action during the protest period. I think at this time we have a chance to vote and move this thing forward. I will not be supporting the motion. I see no other comments. Madam Clerk, we have a motion and a second. Call the roll.”

VOTE

Commissioner O’Donnell II Aye Commissioner Cruse Aye Commissioner Howell Aye Commissioner Meitzner Aye Chairman Dennis No

(Other Proceedings)

Thereupon, the Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners adjourned.

20 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.8 STAFF REPORT MAPC-December 5, 2019

CASE NUMBER: ZON2019-00045

APPLICANT/AGENT VCRC 4, LLC (Applicant)/ Gaylan and Ryan Nett, Will Clevenger (Agents)

REQUEST: TF-3 Two-Family Residential and SF-5 Single Family Residential

CURRENT ZONING: SF-5 Single-Family Residential and TF-3 Two Family Residential

SITE SIZE: 0.76 acres

LOCATION: Approximately one-quarter mile north of East Pawnee Street and east of South Webb Road.

PROPOSED USE: Construction of duplexes

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 1 BACKGROUND: This application was filed to rezone a portion of the subject property from SF-5 Single-Family Residential to TF-3 Two-Family Residential and as well as another portion of the property from TF-3 to SF-5. The subject property is located approximately one quarter mile north of East Pawnee Road on the east side of South Webb Road. With this request, the applicant is needing to modify the existing zoning district boundaries to align with the platted lot boundaries that were created after the initial zone change request (ZON2019-00007). Ultimately, the applicant intends to develop 32 lots for duplexes equating to 64 dwelling units (see attached site plan). The plan for the remainder of the lots is to construct single family homes.

Parcel 1 on the site plan is 0.36 acres in size and represents the portion of the subject property requested to be rezoned from SF-5 to TF-3. Parcel 2 on the site plan is 0.40 acres in size and represents the portion of the subject property requested to be rezoned from TF-3 to SF-5. In total, the new area for the TF-3 district is 8.02 acres. The property is currently vacant land. The proposed TF-3 District has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit, so the existing lots meet the minimum lot size for duplexes. The proposed duplexes would be subject to all applicable setback requirements of the TF-3 district.

The surrounding area is primarily single family residential; however, there is an area of TF-3 zoning with duplexes directly south of this property. In the larger area, a mixture of single family and duplexes is common including the patio home development to the north. Please see the attached area map showing the zoning districts surrounding the subject site.

CASE HISTORY: The property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Christ Community Church Addition, 1995.

In September 2012, an administrative adjustment to the sign code was approved to allow an electronic message sign on the property primarily for the church building that fronts Webb Road (BZA2012-00052).

On April 4, 2019, the Planning Commission heard ZON2019-00007, which is the original zone change requested to rezone the 8 acre portion of the property to TF-3. This case was ultimately approved by City Council on May 7, 2019.

On October 10, 2019, the Planning Commission heard SUB2019-00033, which reviewed the final plat of the entire property to be developed with single family homes and duplexes. This case has yet to be scheduled for final approval from City Council.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

North: SF-5; Undeveloped land. South: SF-20 & TF-3; County Maintenance yard and duplexes East: SF-5; Undeveloped land West: SF-5; Church/place of worship.

PUBLIC SERVICES: South Webb Road is a fully improved four-lane arterial street. All municipal services are nearby, but will need to be extended to serve the subject site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Community Investment Plan depicts the subject site as appropriate for “residential” and “new residential” uses. The residential use category encompasses areas that reflect the full diversity of residential development densities and types found in a large urban municipality. The site is outside the Established Central Area (ECA), but is a good example of infill development.

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was prepared, it is recommended the application be APPROVED.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Properties surrounding the subject site area are primarily zoned SF-5, but there are areas of TF-3 and MF-18 zoning in the immediate area.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is currently zoned SF-5, which primarily allows single-family residences. The portion of the lot being considered for rezoning is undeveloped and could be improved with a development of duplexes with this rezoning.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval of TF-3 zoning would allow new two-family homes to be constructed on the property. Approval of the request should not detrimentally impact nearby property owners.

4. Length of time the property has remained vacant as currently zoned: This portion of the property is currently vacant and has never been developed.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Community Investment Plan depicts the subject site as appropriate for “residential” and “new residential” uses. The residential use category encompasses areas that reflect the full diversity of residential development densities and types found in a large urban municipality. The site is outside the Established Central Area (ECA), but is a good example of infill development.

6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Existing municipal facilities are nearby but need to be extended to serve the application area.

Staff Report Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan Submitted by Applicant

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 5 ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 6

ZON2019-00045 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.9

STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019 DAB IV January 6, 2020

CASE NUMBER: ZON2019-00046

APPLICANT/AGENT: Fisel Corporation (owner)/ Jimmy L. Warner, Jr. (agent)

REQUEST: TF-3 Two-Family Residential with D-O Delano Overlay

CURRENT ZONING: SF-5 Single-Family Residential with D-O Delano Overlay

SITE SIZE: 0.18 acre

LOCATION: Located southeast of the intersection of South Meridian Avenue and West Douglas Avenue on the east side of South Sedgwick Street

PROPOSED USE: Duplex

ZON2019-00046 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 1 BACKGROUND: The applicant/owner is requesting the rezoning of Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, Martinson’s 9th Addition (122 South Sedgwick Street) from SF-5 Single Family Residential (SF-5) to TF-3 Two Family Residential (TF-3). The property has been vacant since 2017. TF-3 zoning district requires a 25-foot front setback and a 20-foot rear setback. The property is approximately 8,115 square feet, with 50 linear feet of frontage along South Sedgwick Street. The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet per duplex building.

The subject property is located in the Delano Overlay Zoning District (DR2002-00011) which requires architectural review to ensure materials are compatible with surrounding structures. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows the new duplex structure oriented to South Sedgwick Street with the driveway and the new garage at the rear of the lot along the north property line. This configuration is typical of the residential development in the neighborhood (see attached site plan).

Properties north, south, east and west of the subject site are zoned SF-5 and are developed with one-story and two-story single-family residences. There is TF-3 zoning within three (3) blocks of the subject site (see attached zoning map).

CASE HISTORY: The subject site is located in the Martinson 9th Addition, platted in July 1919. No other zoning cases are associated with this site.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 Single-family residences SOUTH: SF-5 Single-family residences EAST: SF-5 Single-family residences WEST: SF-5 Single-family Residences

PUBLIC SERVICES: South Sedgwick Street is a local paved street with a 60-foot right-of-way with access to West Douglas Avenue. The sewer line is located along the east (rear) property line and the water line is located on the west side of South Sedgwick Street at the front of the property.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Community Investments Plan, identifies the subject site as being located in the Established Central Area. The site is also located within the urban infill strategy area, where residential development is encouraged. The uses envisioned for redevelopment in this area include duplexes. The Community Investments Plan identifies the property as appropriate for residential and defines residential as a variety of housing types including duplexes.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was completed, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request, as submitted.

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Properties north, south, east and west of the subject site are zoned SF-5 and are developed with single-family residences. There is TF-3 zoning within three (3) blocks of the subject site.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is presently zoned SF-5 Single Family Residential and the property could be developed with a new single- family dwelling; however, the Community Investments Plan encourages a variety of housing types, including duplexes.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Most platted subdivisions that were platted prior to 1950 have a mix of single-family residences and duplexes. Because of the similarity of residential use, the UZC does not require screening between SF-5 and

ZON2019-00046 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 TF-3 zoning districts. The zone change will not affect the architectural and site plan review as required in the D-O Delano Overlay Zoning District.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The subject site has been a vacant lot since 2017.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as appropriate for residential uses within the Wichita city limit. The Community Investments Plan identifies the property as appropriate for residential and define residential as a variety of housing types including duplexes.

6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Development of the property would not have any impact on community facilities or resources. All public improvements are available to serve the property.

Attachments: Zoning Map Site Plan

ZON2019-00046 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3

ZON2019-00046 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.10

STAFF REPORT MAPC December 5, 2019 DAB IV January 6, 2020

CASE NUMBER: ZON2019-00047

APPLICANT/AGENT: DPK LLC, Paul Kelsey (owner)/ Baughman Company, Phil Meyer (Agent)

REQUEST: TF-3 Two-Family Residential

CURRENT ZONING: SF-5 Single-Family Residential

SITE SIZE: 17.8 acres

LOCATION: Located approximately 1,000 feet North of Pawnee Avenue and East of West 135th Street South

PROPOSED USE: Duplex development

ZON2019-00047 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 1 BACKGROUND: The applicant/owner is requesting the rezoning of 17.8 acres of Turkey Creek 3rd Addition (approximately 59 lots, which includes portions of existing platted lots) from SF-5 Single-Family Residential (SF- 5) to TF-3 Two Family Residential (TF-3). The applicant has indicated that a re-plat will be submitted to reflect the proposed zone change. The site is located 1,000 feet north of West Pawnee Avenue on the east side of West 135th Street South. The property is currently undeveloped.

The surrounding area is undeveloped land. SF-20 Single Family Residential zoned property to the west of the site is used for agriculture. Turkey Creek 3rd Addition is zoned SF-5 to the north and east and is undeveloped. South of the subject site is SF-20 Single-Family Residential and is developed with a single family dwelling unit and CUP DP-314 which is to be developed with limited commercial uses and is located within the Wichita City Limit.

CASE HISTORY: Turkey Creek 3rd Addition was platted in February 2007 as a single-family residential subdivision. In March 2019, 48 lots (19 acres) north of the site were re-zoned to TF-3 (ZON2019-05).

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: SF-5 Undeveloped residential lots SOUTH: SF-20, CUP DP-314 Single-family dwelling unit, Undeveloped + 8.7 acres EAST: SF-5 Undeveloped residential lots WEST: SF-20 Agricultural land

PUBLIC SERVICES: West 135th Street South is a paved arterial road with travel in both directions and a dedicated center turn lane with a 60-foot right-of-way. The nearest municipal services are located approximately 1,200 feet east of the subject site on West Grant Street.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as Wichita Urban Growth Area. The site is located in an area in which City expansion and extension of municipal services and infrastructure should be focused for residential growth and has the potential to be developed by 2035 based upon population growth and market trends. The uses envisioned for redevelopment in this area include a variety of residential types including single-family dwellings, duplexes and multi-family residential.

RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was completed, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request, as submitted. This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood is zoned for predominantly residential uses. Turkey Creek 3rd Addition has a 19-acre TF-3 zoning district located along West 135th Street South 250 feet north of the subject site.

2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is presently zoned SF-5 Single Family Residential, and the property could be developed with new single-family dwellings; however, the Community Investments Plan encourages a variety of housing types, including duplexes.

3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: TF-3 zoning will compatible with the surrounding zoning districts. Turkey Creek Commercial Community Unit Plan DP- 314 requires solid screen walls and landscaping per General Provision #12 and #13 as parcels are developed.

4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The property was platted in February 2007. No development has begun on the site.

5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as Wichita Urban Growth Area. The site is located in an area in which City expansion and extension of

ZON2019-00047 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 2 municipal services and infrastructure should be focused for residential growth and has the potential to be developed by 2035 based upon population growth and market trends. The uses envisioned for redevelopment in this area include a variety of residential types including single-family dwellings, duplexes and multi-family residential.

Attachment: Zoning Map

ZON2019-00047 Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Page 3 WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA

Thursday, December 5, 2019, 1:30 p.m.

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Board of Zoning Appeals will be held Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., in the Planning Commission Conference Room, 271 West Third Street, Second Floor, Suite 203, Wichita, KS 67202, has been cancelled due to no cases filed.