METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION 

MINUTES

September 6, 2007

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was 
held on Thursday, September 6, 2007, at 1:30 P.M., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 
10th floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas.   The following members were present: 
Darrell Downing, Chair; Don Anderson, Vice-Chair; Elizabeth Bishop; Michael Gisick (Out @2:45 
p.m.); Bud Hentzen; Hoyt Hillman; Bill Johnson; Ronald Marnell; Debra Miller Stevens; Don 
Sherman; and G. Nelson Van Fleet. David Dennis, John W. McKay Jr., and M.S. Mitchell were 
absent.  Staff members present were: Dale Miller, Current Plans Manager; Donna Goltry, Principal 
Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; Derrick Slocum, Associate 
Planner; and Maryann Crockett, Recording Secretary.

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

1.	Approval of the August 16, 2007 MAPC minutes.

MOTION:  To approve the minutes subject to staff recommendation.

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

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

2.	Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman.

MOTION:    To defer until the next meeting.

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

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

HILLMAN asked if all the items listed under staff comments in the staff report had been turned 
in?

STRAHL commented that the drainage plan had been turned in; however, they don’t typically have 
the petitions until the item has been scheduled for review by the City Council.

?	Items # 3-1 through 3-4 may be taken in one motion unless there are questions or 
comments.

Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations from the meeting of August 23, 2007. 

3-1.	SUB 2006-12:  Final Plat - SEDGWICK COUNTY ARENA ADDITION, located east of 
Broadway and north of Maple Street.
    
NOTE:	This is a replat of a portion of the N.A. English’s Addition. This replat includes the 
vacation of Commerce Street St. Francis Street, English Street, Santa Fe St. and an alley. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Existing water and sewer services will need to be abandoned and/or relocated. A petition or 
financial guarantee is needed.

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

C.	City Engineering has approved the applicant’s drainage plan. 

D.	The plat proposes four openings along Waterman and one opening along English. Traffic 
Engineering has approved access controls. 

E.	The applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings located in areas of 
complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. A Driveway Closure 
Certificate in lieu of a guarantee may be provided.

F.	Traffic Engineering has approved the right-of-way along perimeter streets. 

G.	The plat boundaries need to be revised to exclude the alley running east-west. The “alley” 
designation shall be removed since this will be a public street. The width shall be increased to 
40 feet in accordance with the site plan. A petition for paving or financial guarantee is needed. 

H.	The plat has created a dead end alley running north-south extending from William Street. A 
turnaround is needed for the terminus of the alley. In the alternative, the alley may be vacated 
upon consent of the adjoining landowners. 

I.	City Fire Department requests an internal circulation plan. 

J.	GIS has requested that the alley be relabeled as English (primary choice) or Oakland (secondary 
choice). 

K.	County Surveying advises that the plat needs dimensions of the triangular island in the 
northeasterly corner of plat. 

L.	The railroad right-of-way adjoining the east line of the plat needs to be designated. 

M.	County Surveying advises that the easements crossing in the southeasterly corner of the plat 
should be redrawn to show the waterline easement butting up to the drainage and utility 
easement to ensure that all utilities have access to this intersection. 

N.   In accordance with the Sedgwick County Arena Site Impact Study, Traffic Engineering has 
requested the following: 
       1. Guarantee improvements to add left turn lanes at Washington and Waterman intersection, 
2. Guarantee improvements to convert Topeka Street from Kellogg to Waterman to a two-
way street.
O.	The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat 
and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or 
as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to 
allow for the conveyance of storm water. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION:  To approve items 3-1, 3-2, and 3-4 subject to staff recommendation.

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

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

3-2. 	SUB 2007-64:  One-Step Final Plat - PARKSTONE ADDITION, located east of Hillside 
between First Street and Douglas.  

NOTE:	This is a replat of portions of the R & R Addition, the Roembach Addition, and the 
College Hill Addition.  The applicant proposes a zone change (PUD #26, PUD 
2007-03) from GO, General Office, B, Multi-Family, and TF-3, Two-Family 
Residential to a Planned Residential Development (PUD). 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

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

B.	City Water Utilities Department advises that municipal services are available to serve 
the site. The applicant shall plat 20-foot easements for existing sewers.  A proposed 
sewer layout is needed. A guarantee shall be submitted for the 
relocation/abandonment of the existing sewer and water lines.  The applicant will 
provide a temporary easement for the existing sewers. 

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

D.	City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. Revisions will need to be provided. 

E.	Traffic Engineering has requested additional street right-of-way to accommodate the 
roundabout as denoted on the site plan at the Victor/Rutan intersection. The 
roundabout will be eliminated. 

F.	Access controls need to be platted along First Street and Douglas. Traffic Engineering 
has approved two openings along First Street. Complete access control is needed along 
Douglas. 

G.	County Surveying advises that all subdivision boundary corners need to be 
monumented. 

H.	County Surveying advises that the detailed inset for corner of Lot 4 needs to be 
revised. 

I.	Blocks shall be designated on the face of the plat and referenced in the plattor’s text. 
Each lot shall be renumbered as Lot 1. 

J.	A note shall be placed on the final plat, indicating that this Addition is subject to the 
conditions of the Parkstone Planned Unit Development (PUD #26, PUD 2007-03). 

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

L.	GIS has requested that “First Street” be labeled as “E 1st St N”.  “Victor Place should 
be labeled as Victor Pl”. 

M.	The platting binder indicates a party holding a mortgage on the site. The applicant has 
informed staff that the mortgage has been released and appropriate documentation 
will be provided. 

N.	The City of Wichita is denoted in the platting binder as an owner of this property and 
must be included as a signatory to the plat. The applicant has informed staff that the 
City of Wichita is the sole owner. The signatories on the plat will need to be revised 
accordingly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V.	Westar Energy has advised that any relocation of existing utilities shall be at the 
applicant’ s expense. 

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

MOTION:  To approve items 3-1, 3-2, and 3-4 subject to staff recommendation.

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

			---------------------------------------------------
         
3-3.	SUB 2007-36:  Revised One-Step Final Plat -- THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 
ADDITION, located on the north side of 13th Street North and west of Greenwich Road.
	
NOTE:	A zone change (ZON 2007-15) from LI, Limited Industrial to SF-5, Single-Family 
Residential has been approved.  This site (with the exception of the west 280 feet) is 
located in the County adjoining Wichita’s city limits and annexation is required.

	This revised one-step final plat includes a revised street layout and one lot less the original 
plat. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will 
need to be completed. 

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

C.	If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions 
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording.
 
D.	City Engineering has approved the applicant’s drainage plan.  Off-site drainage agreements 
are needed. 

E.	The private street (Reserve L) should be delineated from the public right-of-way by a 
solid bold line. Use of the turnaround located in Reserve L for public access shall be 
referenced in the plattor’s text. 

F.	A covenant shall be submitted regarding the private street (Reserve L), which sets forth 
ownership and maintenance responsibilities. 

G.	In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations the private streets shall be constructed to 
the public street standards. As private improvements, such guarantee shall not be 
provided through the use of a petition.

H.	County Surveying has advised that curve data is needed for Reserve E and for Lot 60, 
Block 1.

I.	As requested by City Fire Department in accordance with the code requirements of the 
International Fire Code, the applicant has provided second access for emergency vehicles 
extending to the east due to the number of proposed lots for this residential addition.

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

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

L.	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.

M.	Since reserves abut portions of public streets, the plattor’s text should include the 
language “owners of the reserves shall bear the cost of any repair or replacement of 
improvements within said reserves resulting from street construction, repair, or 
maintenance.” 

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

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

P.	The applicant has indicated that he is in the process of having a blanket pipeline 
easement confined. A recorded copy of the release/confinement of the easement shall be 
submitted. 

Q.	For the pipeline easement on the property, the final plat shall include in the labeling of 
the easement the name of the company benefiting from the easement agreement.

R.	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.

S.	GIS has requested that Summerfield Ct by relabeled as Summerfield Cir.  The street north 
of Lots 39-41, Block 1 needs to be labeled as Crestwood. 

T.	For any lots with existing tree rows that may be impacted by the installation of utilities, it 
is recommended that 30-foot utility easements be platted in order to allow for the 
installation of the utilities without damage to such tree rows. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BB.	Westar Energy requests additional easements. 

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

NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff presented the staff report. 

BISHOP commented that when this was approved by the MAPC there was discussion about the 
emergency stub to the east possibly becoming another ingress/egress access point.  

STRAHL responded that the plat of the property adjoining this property on the east should be 
submitted very soon.  

BISHOP asked if this was a gated community and commented that she thought City policy 
prohibited gates on public streets.  She also mentioned that she had voted against this proposed 
zone change and plan because she had a problem with subdivisions containing that many properties 
having only one way in and one way out.  She said this type of design creates tremendous traffic 
problems and suggested that the emergency stub might answer her concerns.

STRAHL said that the stub permits emergency access only to the property to the east. .  He referred 
to the plat, and commented that the turnaround is actually in the private street portion of the plat 
and that, the plat text specifically allows for public turnaround in the area.  He said it was a little 
different than the usual case.

GENE RATH, MKEC, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT, commented that the plan included one 
location for emergency vehicle access only.  He said the issue was discussed at the Subdivision 
Meeting and it was decided to develop up to 30 lots, and that after 30 lots were developed there 
would be a need for additional access to the east.  He said the emergency access stub was 
acceptable to the Fire Department.  He said this was a gated community with private streets; but the 
turnaround located in the in private reserve would be accessible to the public.  He concluded by 
stating that this revision was just a reconfiguration of the lots in the subdivision.

Responding to a question from BISHOP concerning clarification on the turnaround, RATH briefly 
reviewed the revised plan including a crosswalk access at the public drive.  

BISHOP clarified that there was no plan to develop the emergency access street stub.

RATH responded that was correct, that there were no plans to develop the stub; that there would be 
a one-gated access point for the entire community. 

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

JOHNSON moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried (10-1).  
BISHOP – No.
       
BISHOP said she was voting against the request because she had a problem with subdivisions of 
this size having only one entrance and exit.  She said the emergency access was a good idea; 
however, she did not think it addressed the traffic issue.

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

 3-4. 	SUB 2007-73:  One-Step Final Plat -- KRUG SOUTH SECOND ADDITION, located west 
of 143rd Street East and on the south side of 21st Street North.

NOTE:   This is a replat of a portion of the Krug South Addition. The cul-de-sac has been relocated 
to the north. 

STAFF COMMENTS:  

A.	Petitions have been provided with Krug South Addition for sewer, water, drainage and paving 
	improvements. New petitions are needed.

B.	The applicant shall contact Debt Management regarding the need for submission of a 
respread agreement for existing improvements and for those under construction.  

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

D.	City Engineering has approved the applicant’s drainage plan.  

E.	Access controls needed to be platted. 

F.	County Surveying has advised that the dimension on the east line of Reserve A needs 
added.

G.	County Surveying has advised that in the legal description the distance of “237.07” feet 
needs corrected to “272.82 feet”.

H.	County Surveying has advised that in the legal description the bearing of N05°15’03” 
needs corrected to N05°15’03”E.

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

J.	For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant 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.

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

L.	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.

M.	The City Council certification needs to be revised to reference Carl Brewer, Mayor. 

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

O.	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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MOTION:  To approve items 3-1, 3-2, and 3-4 subject to staff recommendation.

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

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

?	PUBLIC HEARINGS – VACATION ITEMS
	ADVERTISED TO BE HEARD NO EARLIER THAN 1:30 P.M.

4-1.	VAC 2007-25:  Request to vacate a portion of a platted setback.  

APPLICANT/OWNER:	David & Gayle Melton
	
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:	Generally described as the south 5-feet of the platted 25-foot front 
setback that runs parallel to Judith Street, on the Lot 1, Block 12, the 
Echo Hills Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. 

LOCATION:	Generally located east of 119th Street West, north of 13th Street 
North, on      the southwest corner of Judith and Parkridge Streets 
(WCC #V)

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Additional room for an attached garage 

CURRENT ZONING:	Site and all abutting and adjacent properties are zoned “SF-5” Single-
family Residential    

The applicant proposes to vacate the south 5-feet of the described platted 25-foot front setback.  
The Unified Zoning Code’s (UZC’s) minimum front setback for “SF-5” zoning district is 25-feet.  
If the front setback was the UZC’s 25-foot minimum for the “SF-5” zoning district and not platted 
the applicant could reduce the setback by 20%; making it a 20-foot front setback.  The applicant’s 
request is for a 20-foot front setback.  There are no platted easements, franchised utilities, 
manholes, water or sewer lines located in the described portion of the platted setback.  There are no 
platted easements in the interior side yard of the site, but there is the UZC’s 6-foot minimum 
interior side yard that the applicant must observe.  The Echo Hills Addition was recorded with the 
Register of Deeds February 26, 1980

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

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

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by 
publication in the Wichita Eagle and the Derby Reporter of notice of this vacation 
proceeding one time August 16, 2007 which was at least 20 days prior to this public 
hearing.

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

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

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

(1)	Upon the recording of the Vacation Order, a 20-foot front setback will be in effect.      
  
(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense. 

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

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

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

(1)	Upon the recording of the Vacation Order, a 20-foot front setback will be in effect.      

(2)	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense.   

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

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

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

 MARNELL moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried  (11-0).

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

4-2.     VAC 2007-26:  Request to vacate a portion of a platted setback. 

APPLICANT/OWNER:	Michael J Casamento
	
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:	Generally described as the south 9-feet of the platted 35-foot front 
setback that runs parallel to Esthner Avenue, on Lots 2 & 3, the 
Meridian Industrial Park Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, 
Kansas. 

LOCATION:	Generally located west of Meridian Avenue, on the south side of 
Esthner       Avenue (WCC #IV)

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Expansion

CURRENT ZONING:	Subject property and abutting and adjacent southern and western 
properties are zoned “LI” Limited Industrial. Properties to the east, 
across Meridian Avenue, are zoned “GC” General Commercial.  
Properties to the north, across Esthner Avenue, are zoned “LC” 
Limited Commercial and “SF-5” Single-Family Residential. 

The applicant proposes to expand onto his existing building.  The addition will encroach 
approximately 9-ft into the platted 35-ft front setback; 26-foot setback.  The Unified Zoning 
Code’s (UZC’s) minimum front setback for the “LI” zoning district is 20-feet.  The proposed 
encroachment will not exceed the current UZC’s “LI” zoning standard. There are no platted 
easements, manholes, water or sewer lines in the setback.  Comments from franchised utilities have 
not been received and are needed to determine if they have utilities located within the setback.  The 
Meridian Industrial Park Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds May 13, 1975   Plat 
history: VAC2002-00007 vacated a portion of the platted 35-foot front setback on the western 
abutting Lot 4, Meridian Industrial Park Addition.

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

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

1.	That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by 
publication in the Wichita Eagle and the Derby Reporter of notice of this vacation 
proceeding one time August 16, 2007 which was at least 20 days prior to this public 
hearing.

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

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

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

1.	Provide Planning with a legal description of the approved vacated portion of the 
setback on a Word document via e-mail.  The legal description will only describe 
that portion of the setback that will be encroached into by the proposed expansion.      
 
2.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be 
the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense. 

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

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

SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	Provide Planning with a legal description of the approved vacated portion of the setback on 
a Word document via e-mail.      

2.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the 
responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant’s expense.   

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

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

MOTION:  To approve subject to staff recommendation.

MARNELL moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried  (11-0).

       ------------------------------------------------------
	
?	PUBLIC HEARINGS 
	
5.	Case No.: ZON2007-36 – Steel Sunflowers LLC (owner, applicant), Poe & Associates: 
c/o Tim Austin (agent) Request City zone change from "SF-5" Single-family Residential, 
"TF-3" Two-family Residential and "LC" Limited Commercial to "MF-29" Multi-family 
Residential on property described as; 

The West 340 feet of American Legion Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.  
Generally located south of 31st Street South and east of Wichita Street.

BACKGROUND:  The application area is approximately 3.41 acres of platted land zoned LC, TF-
3 and SF-5, located west of South Broadway Avenue and south of 31st Street South.  The 
application area is undeveloped, but has been platted with single-family lots.  The applicant is 
seeking “MF-29” zoning in order to develop an apartment/multi-family development.  The current 
32nd Street South Circle right-of-way, through the south one-third of the application area, will have 
to be vacated to ultimately be a part of the application.  The street is platted but has not been 
installed.

Property zoned LC and SF-5 abuts the subject site on the east and is partially developed with an 
American Legion Post.  Farther to the east is property zoned SF-5 and GC all developed as a 
salvage yard.  To the west, is property zoned LC, B and SF-5 which is developed with a group 
quarters, single-family residences and contains vacant lots.  To the south of the subject site is SF-5 
zoning developed with single-family residences.  The property to the north of the subject site is 
zoned GC and SF-5 which is developed with car sales lot, a construction service, offices, 
apartments and a couple single-family residences.  
In this particular area, there is a mix of uses and zones.  Just within a four-square block area, there 
are properties zoned LC, GC, LI, SF-5, B and TF-3.  This rezone would eliminate the TF-3 and LC 
zoned property within the application area.  The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) permits MF-29 zoning 
for up to 29 dwelling units (DU’s) per acre, while TF-3 allows 14.5 DU’s (with a conditional use) 
and LC allows 75.1 DU’s per acre.  As currently zoned, the subject site could potentially allow up 
to a total of 119 dwelling units.  With the rezone to MF-29, the site would be allowed 99 dwelling 
units, a reduction of 20 dwelling units with a rezone.  Also, the MF-29 zone permits building 
heights up to 45 feet while the LC zone permits building heights up to 80 feet.  The proposed 
rezoning of the subject site to MF-29 would also buffer the single-family residences on the south 
and west from the salvage yard / car dealership, which fronts Broadway, but is currently visible due 
to the undeveloped subject site.  

The UZC has “compatibility development standards” dealing with increased setback and height 
limitations that may come into play depending on the development plan.  A zone change request 
does not require submission of a site plan like a “conditional use” application does.  The landscape 
code requires a landscape buffer of one shade tree or two ornamental trees, without a fence, per 40 
lineal feet of the multi-family property line abutting SF-5 or TF-3 zoning, or 50 lineal feet, with a 
fence.  The trees must be planted within 15 feet of the platted property line.

CASE HISTORY:  The existing SF-5 zoning was established when this property was annexed into 
the city between 1951-1960.  The LC and TF-3 zoning was established in a zone change (Z-2376), 
from SF-5 (or “AA”) in 1982.  Z-2377 was a rezone attempt on the southern half of the addition 
from “AA” (SF-5) to “A” (TF-3) in 1982, but the case was withdrawn.  The application area is a 
part of the American Legion Addition, recorded in 1982.  

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	“GC” Limited Commercial			Car Sales, Retail, Office
		“SF-5” Single-family Residential		Single-family Residences
SOUTH:	“SF-5” Single-family Residential  		Single-family Residences
EAST:		“LC” Limited Commercial			Civic Club
		“GC” General Commercial			Salvage
		“SF-Single-family Residential 			Salvage
WEST:		“LC” Limited Commercial			Group Quarters
		“B” Multi-family Residential			Group Quarters
		“SF-5” Single-family Residential		Single-family Residences

PUBLIC SERVICES:  31st Street South at this location is a four-lane minor arterial with 95 feet of 
right-of-way.  31st Street South carries 8,215 average daily trips.  Wichita Street, which runs along 
the west side of the subject, is a local road with a 60-foot right-of-way.    Apartments, a common 
use in a MF-29 zone, generate approximately 6.6 average daily vehicle trips per unit.  With SF-5 
and TF-3 zoning, a single-family residence can generate 9.6 and a condo can generate 5.9 average 
daily vehicle trips per unit.  Under LC zoning, a fast-food restaurant can generate 496.1 and a 
supermarket can generate 111.5 average daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 
(Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.)  Other publicly provided services are available or 
can be extended to the site.  

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  Goal II of “The Wichita-Sedgwick County 
Comprehensive Plan Preparing for Change” indicates that there should be a variety of housing 
opportunities.  Strategy II.A2 calls for requirements for medium and high-density residential 
development, which would include plan and architectural review to ensure compatibility with 
surrounding low-density residential areas.  Residential Location Guidelines, p. 34 of the 1999 
update of the Comprehensive Plan state: medium and high-density uses should be located within 
walking distance of neighborhood commercial centers, parks, schools and public transportation 
routes and within close proximity of employment centers; medium and high-density residential uses 
should be sited where they will not overload existing or planned facilities.  The “2030 Wichita 
Functional Land Use Guide” reflects the sites current “LC” zoning by showing the site as being 
appropriate for “local commercial” uses and the sites currently SF-5 and TF-3 by showing those 
sites as being appropriate for “urban residential” uses.    

RECOMMENDATION:  A property owner in the immediate area who is opposed to the zone 
change and proposed multi-family development contacted planning staff; the property owner feels 
that multi-family use may conflict with the existing residences in the area.  Under MF-29 zoning, 
the site could be developed in theory with up to 29 units per acre.  However, the UZC setback, 
height, and parking requirements, as well as housing code requirements, will limit the project scale.  
Another possible issue with this site and the proposed “MF-29” zoning is access.  The site can have 
access onto a local street, S. Wichita Street, abutting the subject site on the west.  Based upon 
information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be 
APPROVED, subject to vacation of street right-of-way and replat within one year and the following 
provisions of Protective Overlay #193:
	
1.	Maximum height (as defined by the UZC) of the buildings shall be 35 feet for all structures.
2.	Solid screening, 6 to 8 feet tall, shall be required along all property lines when adjacent to or 
across the street from SF-5 zoning.
3.	Solid screening shall be provided around all dumpsters, per existing code requirements. 
4.	Landscaping, per code, shall be required.
5.	35-foot setbacks will be established along the south and north property line where adjacent 
to SF-5 zoning.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  Property zoned LC and SF-5 abuts the 
subject site on the east.  Farther to the east is property zoned SF-5 and GC all developed as 
a salvage yard.  To the west, is property zoned LC, B and SF-5 which is developed with a 
group quarters, single-family residences and contains vacant lots.  To the south of the 
subject site is SF-5 zoning developed with single-family residences.  The property to the 
north of the subject site is zoned GC and SF-5 which is developed with car sales lot, a 
construction service, offices, apartments and a couple single-family residences.  The 
application area is a transitional area as demonstrated by the diverse set of zones and land 
uses.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The site 
is currently zoned LC, TF-3 and SF-5.  This current zoning would allow for a wide range of 
uses.  With the current zoning, there is the possibility for a mix of uses, some of which 
would be too intense for this particular area.  Additionally, the number of dwelling units 
that can be allowed within this mix of zoning, according to the UZC, would be greater than 
the number of units that would be potentially allowed under the MF-29 zoning.  Also, the 
proposed MF-29 zoning would not allow more intense commercial uses that are allowed 
within the LC zone.  

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  
Approval of this request would downzone 35% of the property currently zoned LC.  This 
down zoning would eliminate the possibility of intense commercial uses from operating in 
this area.  The rezone would also create a buffer between commercial uses currently along 
South Broadway Avenue and single-family residential uses along Wichita Street, extending 
to the west.  A traffic increase could occur if the primary access for any proposed 
residential development was established along S. Wichita Street.  This is a point that should 
be addressed in the replatting process.

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 additional multi-family 
housing to the market.  Denial would, in effect, only delay the development of the property 
as the site’s LC zoning permits multi-family uses, with a higher density than what is allowed 
in a MF-29 zone.

5.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The request is consistent with a majority of the comprehensive plan goals and 
objectives of providing a range of housing opportunities, and that multi-family uses should 
be located in areas where adequate services are available or can be extended.

6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  Any development on the site 
will increase traffic over its undeveloped state, however multi-family projects on a use by 
use basis are low generators when compared to commercial uses.  South 31st Street is a 
four-lane facility that has capacity to accommodate the uses allow by the proposed zoning.  
Other services are available or can be extended through the platting process.

DERRICK SLOCUM, Planning staff presented the staff report.

He referred Commission members to the DAB III Memorandum dated September 6, 2007, and 
stated that DAB III approved the request 6-5.  He added that staff has received thirty protest 
petitions on the application.  

SHERMAN clarified that it was SLOCUM’S understanding that this area would not be developed 
for low-income housing.  

SLOCUM said that was correct.

TIM AUSTIN, POE & ASSOCIATES, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT said they were in 
concurrence with the staff report and staff recommendations.  He referred to Item #2 of the staff 
report concerning the solid screening and suggested that it would be more appropriate for them to 
landscape at one and one-half times what is required by City ordinance.  He mentioned wrought 
iron fencing with plantings. 

HILLMAN commented that all the concerns expressed at the DAB meeting weren’t regarding the 
potential for low-income housing.  He said he appreciated AUSTIN’S comments about landscaping 
and mentioned planting evergreen so the plants were attractive year-round and don’t lose leaves in 
the winter.  He said the Commission would be willing to work with them on that item.

Responding to a question from MARNELL concerning vacating the center right-of-way and the 
status of the four lots to the north of the site, AUSTIN explained that the four lots were currently 
owned by the American Legion who would be retaining ownership.  He added that they would 
vacate then replat the center area.    

HENTZEN asked how long the salvage yard could stay at its present location?  

Staff commented that the area was zoned “GC” General Commercial and that the salvage yard was, 
therefore, a non-conforming use.

LANG commented that he was not aware of any time limit as long as the salvage yard operation 
stays unchanged.

JOHNSON asked how many units would be developed?  

AUSTIN commented that on the 3.4-acre site they were allowed to develop ninety-nine units, but 
that it would probably be something less than that.

BRIAN SLATER, 3301 S. WICHITA said he lived straight across from this property.  He said the 
entire neighborhood is against the rezoning and that the neighbors do not want an apartment 
complex in their front yard.  He said the area has many older people and that they have a low crime 
rate.  He said they believe putting a multi-dwelling complex in the area would increase crime.  He 
also mentioned that the entrance/exit to the complex would be off of Wichita Street which is a 
residential street, and that this would add approximately 600 plus vehicles a day in traffic.  He said 
they have traffic problems in the area as it is.  He said they have no problem developing single-
family homes in the area.  He said they could care less if they are screened from the salvage yard.  
He said they are taxpaying citizens who chose to live in the area because they like it there.  He 
mentioned that he grew up the in the neighborhood and requested that the Commission consider the 
opinion of the neighbors in the area and please not turn this area into an apartment complex.  

ALVIN GANN, 204 WEST PATTERSON said the proposed site was in his backyard.  He 
commented about the petitions that were turned into City Councilman Skelton.  He also mentioned 
that he felt this development would create a crime wave and that drugs may also be an issue.  He 
said low-income housing bothers him anywhere in the City and added that he felt things just “went 
to pot” especially if the government has anything to do with it.  He mentioned South Hydraulic and 
that most of the houses in that area are now boarded up or empty and that he was afraid that this 
would happen in their neighborhood.  He asked who was responsible for cutting the field?  He also 
asked about Item #5 on the staff report concerning the 35-foot set back and what that meant.  He 
asked was that setback from the alley or his property?  He concluded by saying that the 
neighborhood does not need low-income housing.  

MILLER commented that the setbacks are measured from the property line (applicant’s property 
line).  

Responding to a question from BISHOP, SLOCUM explained the processing of the protest 
petitions presented to him at last night’s DAB III meeting.

JEANETTE BURNISON, 210 W. PATTERSON said her property backs right up to the site.  She 
said she is concerned about the influx of so many people into an area that is a nice, quiet 
neighborhood.  She said they are having terrible traffic problems because of the closing of the 
bridge on Broadway.  She said she has lived there since she was 6 years old.  She said she did not 
want multi-dwelling housing even if it is really nice.  She said the junkyard has never bothered the 
neighbors because it creates no traffic and it is screened.  She said this is a small, quiet 
neighborhood; that the residents are against this; and asked the Commission to take that into 
account when they voted.

JIMMYDALE GREY, 307 W. 32nd STREET SOUTH, said he is concerned about increased 
traffic and depreciation of the value of his home.  He said they are talking about 100 residents in a 
one-block area.  He said single-family homes are what the norm is in the area.  He said an 
apartment complex will cause increased traffic, crime, and that it just isn’t wanted by the 
neighborhood.  

WALTER HAYS, 302 W. 32nd STREET mentioned the increased traffic problems in the area, and 
how 32nd Street dead ends at Gold.   He mentioned that there have also been several wrecks at 
Patterson and Wichita Streets.  He concluded by saying that it was just not a good idea to put an 
apartment complex at the site.  He said single-family housing or even duplexes would be okay.

HILLMAN asks for clarification in regards to 32nd Street not being completely paved?  

HAYS commented that there was a section of 32nd Street between Waco and Palisade that was not 
paved.  

TIM AUSTIN explained that the American Legion does not own the property that is being rezoned.  
He said this residential area was platted in 1952, the east was platted in 1937, and the north was 
platted in 1965, but that nothing has been happening within the last 25 years.
  
TAPE 1, SIDE 2

He said Patterson Street does come out onto Broadway and that there is a one half street right-of-
way.  He said this property is in compliance with multi-use land area within the Comprehensive 
Plan, and added that they were attempting to balance land development with the rights of people in 
the neighborhood.

JOHNSON asked if his client specialized in low-income housing?  

AUSTIN commented that no definite decision has been made, but using tax credit to develop 
housing is a business decision that his client would evaluate and make.  He said he is not going to 
say the development is never going to be low-income housing; however, he pointed out that if that 
were to happen, there is a separate public hearing process where the neighbors could participate.  

HILLMAN commented on the auto repair shop at 31st Street and Wichita and that there were a lot 
of vehicles parking along Wichita Street right now.  He said he would like a commitment to work 
with owner of the proposed complex to provide sufficient off-street parking so as not to compound 
the current problem.

AUSTIN commented that he has spoken with Traffic Engineering concerning the situation along 
Wichita Street and whether “No Parking” signs would be appropriate and they indicated they would 
research the situation.  He said the applicant is planning on providing one and three-quarter parking 
stalls for every dwelling unit, whether it is two or three-bedroom.  He said they plan on providing 
sufficient off-street parking so cars will not be on the street.  He said that and access controls would 
be discussed at platting.

BISHOP said since Wichita Street is designated as a residential street, could the case be deferred 
until the access issue was resolved, since this was a major issue with her.

AUSTIN said he would prefer that the Commission vote on the request today.  Responding to a 
question from BISHOP concerning sidewalks, curbs and guttering in the area, AUSTIN 
commented that the streets were paved to the urban standards set in 1952, and acknowledged that 
there were no sidewalks.

BISHOP commented that she has problems developing multi-family complexes on residential 
streets.

MOTION:  	To approve subject to staff recommendation.

MARNELL moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion.

GISICK asked if the motion included the change in Item #2 to one and one-half times what the 
Unified Zoning Code required for screening?  MARNELL responded yes.

		SUBSTITUTE MOTION:  To defer action on the item.

		BISHIOP moved, HILLMAN seconded the motion and it failed (2-9).
ANDERSON, DOWNING, GISICK, HENTZEN, JOHNSON, MARNELL, 
MILLER STEVENS, SHERMAN and VAN FLEET – No.  

The original motion carried (10-1).  BISHOP – No.

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

6.	Case No.: ZON2007-39 – Auburn Pointe, LLC, (Gary Oborney); MKEC Engineering 
Consultants, Inc., (Greg Allison) Request City zone change from "NR" Neighborhood Retail 
to "LC" Limited Commercial and to amend Protective Overlay #130 to permit “animal care, 
limited” on property described as; 

Lot 1, Block 1 and Reserve A, Auburn Hills Commercial 4th Addition, Sedgwick County, 
Kansas.  Generally located 1/4 mile east of 135th Street West on the south side of Maple 
Street.

 BACKGROUND:  The applicant requests a zone change from “NR” Neighborhood Retail, subject 
to Protective Overlay 130 (PO-130), to “LC” Limited Commercial, subject to an amended PO-130.  
The application area contains 4.6 acres of platted land and is located on the south side of Maple 
Street, approximately one-fourth mile east of the 135th Street West and Maple Street intersection.  In 
addition to the development standards contained in the NR zoning district, the property is also 
subject to the development standards contained in PO-130, which are: 

(1) 35-foot setbacks along the site’s south, north and east sides.
(2) Monument sign with a maximum sign face of 48 square-feet and a height of 8-feet.  
No flashing, rotating, moving signs or portable signs.  Window display is limited to 25% 
of the window area.  No signs allowed on the rear or any side facing the residential 
zoning to the east or the south of the site.
(3) A plan for a pedestrian walk system linking proposed buildings to the sidewalk 
along Maple and the sidewalks on the abutting eastern DP-219 AUBURN HILLS C.U.P. 
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director.
(4) Shared internal access and shared access onto Maple Street with Parcel #4 of DP-
219 AUBURN HILLS C.U.P.  
(5) All exterior lighting shall be shielded to prevent light disbursement in a southerly or 
eastern direction.  Lighting shall be similar to DP-219 AUBURN HILLS C.U.P. lighting 
elements, shall be no higher than 14-footwhen within 100-feet of abutting residential 
zoned properties, behind the 35-foot setback along the south and east sides of the 
property and 20-feet high on the remainder of the site.  Extensive use of backlit 
canopies and neon or fluorescent tube lighting on buildings is not permitted.
(6) All utilities are to be installed underground.
(7) Landscaping plan shall show location, type and specifications of all plant material, 
to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.  Landscaping shall be 
calculated at 1.5 times the minimum ordinance requirements along the sides of the site 
abutting residential zoning and the street side.  Parking lot landscaping shall be per the 
ordinance.  Landscaping shall be required prior to the issuance of any occupancy 
permit.
(8) A 6-foot masonry wall, constructed of similar materials to the masonry wall on DP-
219 AUBURN HILLS C.U.P. shall be constructed along the site’s east and south sides. 
(9) Trash receptacles shall be appropriately screened to hide them from ground view.
(10) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from ground level view per the 
Code of Wichita.
(11) All buildings shall share uniform architectural character, color, texture and the 
same predominate exterior building materials.
(12) 20-foot landscape and wall easement along the south and east sides of the tract 
(13) Prohibited uses include group residences, correctional placement residences, group 
homes, multifamily, asphalt and concrete plant, limited.  

The site’s current NR zoning does not permit “animal care, limited.”  The applicant is seeking LC 
zoning, subject to a modified protective overlay in order to add “animal care, limited” as a 
permitted use on the site.  As proposed by the applicant, the only LC use that would be added to the 
NR uses already permitted would be “animal care, limited.”

“Animal care, limited” is defined by the “Unified Zoning Code” as “a use providing veterinary 
services for large animals, and that may include small animals (household pets), and for which 
boarding facilities may also be provided.”  Supplemental use regulation III-D.6.c also stipulates that 
“animal care, limited” uses are subject to the following development standards:  shall not generate 
noise or odors that are discernable beyond the property line; treatment is limited to dogs, cats and 
other small animals and all animals shall be harbored indoors.  

The applicant proposes to modify PO-130 by adding a 14th clause that states:  ““Animal care, 
limited” is the only allowable “LC” Limited Commercial use permitted.  All other uses shall 
conform to the “NR” Neighborhood Retail zoning district, subject to the conditions listed above.  
This property will require an “amendment” to this Protective Overlay should the present or future 
owner(s) and or their agent(s) request any additional “LC” Limited Commercial zoning district 
use(s) not permitted in the “NR” Neighborhood Retail zoning district.  The amendment shall require 
a public process requiring notification of surrounding property owners and approval of the Wichita 
City Council.”

The applicant has met with the property owners located to the east of the subject site and appears to 
have received mostly consent or at least little opposition to the proposal.  Some of the comments at 
the neighborhood meeting dealt with a need for the protective overlay to stay in place, and that the 
only LC use to be added would be the small animal clinic.  The applicant also met with District 
Advisory Board V on August 6, 2007.  The DAB asked questions of the applicant and provided 
comments.  The applicant indicated that the proposed clinic would be located on the south end of 
the center.  He also indicated there would not be any “doggie day care,” grooming, non-medical 
required boarding or outside pens or runs.  The applicant indicated the only boarding would be that 
required due to medical considerations; there would be 12 enclosures with five indoor runs and 
seven cages.  The office space would be constructed to incorporate additional noise attenuation 
features, including sand filled cinder blocks.  Typical business hours will be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, with Saturday morning service.  The applicant also indicated that dogs will 
be walked outside, and that he has a service that will collect waste.        
  
The application area is located between an established single-family residential subdivision located 
to the east, and a commercial center, DP-219 Auburn Hills C.U.P., located to the west.  Property to 
the north, across Maple, is zoned “SF-5” Single-family Residential and developed with single-
family residences.  Property to the northwest is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and subject to 
development restrictions, Protective Overlay #17, that limits uses, building signage and access 
points.  The property to the south is undeveloped and zoned “GO” General Office, and is covered 
by Protective Overlay #140 that addresses architectural compatibility and density.    

CASE HISTORY:  The subject site was included in the request for Community Unit Plan DP-219 
and associated zoning case Z-3191, a request for a zoning change of “AA” single-family residential 
to “LC” Light Commercial for 17.32-acres located on the southeast corner of Maple Street and 
135th Street West.  DP-219 and Z-3191 were approved by the Wichita City Council on May 7, 
1996, but without the subject site being part of the CUP or zoning change.  Development of the Far 
West Side Commercial Development Policy in 1996 was triggered by the DP-219 and Z-3191 
application.  The policy placed limits on the size of commercial zoning at various west side arterial 
street intersections and also contained architectural, signage, access and landscaping controls.  The 
Far West Side Commercial Development Policy has since been eliminated.  In 2003, ZON2003-59 
changed the property’s zoning from “SF-5” Single-family Residential to “NR” Neighborhood 
Retail, subject to PO-130.  Platting cases SUB2004-29 and SUB2005-85 were approved and 
recorded in 2004 and 2005 respectively.  An Administrative Adjustment has been granted that 
modified the building setback along the east property line, eliminated dumpster screening and 
permitted a metal façade on the building’s east facing façade.  Landscaping along the east side was 
to be significantly increased – 14-foot tall pine trees on 12-foot centers. 

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	“SF-5” Single-family Residential; single-family subdivision		
SOUTH:	“GO” General Office; undeveloped
EAST:		“SF-5” Single-family Residential; single-family subdivision
WEST:		“LC” Limited Commercial; retail shopping	

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The site has frontage along Maple Street.  Maple is improved with four 
lanes, a center turn lane and decel lanes at the intersection of Maple and 135th Street West.  East of 
the intersection Maple is classified as a 4-lane arterial.  Current average daily trips (ADT) are 3,096 
ADTs east of the intersection; with projected traffic volumes for 2030 were estimated at 6,800 
ADTs. However, it is predicted that if the northwest bypass were to be constructed, traffic volumes 
would more likely be in the 9,000 to 10,000 ADT range.  No improvements are scheduled on the 
city or county capital improvements program for Maple.  Water and sewer are available.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this area as appropriate for “Low Density Residential” development, however the map 
has not been amended since 2005.  “LC” Limited Commercial zoning subject to the proposed 
amended PO-130 would continue to accommodate very low intensity retail and office development 
and other complementary land uses that serve and are generally appropriate near residential 
neighborhoods.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning 
staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to an amended PO-130 to include a 14th 
condition that states: 

““Animal care, limited” is the only allowable “LC” Limited Commercial use permitted.  All other 
uses shall conform to the “NR” Neighborhood Retail zoning district, subject to the conditions listed 
above.  This property will require an “amendment” to this Protective Overlay should the present or 
future owner(s) and or their agent(s) request any additional “LC” Limited Commercial zoning 
district use(s) not permitted in the “NR” Neighborhood Retail zoning district.  The amendment shall 
require a public process requiring notification of surrounding property owners and approval of the 
Wichita City Council.”

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  Property in the neighborhood is zoned 
either “GO” or “LC” on the four corners of the Maple Street – 135th Street West 
intersection; all have either a community unit plan overlay or protective overlay on the non-
residential zoning.  Beyond the intersection, the neighborhood is predominately zoned “SF-
5”, with the exception of some “GO” General Office zoned property located to the south.   
The character of the neighborhood is that of a developed and developing suburban 
residential neighborhood that has displaced the prior agricultural uses of the area.  

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The 
property is currently zoned “NR” Neighborhood Retail subject to Protective Overlay 130.  
PO-130 excludes a few NR uses, otherwise the site’s current zoning allows a significant 
range of residential, office and low intensity general retail uses.  The site could be used as 
currently zoned.   

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  The 
proposed rezoning would add a single use, animal care, limited, subject to a protective 
overlay that requires public meetings to add additional LC uses.  Based upon code required 
operational standards eliminating outside pens or runs, and applicant offered construction 
methods to minimize outside noise nearby property should minimize anticipated detrimental 
impacts.   

4.	Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the 
hardship imposed upon the applicant:  Approval of the request will allow an additional 
animal care, limited use in a location that does not allow it today.  Denial would represent 
an economic loss to the applicant.

5.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as 
appropriate for “Low Density Residential” development, however the map has not been 
amended since 2005.  “LC” Limited Commercial zoning subject to the proposed amended 
PO-130 would continue to accommodate very low intensity retail and office development 
and other complementary land uses that serve and are generally appropriate near residential 
neighborhoods

6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  No additional impacts have 
been identified.

DALE MILLER, Planning staff presented the staff report.

MOTION: 	To approve items #6 and #8 subject to staff recommendation.

ANDERSON moved, SHERMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0).

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

7.	Case No.: ZON2007-40 – Leo Rasmussen (owner/applicant) Request City zone change 
from "SF-5" Single-family Residential to "LI" Limited Industrial on property described as;   
 
The south 65 feet of the north 631.42 feet of the west 211.32 feet of the east 615 feet of 
the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 27 South, Range 1 
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Generally located 1/8 mile 
north of Harry on the west side of Sabin Street.
     
BACKGROUND:  The applicant requests a zone change from “SF-5” Single-Family Residential to 
“LI” Limited Industrial on a 0.3-acre unplatted tract located one-eighth mile north of Harry on the 
west side of Sabin.  The subject property is vacant.  The applicant proposes to develop the subject 
property with an office/warehouse building for a construction business.

The surrounding area is characterized primarily by industrial uses, although about ten single-family 
residences remain along Sabin on property zoned SF-5, including the abutting property to the north 
and the next lot to the north.  The abutting property to the south is vacant, but the next two 
properties to the south are single-family residences.  The properties farther south and east are zoned 
LI and are developed with two contractors businesses and a machine shop. The properties to the 
northeast include more single-family residences zoned SF-5 and contractors businesses zoned LI.  
The properties to the northwest are zoned SF-5 and owned by the city and are instrumental for 
storm water drainage and retention, acquired in 1984.

Since the surrounding property is in residential zoning, the Unified Zoning Code (“UZC”) 
screening, lighting, and noise standards and the Landscape Ordinance landscaped street yard, 
parking lot landscaping and buffering requirements will apply.  The UZC compatibility setback 
standards also apply unless a Zoning Adjustment is requested and granted by the Planning Director 
and Zoning Administrator to reduce or waive the compatibility setback.

CASE HISTORY:  The property is unplatted.  A plat was submitted (SUB2006-40) by the previous 
owner but was deferred June 8, 2006 by the Subdivision Committee and has not progressed from 
this status. 

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	SF-5		Single-family residences, vacant, industrial
SOUTH:	SF-5		Vacant, single-family residential, machine shop
EAST:		SF-5, LI	Single-family residential, contractors businesses
WEST:	SF-5		Storm water drainage and retention

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The subject property has frontage along Sabin, an unpaved local street.  
Public water and sewer service are currently available to the subject property.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide, as 
amended May 2005” of the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan 
identifies this area as appropriate for ”employment/industry center.

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

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is characterized 
primarily by industrial uses, although about ten single-family residences remain along Sabin 
on property zoned “SF-5” Single-family Residential, including the abutting property to the 
north and the next lot to the north.  The abutting property to the south is vacant, but the next 
two properties to the south are single-family residences.  The properties farther south and 
east are zoned “LI” Limited Industrial and are developed with two contractors businesses 
and a machine shop. The properties to the northeast include more single-family residences 
zoned SF-5 and contractors businesses zoned LI.  The properties to the northwest are zoned 
SF-5 and owned by the city and are instrumental for storm water drainage and retention, 
acquired in 1984.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The 
subject property is zoned SF-5 and is vacant.  Given the long-standing guidance provided 
by land use guides that this area should be developed with industrial uses, further residential 
development of the subject property would not be suitable and would be contrary to the 
community’s goal of converting the area from residential to industrial use.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: 
Detrimental effects on remaining residential properties in the area are reduced by the 
screening, lighting, and compatibility standards of the Unified Zoning Code and the 
landscape street yard, parking lot screening, buffer landscaping requirements of the 
Landscape Ordinance.  These ordinances help limit noise, lighting, and other activity from 
adversely impacting the surrounding residential properties.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The “2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide, as amended May 2005” of 
the 1999 Update to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area 
as appropriate for ”employment/industry center.  The Industrial Locational Guidelines of 
the Comprehensive Plan recommend that industrial uses be located in close proximity to 
support services such as major arterials, truck routes, highways, utilities trunk lines, rail 
spurs, and airports.  

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: No detrimental impacts on 
community facilities are anticipated as long as the plat includes the dedication of 35 feet of 
right-of-way and utility easements with petitions for improvements.  Otherwise, future 
provision of a paved industrial street and extension and/or maintenance of water and sewer 
utilities in the area could be hindered.

DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff presented the staff report.

It was noted for the record that the owner /applicant declined to speak; however, he indicated that 
he was in agreement with staff comments and recommendations.  

VERNON WILLIAMS, 1115 S. SABIN stated that he owned a vacant lot on the south side of the 
street where he planned on building a residential house.  He asked if they had to have city sewers 
for that type of building the applicant was proposing.  He recommended keeping this as a 
residential area.

MILLER stated that services would need to be extended in order to get a building permit for 
commercial uses.

Responding to a question from HENTZEN concerning whether he had sewer, WILLIAMS said he 
has laterals and a septic tank; however, he thought they had sewer service on the other side of the 
street.

It was noted that once again, the owner/applicant had no comments or rebuttal.  

MOTION: 	To approve subject to staff recommendation.

       ANDERSON moved, HILLMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0).
       
-----------------------------------------

8.	Case No.: ZON2007-41 – Catholic Diocese of Wichita, Larry & Vivian Cunningham, 
James & Ann Abel, and Loren Murray (owners); Foulston Siefkin LLC., Karl Hesse (agent) 
Request City zone change from "TF-3" Duplex Residential to "B" Multi-family Residential 
on property described as;   

LOTS 50 AND 52 TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF VACATED ORME STREET, 
BEING 30 FEET ADJACENT TO SAID LOTS; LOTS 54, 56, 58 AND 60, ON PARK, 
NOW RUTAN, IN INDIANA SUBDIVISION IN VINCENNES ADDITION TO WICHITA, 
SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS.  Generally located South of Kellogg Street, east of 
Hillside Avenue, on the east side of Rutan Avenue, and south of Orme Street.
      
BACKGROUND: The rezone request is for a platted 0.5-acre site located approximately 700 feet 
east of the intersection of South Hillside Avenue and East Orem Street.  The properties are currently 
zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential, with single-family residences on two of the properties and 
the other property being vacant.  The Catholic Diocese of Wichita has contracted with the owners 
of these properties to purchase them so as to expand the Calvary Cemetery located at Kellogg and 
Hillside.  These properties are contiguous to the existing cemetery which is zoned B - Multi-family.  
Acquisition of these properties and a zone change will “square out” the existing cemetery.

Uses surrounding the subject site include TF-3 zoned property located immediately south and west 
of the application area developed with single-family residences.  North and east of the subject site 
is the Calvary Cemetery, zoned “B” Multi-Family Residential.  There are other single-family homes 
south and west of the subject site along Rutan Ave. on TF-3 zoned lots.  Just to the north and west 
is Kellogg Avenue (US-54), with the entrance/exit ramp off Hillside Avenue.  The current 
neighborhood character is predominately “TF-3” zoned single family-housing units.  The proposed 
zone change, from “TF-3” to “B” would require conformance to all property development 
standards in the Unified Zoning Code.  

The applicant proposes to use the proposed site for cemetery operations.  Existing access and 
parking will not change due to this application.  This application will allow the applicant to have a 
uniformly shaped lot conducive to the continuing operation of the cemetery.  
  
CASE HISTORY:  This property has been zoned TF-3 since the adoption of the Unified Zoning 
Code (“UZC”) in 1996 and is in the Indiana Subdivision Vincennes Addition recorded on May 5, 
1887.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	“B” Multi-family Residential		Cemetery 
EAST:		“TF-3” Two-family Residential		Single-family Residential
SOUTH:	“B” Multi-family Residential		Cemetery
WEST:		“TF-3” Two-family Residential		Single-family Residential

PUBLIC SERVICES:  South Rutan Avenue, a paved two-lane residential road with a 50 to 60-foot 
right-of-way, is located to the west of the application area.  Also to the west of the application area 
is East Orme Street, a paved two-lane residential road with a 60-foot right-of-way.  Traffic counts 
are not available for either of the residential streets and no traffic projections are available for these 
sections of Rutan and Orme.  City water and sewer are available at the application area.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The recently updated and adopted “Wichita Land 
Use Guide” of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies the application area as 
“Urban Residential.”  This application area is located in a little notch of urban residential that is 
bordered on the north and east by “Major Institutional,” which reflects the location of the existing 
cemetery.  With the approval of this application, the area would be squared off with the B zoning 
and would the change would also reflect a change in the Land Use guide.  The Unified Zoning 
Code defines the “B” zoning district as generally compatible with the “High Density Residential” 
designation of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the proposed use could be considered consistent 
with the “Major Institutional” designation of the Plan.  The application area is also consistent with 
the “Major Institutional Locational Guidelines” of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive 
Plan.  

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

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The surrounding area is 
predominately TF-3 zoning developed with single-family residences, and B zoning for the 
cemetery located north and east of the subject site.  Landscape requirements, and existing 
open space should mitigate any negative impacts from the application area onto the 
surrounding residential neighbors.     

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The 
recently updated and adopted “Wichita Land Use Guide” of the Wichita-Sedgwick County 
Comprehensive Plan identifies the application area as “Urban Residential.”  This 
application area is located in a little notch of urban residential that is bordered on the north 
and east by “Major Institutional,” which reflects the location of the existing cemetery.  With 
the approval of this application, the area would be squared off with the B zoning and would 
the change would also reflect a change in the Land Use guide.  The Unified Zoning Code 
defines the “B” zoning district as generally compatible with the “High Density Residential” 
designation of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the proposed use could be considered 
consistent with the “Major Institutional” designation of the Plan.  The application area is 
also consistent with the “Major Institutional Locational Guidelines” of the Wichita-Sedgwick 
County Comprehensive Plan.  

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: 
Approval of “B” zoning on this property, and the proposed use of the land would not have 
a detrimental effect on the surrounding property.  The existing cemetery has been in 
operation for many years and fits well as a buffer between a residential area and Kellogg 
(US-54).  The proposed development would conform to all buffer and landscaping 
regulations in regards to the zoning and the use.    

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and policies:  The requested zoning change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 
“Wichita Land Use Guide,” and it is in conformance with the locational guidelines of the 
plan.

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: A zone change at the 
application area to B for a cemetery use would have minimal impacts in regards to city 
services and traffic.  This proposal would generate less traffic than conventional 
development under the current “TF-3” zoning.       

DERRICK SLOCUM, Planning staff presented the staff report.

MOTION: 	To approve subject to staff recommendation.

		ANDERSON moved, SHERMAN seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0).

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

9.	Case No.: PUD2007-3 – City of Wichita (owner); Loveland Properties, LLC c/o Michael 
Loveland (developer); Poe & Associates c/o Tim Austin (agent) Request Create PUD #26 
the Parkstone PUD for mixed-use residential and commercial development on property 
described as;   
      
Lots 1 through 4, 7 through 12 and the East Half of Lot 13 and 20, I R & R Subdivision of 
Block 1, in College Hill Addition to Wichita, Kansas; along with the West 100 feet of the 
North 140 feet, College Park, College Hill Addition to Wichita; and along with Lots 2, 4, 6, 
8, 10 and 12, Roembach's Addition to Wichita, Kansas; and along the West 50 feet of the 
South Half of the East Half of Lot 1, Block 2, College Hill Addition to Wichita; and along 
with the North Half of the West Half of Lot 1, Block 2, College Hill Addition to Wichita.  
Generally located North of Douglas, east of Hillside, south of 1st Street North, and east and 
west of Rutan. 
      
BACKGROUND:  The applicant proposes to create PUD #26 Parkstone Planned Unit 
Development consisting of four parcels for a mixed use urban village development including 
commercial, office and a range of housing types of brownstones (three-story row housing), a high 
rise apartment tower and apartment flats on second stories above commercial uses at the street 
level.  The property is located north of Douglas Avenue, east of Hillside Avenue and south of 1st 
Street North, and includes property on all four corners of the intersection of Rutan Avenue and 
Victor Place.  The property would be zoned “PUD” Planned Unit Development to replace the 
current zoning of “GC” General Commercial, “GO” General Office, “B” Multi-family Residential, 
and “TF-3” Two-family Residential.  Use and site development would be defined and limited to the 
elements contained within the PUD document.

The site lies within the City of Wichita Central & Hillside Redevelopment District approved by 
Wichita City Council on December 19, 2006.  The Douglas & Hillside Redevelopment District 
(TIF) and the College Hill Urban Village Project Plan were approved by Wichita City Council 
February 13, 2007.

Proposed uses include all residential and commercial uses permitted by right in the NR zoning 
district except group residence, broadcast recording studio and pay day loans or similar speedy cash 
types of businesses, and with the additional NR residential conditional use of neighborhood 
swimming pool and the additional NR public and civic use of minor utility.  The PUD did not 
request any other public and civic uses or any industrial, manufacturing and extractive uses or any 
agricultural uses.  Restaurants would be allowed up to 6,000 square feet in size, which varies from 
the NR special development standards for restaurants but still excludes large-scale restaurant 
operations.  Victor Place east of Rutan would become a pedestrian plaza pocket park.  The site plan 
accompanying the TIF review had a roundabout at the intersection of Rutan and Victor Place that 
may be eliminated due to fire protection turning radius requirements.

Parcel 1 (52,348 square feet-1.2 acre) is located east of Rutan between Victor Place and 1st Street 
North (the Northeast Brownstone Complex on the College Hill TIF project plan).  Requested density 
is 29 dwelling units per acre and requested maximum building height is 60 feet, however, these 
levels exceed the proposed uses documented on a proposed site plan and the College Hill Urban 
Village Project Plan that is the basis for the TIF district. The TIF plan was based on a total of 16 
brownstone-type row houses with two-car garage within the units plus a small amount (2,100 
square feet) of retail space on the corner.  18 dwelling units per acre (MF-18 density) and a height 
of 45 feet would be ample to allow the development as proposed by the TIF approval.

Parcel 2 (135,649 square feet-3.1 acres) is the largest tract with the most intensive residential 
component.  It was described as the Condo Tower and Brownstone Complex and the West 
Brownstone Complex on the TIF project plan.  Located west of Rutan between 1st Street North and 
Victor Place, the parcel would have up to a 14-story high-rise (condominium) apartment building 
with approximately 84 to 87 dwelling units.  A two-level 210-space parking garage would be 
located under the high-rise tower and extending toward Rutan and the west property line.  Up to 36 
brownstone row-house type dwellings would surround the high rise.  On a site plan, the 
brownstones have a 10-foot setback from the street.  Each unit includes a two-car garage within the 
unit and a guest parking lot is located east of the main entrance to the high-rise tower.  On-street 
parallel parking spaces provide additional parking for guests or for customers to the office and 
retail uses.  Requested density of the parcel of 50 dwelling units per acre, which is a modest 
increase from the density of 42 dwelling units per acre of the TIF project plan.  Requested height is 
300 feet to accommodate a 14-story high-rise.

For Parcels 1 and 2, it is recommended that maximum building height be reduced to 45 feet within 
70 feet of 1st Street North and a building setback of 10 feet be required to maintain a unified height 
and setback along 1st Street and to scale back the intensity of street presence along this street that 
serves as a main gateway to the lower intensity residential character of the College Hill 
neighborhood.  Also, commercial uses are to be prohibited in structures facing (and located within 
70 feet of) 1st Street, again to keep the character of 1st Street intact but allow the remaining 
development fronting onto Victor and Rutan to utilize mixed commercial and residential use.

Parcel 3 (14,009 square feet-0.32 acre) is proposed as a surface 36-space parking lot to serve 
parking needs primarily of the office and retail components of the development.

Parcel 4 (56,885 square feet-1.3 acre) is proposed as a retail/residential condominium complex 
(described as the South Project Retail/Residential Complex on the TIF project plan).   A two-story 
mixed-use building with 9,600 square feet of retail on the street level and five loft apartments on 
the second floor is to be located on the corner of Douglas and Rutan.   Five three-story brownstone-
type row houses are shown along Rutan and retail space on the street level with apartments above 
are located at the corner of Rutan and Victor.  The TIF project plan indicates the brownstones could 
be replaced with retail uses depending on market demand.    A four-story mid-rise apartment 
building of 24 flats with a 31-car parking lot is shown south of Victor Place and west of Rutan.  
The PUD requests a maximum building height of 200 feet and density of 50 dwelling units per 
acre.  Current configuration is at a height of about 60 feet and density of 28 dwelling units per acre.  
The applicant’s agent indicated the reason for the wide variation in requested and proposed density 
and height would be if a second high-rise tower were constructed on the property.  This could be a 
substantial change from the current PUD plan/site plan and the TIF project plan, could affect the 
parking ratios, and should be subject to a review level associated with an amendment to the PUD.  
The recommended density and heights reflect the mid-rise and retail/residential components as 
shown in the TIF project plan and a proposed site plan.

Architectural elements are designed to create an urban village character to the development.  
Signage is to be per the Wichita Sign Code for the NR district.  Consistency in parking lot and 
lighting elements are to be incorporated.  Landscaping would be per the Wichita Landscape 
Ordinance and done with a consistent plant palette.  A proposed site plan shows a row of on-street 
parking interspersed with trees spaced 60 to 75 feet apart within Victor Place, Rutan and 1st Street.  
Pedestrian connectivity is required between buildings in the PUD.

Parking appears to be ample, particularly since in an urban village setting, the parking demand 
would be anticipated to be lower because more patrons would be anticipated to walk to the site than 
to suburban commercial developments.  The developer is providing two public parking lots (Parcel 
3 and a lot behind the buildings on Parcel 4) primarily for the retail component.  The total amount 
of parking in these two lots is about 70 spaces, which would almost meet the standard Unified 
Zoning Code (“UZC”) commercial parking requirement if it were developed with up to 20,000 
square feet of retail/commercial square footage (although with restaurants, the true parking need 
would be higher).  It is suggested that the parking provision for general retail/office be 1/500 square 
feet and for restaurants be 1/8 patrons, which is one-half the standard parking rate of the UZC.  The 
PUD requests a parking requirement of 1.25 spaces for multi-family use.  This is less parking than 
shown on a site plan with the high rise having 211 stalls for less than 90 units and the mid-rise with 
30 spaces for 19 units.  Additional parking is provided by parallel parking stalls on street.  And in 
the TIF project description, the brownstones are to incorporate two-car garages within the units.  In 
order to build some flexibility into the parking component, the option is suggested that the site be 
developed according to the parking as shown on the site plan or as specified in the general 
provisions of the PUD.

The surrounding area is College Hill, a traditional neighborhood on a grid pattern with mostly 
single-family dwellings mixed with duplexes; College Hill Elementary School is the property 
immediately to the north of Parcel 1 and Plymouth Congregational Church is one block east.  The 
Hillcrest is a premiere apartment tower owned by its residents as a coop.  It is ten stories in height 
and located one block south of this project.  The Hillcrest (1927) long has served as the landmark 
and focal point for the Uptown retail area and edge of College Hill neighborhood.  Douglas in this 
vicinity was known as the “Uptown” area historically and still maintains a strong mix of 
retail/commercial uses including the Uptown Theater (dinner theater), several furniture stores, 
offices, dance studio, and restaurants.  The Dockum Drug Store building (1927) is significant due 
to the presence of the Carthalite detailing on the façade.  Zoning surrounding the tract includes “SF-
5” Single-family Residential, “TF-3” Two-family Residential, “MF-29” Multi-family Residential, 
“B” Multi-family Residential, “GO” General Office, “LC” Limited Commercial and “GC” General 
Commercial.

CASE HISTORY:  The property is platted as I, R & R Subdivision of Block 1 in College Hill 
Addition (April 4, 1887), Roembach’s Addition (June 4, 1910), and College Hill Addition 
(September 30, 1884).  A replat for the site is being processed (SUB2007-64).

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH:	LC, TF-3, SF-5		Elementary school, single-family, duplex, apartments
EAST:		TF-3, MF-29, GO	Single-family, duplex, apartments, office 
SOUTH:	LC, GC		Hillcrest high-rise, offices, theater, restaurants
WEST:		GC, LC, B		Restaurant, retail, offices, dance studio, personal care service

PUBLIC SERVICES:  Douglas is a minor arterial street and Hillside is a principal arterial street.  
Traffic counts in 2006 were 15,000 vehicles per day on Douglas and 18,000 on Hillside.  In 2007 
improvements were completed widening Hillside to a five-lane street and improving Douglas with a 
left-turn lane at the intersection of Hillside.  These improvements were difficult to design due to the 
presence of zero-lot setback of commercial buildings on the northeast and southeast sides of the 
Douglas and Hillside intersections.  1st Street North is a one-way collector street.  Access openings 
onto 1st Street would be limited to two openings per the subdivision plat.  Other public services are 
available.  The scale of this project will necessitate relocation and upgrading of public 
improvements and infrastructure.  The TIF is being used for this purpose.  Discussions are ongoing 
as part of the subdivision platting process regarding the handling of storm water on the site.
  
CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The ”2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide,” 
2005 amendments to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identify the site as “local 
commercial” for Parcels 2-4 and “urban residential” for Parcel 1.   The proposed uses of the PUD 
would be in conformance with this designation, particularly with the restriction of uses to those 
generally falling within the NR Neighborhood Retail district.
  
RECOMMENDATION:  The PUD is intended to create a superior quality development that may 
not conform to all the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code by:

(1) Reducing or eliminating the inflexibility that sometimes results from strict application of 
zoning standards that were designed primarily for individual lots;

(2)	Allowing greater freedom in selecting the means to provide access, light, open space 
and design amenities;

(3)	Promoting quality urban design and environmentally sensitive development by allowing 
development to take advantage of special site characteristics, locations and land uses; 
and

(4)	Allowing deviations from certain zoning standards that would otherwise apply if not 
contrary to the general spirit and intent of this Code.

The proposed PUD meets these criteria.  The urban village concept incorporates a mix of 
commercial and residential uses, including a variety of housing types, allows a higher level of 
concentration, has higher standards for architectural design, incorporates elements of the 
streetscape into the development, reduces the setbacks, and encourages a walkable pedestrian 
environment.

Based on these comments and information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends 
the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.	Revise Parcel 1 to a maximum residential density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre and height of 
45 feet.
2.	Revise the maximum height on Parcel 2 to 45 feet within 70 feet of 1st Street North.
3.	Add a limitation to Parcel 2 that the high-rise cannot exceed 14 stories (not including the 
parking garage so long as the roof of the garage is at ground level on east side boundary).
4.	Add a building setback of 10 feet along 1st Street North and 15 feet along the eastern property 
line of Parcel 1.
5.	Limit the maximum residential density of Parcel 4 to 29 dwelling units per acre and a height of 
60 feet and a maximum of four stories. 
6.	Wireless communication shall be subject to standards for the NR district.
7.	Specify the use of Parcel 3 as a parking lot.
8.	Revise parking requirements to 1/500 square feet for retail, office, personal care service and 
personal improvement service, and replace “CBD” with “NR” in General Provision #6.
9.	In General Provision #19, replace “CBD” with “NR”.
10.	Add the provision, that unless otherwise indicated by the PUD document, the uses, property 
development standards, and special development standards shall be per the Unified Zoning 
Code for the NR Neighborhood Retail zoning district, and the site development standards shall 
be per the Unified Zoning Code requirements as applicable to the NR Neighborhood Retail 
district.
11.	 Include maximum commercial gross floor area of 3,000 square feet in Parcel 1 and 30,000 
square feet for the entire project.
12.	Provide a six to eight feet in height solid screening wall on east edge of Parcel 1 beginning at a 
point 50 feet south of the 1st Street North right-of-way.
13.	Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission 
and to the Governing Body for their consideration.
14.	The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Planned Unit 
Development does not constitute a termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan 
shall run with the land and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, 
unless amended.
15.	Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the PUD zone change, the applicant(s) shall 
record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as PUD #26) 
includes special conditions for development on this property.
16.	The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the PUD to the Metropolitan Area Planning 
Department within 60 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request 
shall be considered denied and closed.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood:  The surrounding area is College Hill, 
a traditional neighborhood on a grid pattern with mostly single-family dwellings mixed with 
duplexes; College Hill Elementary School is the property immediately to the north of Parcel 
1 and Plymouth Congregational Church is one block east.  The Hillcrest is a premiere 
apartment tower owned by its residents as a coop.  It is ten stories in height and located one 
block south of this project.  The Hillcrest (1927) long has served as the landmark and focal 
point for the Uptown retail area and edge of College Hill neighborhood.  Douglas in this 
vicinity was known as the “Uptown” area historically and still maintains a strong mix of 
retail/commercial uses including the Uptown Theater (dinner theater), several furniture 
stores, offices, dance studio, and restaurants.  The Dockum Drug Store building (1927) is 
significant due to the presence of the Carthalite detailing on the façade.  Zoning surrounding 
the tract includes “SF-5” Single-family Residential, “TF-3” Two-family Residential, “MF-
29” Multi-family Residential, “B” Multi-family Residential, “GO” General Office, “LC” 
Limited Commercial and “GC” General Commercial.
 
2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The 
property could be developed as zoned, but it would lack the flexibility in site development 
regulations to achieve the urban village concept.  In particular, retail activities would be 
restricted to Douglas rather than Rutan and setbacks and height limitations would prohibit 
the narrower front yard setbacks for the brownstones and high-rise development.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The 
primary changes will be the increase in density and reduction in setbacks near the 
residential area to the north and east.  Addition of the 10-foot uniform setback will mitigate 
the effect by keeping a uniform alignment and the presence of the brownstones along the 
street will help screen the scale of the high-rise from the residential neighborhood.  The 
addition of a screening wall will afford better separation with the single-family residence to 
the east as well as better privacy for the neighborhood swimming pool along this property 
line.

4.	Length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned: The majority of the site has 
been vacant nearly 15 years since the State of Kansas moved its regional SRS offices.  This 
abandoned high-rise office building, located on the northwest corner of Douglas and Rutan, 
was a hazard and blight to the neighborhood.  The parking lots are overgrown.  Only one 
office building on Victor Place was adequately maintained (it is being retained during the 
initial phases of development as the office for the project).

5.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan 
and Policies: The ”2030 Wichita Functional Land Use Guide,” 2005 amendments to the 
Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identify the site as “local commercial” for 
Parcels 2-4 and “urban residential” for Parcel 1.   The proposed uses of the PUD would be 
in conformance with this designation, particularly with the restriction of uses to those 
generally falling within the NR Neighborhood Retail district.
 
6.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The impact should not be 
greater than the capacity of the streets and other public facilities as being redeveloped by 
the TIF funded public improvements, coupled with the recent improvements to Hillside and 
Douglas in 2007.

DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff presented the staff report.

She said the original plans had been revised and that some building setbacks had been added.  She 
commented that the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) spells out the amount of residential and retail 
space needed to make the project “turn” and meet financial projections.  She explained that the 
density of retail and residential is built into the PUD to make the financial part of the TIF.  She 
commented that there would be a 10-foot setback for the proposed brownstones and that parking 
ratios were a little bit lower than normal, reflecting the urban village concept.

GISICK Out @2:45 p.m.  

GOLTRY briefly reviewed changes to the original plan, including but not limited to the following:  
Item #3 that the fifteenth floor of the 15 story structure would be non-occupied; Item #9 has added 
building setbacks; and Item #11 that the space has been changed to 4,000 square feet instead of the 
original 3,000 square feet.

Responding to a question from HILLMAN concerning a traffic light and crosswalk at Rutan and 
Douglas, GOLTRY commented that the Traffic Engineer would make that determination.

Responding to a question from BISHOP concerning only a portion of the area being zoned 
residential, GOLTRY explained that the PUD establishes what uses were permitted.  She reviewed 
the zoning map, which basically established “NH” Neighborhood Residential zoning.  She said 
speedy cash operations were prohibited; a neighborhood swimming pool was included; and 
restaurant space had been expanded to a maximum of size 6,000 square feet rather than the usual 
2,000 square feet, which would be typical for this type of zoning.  She also commented on the 
architectural standards, signage, streetscape and landscaping, and pedestrian connections.

Responding to several questions from HENTZEN, GOLTRY clarified that Victor Place would be 
blocked off and not a through street.   In addition, she defined “brownstone” as two-three story 
structures with a common front porch that she likened to the Back-Bay in Boston, MA.  She added 
brownstones usually occur in mixed development use areas, with retail and/or office on the ground 
floor and residential use above. She briefly reviewed parking in the PUD, which consisted of extra 
parking for the pool, retail, and mid-rise building, on-street parking and two-car garages in the back 
of some of the residential/condominium units.

TIM AUSTIN, POE & ASSOCIATES, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT stated that they were in 
agreement with staff comments and the minor “tweaks” that had been made to the original plan.  
He mentioned   Item #3 concerning the 15-storey structure; Item #4 concerning the building 
setbacks on First, Victor and Rutan Streets, Item #10 general provisions and Item #19 concerning 
building setbacks.  He said this would be a dense urban environment much like the central business 
district, and Item #11 that was increasing the maximum gross floor area on parcel one to 4,000 
square feet.  

Responding to a question from MILLER STEVENS concerning the roundabout on Victor Place, 
AUSTIN responded that it had been done away with.  

KENNETH W. ARNOLD, 7033 EAST ROCKWOOD, said he was present to represent the 
Plymouth Congregational Church and that they were very supportive of the proposed development 
because they thought it would be great for the neighborhood.  He requested that the MAPC support 
the project.  

TIM PHARES, 142 S RUTAN said he was in favor of the project.  He mentioned the traffic flow 
south of Douglas and that there were no stop signs on Rutan between Lewis and Douglas.  He said 
if Rutan is a residential street as opposed to an arterial, then the Traffic Commission needs to work 
on diverting north/south traffic with stop signs and possibly installing a left turn lane on east bound 
Douglas into the project.  He said that would help the neighborhood.

It was noted for the record that there was no rebuttal from the agent.

GOLTRY clarified item #5 and that after a meeting with the College Hill Neighborhood 
Association, it was decided that the building would be four stories, and a total of 60 foot in height.  

MOTION: 	To approve subject to staff recommendation.

HENTZEN moved, ANDERSON seconded the motion, and it carried (10-0).
       
-------------------------------------------------------

10.	Case No.: DR2005-35 (DER2007-09) - Request Resolution amending the Unified Zoning 
Code to add the Proposed Corridor Preservation Plan Overlay District (CP-O) for the 
proposed Northwest Bypass in Sedgwick County on property described as;   
 
General Location Within unincorporated Sedgwick County and a portion of the City of 
Wichita, the general location of the proposed CP-O connects K-96 to US-54 west of the 
City of Wichita.
      
BACKGROUND:  The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) has been planning this 
extension of the K-254 bypass around Wichita to U.S. 54 for many years.  KDOT has advanced the 
design of the project to the point that it has started the process of acquiring right-of-way.   Since 
limited funding is available at this time for right-of-way acquisition, KDOT is asking that local 
jurisdictions assist in preserving the corridor so that property development does not unnecessarily 
hinder future acquisition efforts when additional funds are available.

The proposed Corridor Preservation Plan Overlay (CP-O) District is intended to assist KDOT in the 
land assembly process.  Its key provision is that it would require any new use of property within the 
District requiring a building permit to be reviewed for consistency with the CP-O standards.  These 
standards are intended to encourage property owners to build on their property in ways that would 
not interfere with the eventual construction of the bypass.  Where it is not possible to do so without 
unduly interfering with property rights, the review process will allow the local jurisdiction to alert 
KDOT of the need to consider acquiring all or portions of the property.  

The MAPC first heard this item on December 8, 2005, and voted 10-0 to approve the item subject 
to staff recommendations.  The item was scheduled for the February 7, 2006, Wichita City Council 
hearing agenda, and the February 8, 2006, Board of County Commissioners agenda.  Both 
governing bodies voted to defer the item at their respective meetings in order to allow uncertainties 
about the project to be cleared up.
Because so much time has elapsed since this item was last heard and a revised legal description for 
the CP-O has been prepared that references KDOT design drawings, both governing bodies have 
sent this item back to the MAPC for a new public hearing.  
      
RECOMMENDATION:  Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, 
planning staff recommends that the Resolution amending the Unified Zoning Code to add the 
Proposed Corridor Preservation Plan Overlay (CP-O) District be found in conformance with the 
Wichita/Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, and be APPROVED.     

DALE MILLER, Planning staff presented the staff report.

He said this would be a change to the Unified Zoning Code that established a conditional use 
review process for areas along the proposed by-pass route.  He said uses already occurring in the 
area would be “grand fathered” in.  He said all cases reviewed by the MAPC would go on to the 
appropriate governing body (either City of County) for final approval or denial of the required 150-
foot building set back

TAPE 2, SIDE 1

HENTZEN asked staff if they could delay this item, due to MCKAY and MITCHELL’S absences 
at today’s meeting and the experience they had in this area.  MILLER commented that he believed 
the County Commission wanted an answer on the item today.  

Responding to HENTZEN’S inquiry, PARNACOTT said he was not aware of any particular 
urgency; however, he noted that when this issue came before the Commission in 2006, the vote 
was 10-0 to approve.  He said the proposal hasn’t changed since that time.

There was brief discussion concerning the map.  MILLER mentioned that there was a caveat that if 
the route should change, the applicant does not have to return for another hearing.

CHAIRMAN DOWNING opened the meeting for public comment.  For the record, no one spoke.  

MOTION: 	To approve subject to staff recommendation.

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

---------------------------------------------------------
     
The Metropolitan Area Planning Department informally adjourned at 3:10 p.m.


State of Kansas		)
Sedgwick County	) SS


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

     Given under my hand and official seal this ___________ day of ____________________, 
2007.



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

(SEAL)



September 6, 2007 
Page 34