METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 16, 1999 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, September 16, 1999 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: Bill Johnson, Chair; James Barfield; Chris Carraher; Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; John W. McKay, Jr.; Ron Marnell; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; Harold Warner, Jr.; Ray Warren; and Deanna Wheeler. Richard Lopez and George Platt were not present. Staff members present were: Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Lisa Verts, Senior Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Election of new Chair and Vice-Chair JOHNSON “I will now open the floor for nominations for the Chair of the Commission.” MOTION: That Frank Garofalo be the Chair of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. MCKAY moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). JOHNSON “The floor is now open for nominations for Vice-Chair.” MOTION: That Ron Marnell become the Vice-Chair. WARREN moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). There were no other nominations. JOHNSON “Before Mr. Garofalo takes over, I want to thank staff and all of the Commissioners for all of their patience over the past year. It has been a good experience, and I really appreciate it.” Garofalo assumed the chair. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Osborne-Howes arrived at the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 2. Approval of the minutes for MAPC meeting of June 24, 1999. GAROFALO “I have one correction on Page 9. I think where it says Bill Johnson was the Chair read the Opening Statement. I don’t think Bill was at that meeting, and I ran the whole meeting. Are there any other changes, corrections or additions? MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes for the June 24, 1999 meeting as amended. CARRAHER moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations GAROFALO “Items 3/1 through 3/5 can be taken in one motion. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on those items? I have one little question on item 3/1, and that is on Item D. It says it must be approved before MAPC consideration.” NEIL STRAHL, Planning Staff, “I spoke with Jim Weber with County Engineering yesterday, and he did approve it.” Subdivision Committee items 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4 and 3/5 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. JOHNSON moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (11-0). 3/1. S/D 99-55 – One-step final plat PRAIRIE CROSSROADS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of 119th Street West and Pawnee. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. B. City Engineering needs to indicate if petitions for future extensions of municipal water and sanitary sewer need to be provided at this time. City Engineering has requested petitions for future extension of City sewer and water. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A drainage plan has been approved. On-site or off-site detention is required. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening along 119th St. West and one access opening along Pawnee. The access controls are acceptable. F. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for any traffic improvements to perimeter streets, No improvements are required for perimeter streets. G. Documentation must be provided that the pipeline easement as indicated on the platting binder has been released. If the easement has been confined, proof needs to be provided that it does not in any way encroach this site. If the easement does impact this site, it shall be shown and subject to the standard pipeline conditions. H. The platting binder indicates that the site’s ownership is in the party of “Wichita United Methodist District Union“. This name must also appear on the owner’s signature block on the final plat tracing. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/2. S/D 99-59 – One-step final plat of RIDGE PORT NORTH 2nd Addition, located on the south side of 37th street North, east side of Ridge Road. A. The northwest sewer service boundary area has been extended to include this site. As a condition for the approval of the Ridgeport North Addition, the Applicant has participated in the petition for the required lift station. City Engineering should comment on the need for additional guarantees or easements. No additional guarantees are required. B. As a condition for the approval of the Ridgeport North Addition, the Applicant has guaranteed the extension of City water to serve the lot being platted. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan and the accuracy of the minimum building pad elevation. The minimum building elevation shall also be denoted in NGVD. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for a revised petition for the drainage improvements. The drainage plan is approved. E. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. F. As required for the Ridgeport North Addition, guarantees have been submitted for the following: Right and left turn decel and storage lanes at the two major accesses to the site along both Ridge Road and 37th St. North, left turn lanes for the southbound and westbound left turns at the intersection of 37th Street and Ridge Road, installation of traffic signals at the intersection, and asphalt mat improvements to 37th St. North. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for any additional improvements. The applicant shall submit a revised petition for traffic improvements indicating 12.5% participation in the cost of signalization. G. Traffic Engineering shall comment on the access openings. The access openings correspond with those approved for the CUP and Ridgeport North Addition. Two openings have been platted along 37th St. North – one joint opening with the property to the west, and one major opening. The platted access controls indicate two openings along Ridge Road, although the drawing only denotes one proposed opening. The plat shall be revised to denote access control except for one major opening along Ridge Road and a corresponding CUP adjustment shall be filed. H. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. I. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. J. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted for recording with the Register of Deeds identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-237) and its special conditions for development on this property. K. For those reserves being platted for sidewalk purposes, the required covenant, which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves, shall establish that the lot owners’ association shall maintain the sidewalk system planned for construction outside of the street right-of-way. This covenant shall grant to the City the authority to maintain the sidewalks outside of street right-of-way in the event the owners fail to do so. L. The surveyor’s certification shall be revised by referencing “a replat of Lot 1, Ridge Port North Addition”. M. The recording information shall be denoted for the existing joint access opening between this plat and the lot to the west along 37th Street North. N. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) O. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. P. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. Q. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. R. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. S. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. T. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. U. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. V. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/3. S/D 99-58 – One-Step Final plat of SEERYS’ ADDITION, located east of Greenwich Road, North of Pawnee. A. This site is located in the County’s Four Mile Creek sewer system and will be served by the County. B. City water facilities are currently available to serve the site. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A four-corner lot grading plan is requested. E. The plat contains less than the required 100-foot lot width and an administrative adjustment will be required. F. Based upon the platting binder, a mortgage is being held by First National Bank. This party needs to be made a signatory to the plat or a document provided that such interest is no longer involved. G. The name of the plat shall be corrected in the MAPC certification. H. The final plat tracing shall reference a tie point to a section corner. I. The lot depth exceeds its width by more than a ratio of 2.5 to 1, and a modification will need to be granted by the MAPC. The Subdivision recommends that this modification be granted. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/4. D-1768 - Dedication of Access Control for property generally located on the east side of Webb Road, south of 29th Street North. OWNER/APPLICANT: Via Christi Property Services, Inc., C/O David M. Mohr, 959 N. Emporia, Wichita, KS 67214-3722 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 1, Kansas Surgery and Recovery Center Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split (L/S-1010) and is being dedicated to provide complete access control to the property from or to Webb Road over and across the north 405 feet of the west line of said property Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/5. D-1770 – Dedication of a Utility Easement for proeprty generally located on the north side of Maple Street, 1/4 mile west of Maize Road. OWNER/APPLICANT: Patrick F. Walden, Garden Plain State Bank, P.O. Box 75009, Wichita, KS 67275-0009 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 20, Oak Cliff Estates to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence N90° 00’00” E along the south line of said Lot 3, 152.00 feet for a point of beginning; thence N00°06’48”E parallel with the west line of said Lot 3, 217.61 feet; thence N90°00’00” W parallel with the south line of said Lot 3, 9.77 feet; thence N00°00’00”E, 10.00 feet; thence N90°00’00”E parallel with the south line of said Lot 3, 9.79 feet; thence N00°06’48”E parallel with the west line of said Lot 3, 302.39 feet to a point on the south line of a 20-foot Utility Easement as granted in said Lot 3; thence N90°00’00”E along the south line of said 20-foot Utility Easement, 20.00 feet; thence S00°06’48”W parallel with the west line of said Lot 3, 530.00 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 3; thence N90°00’00”W along the south line of said Lot 3, 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split (L/S-1015) and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wheeler arrived at the meeting at 1:40 p.m. STRAHL “Mr. Chair, before you move on to the zoning items, I have a memo related to the Subdivision that should be in your packet. It is a memo dated September 15 entitled ‘Surveyor Certification on Plats’. It should have been distributed today. I will explain it briefly. It was adopted by the State Legislature effective July 1 of this year. What the bill does is to require review and certification of all plats in the City and County by the County Surveyor, and in the absence of the County Surveyor, done by the County Engineer. This law previously was in effect, but it exempted any cities with Planning Commissions. So we had to a new bill to remove that exemption, and now this is applicable to us. We did have a meeting this week with the County Legal Department and they will be contacting the Attorney General for an opinion on this matter, because it does lengthen our platting procedure considerably, as we will now have to have the County Engineer review and certify all plats for the City and County before we can forward the plats to the City Council. In the interim, though, we are going to include a signature block on all plats for David Spears, the County Engineer to have his staff review and certify all plats and then we will take the plat back and have the City Council review it. I just want to make you aware of this.” GAROFALO “This doesn’t really impact us, does it? I mean, our Subdivision process will proceed as always?” STRAHL “That is correct. It will lengthen the process for the platting engineer.” WARREN “Isn’t Jim Weber in David Spears’ office?” GAROFALO “No. He is in sewer.” STRAHL “This would have to be reviewed by a surveyor.” MCKAY “What are you talking about, one week, two weeks, a month?” STRAHL “I don’t know.” MCKAY “I would think they would make some kind of guidelines, or at least some recommendations. They might leave it on the shelf for a week and a half or two weeks.” MILLER “He has three folks out there that are registered surveyors. What they are hoping to get from the Attorney General is a clarification on how detailed the review has to be. If it is basically just a cursory check for the math and make sure that the thing closes and there is a beginning point that makes sense and all of that, that wouldn’t be too bad. But if it is an actual ‘we expect you to double-check everything and seal it with a surveyor’s seal’, they are reluctant to do that for fear that they would then become liable in the chain of liability. So that is what they are hoping to get from the Attorney General as a clarification of how detailed that has to be. I guess then, depending upon that, it will dictate how long it may take them to do this. There was other discussion about if it was really going to be that detailed, maybe they could hire a consultant to do it, but at that point, Mr. Spears didn’t think he had the budget, at this point, to do that. So some of those kind of questions are still up in the air until we get this Attorney General’s opinion.” GAROFALO “Is the Legal Department going to inquire as to whether or not we are still exempt or not exempt from these?” MILLER “It was my understanding from the County Law Department that we were not exempt today. We had been up until this recent bill.” HENTZEN “Mr. Chair, has the system of us being exempt caused any problem in this County in the last five years? All I am saying is why are they stacking that delay in cost onto the procedure we now use unless there has been a serious problem?” KROUT “I don’t think there is a good explanation except to tell you that the Kansas Land Surveyors’ Association sponsored this bill, and the bill was entered in, somehow, through a consent agenda, so there was very little understanding about what the legislature was passing when they did pass it. We have earmarked it for attention at the next legislative session and also alerted the Home Builders’ Association on this issue.” HENTZEN “What I was driving at is if we are going to have the County Engineer having to conduct this examination, then we should not require anybody else to present this examination. I just asked that question because I had never heard of a problem like that.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you.” MICHAELIS “I have a question. Does that mean like in Subdivision now, that that is automatically going to be a requirement from today on?” KROUT “I think the Register of Deeds was part of that meeting also and indicated that he was not going to record any plats that just had this signature on them.” MICHAELIS “Is that plats that are applied for as of this? Will ones that already in the process be affected?” KROUT “I think the ones that are in the process will be affected. And, isn’t there some way they are going to go back to the process where all plats that were recorded since July will have to file a certificate after the fact. It is going to lengthen the process some.” GAROFALO ”Is there anything else on this? Okay.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ZONING: 4. SCZ-0791 – Sherman Donaldson (Owner); Terra Tech c/o Michele Goodrich (Agent) request a zone change from “SF-20” Single-Family residential to “MH” Manufactured Housing on property described as: The West 150 feet of the south 750 feet of a tract of land Beginning 1998.2 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of section 12, Township 28 South, Range 1 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence East 649 feet; thence North 2651.2 feet; thence West 658.8 feet; thence South to Beginning, EXCEPT the East 165 feet of the Southwest Quarter, Section 12, Township 28 South, Range 1 West, AND EXCEPT that part condemned in District Court Case A-76777 for I-235 Highway. Generally located north of MacArthur and ½ mile east of West Street. KEITH GOOCH, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting to rezone a 2.6 acre unplatted tract of land from “SF-20” to “MH” located north of MacArthur and ½ mile east of West Street. There are currently two doublewide manufactured homes on this property. One home is a legal nonconforming use and is permitted to stay. The other manufactured home was approved in 1995 on a temporary basis to provide care for the applicant’s wife. The applicant did receive a permit from the Sedgwick County Code Enforcement to enlarge the temporary structure. The home was to have been removed after his wife no longer lived on-site, so the permit was issued in error. The applicant’s children now use this home. Sedgwick County Code Enforcement realized the error and proceeded to take court action against the applicant. The applicant has been ordered by the court, to either move the temporary home approved in 1995 or meet the code requirements. The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) requires manufactured homes, unless they meet the standards of a “Residential Design Manufactured Home (a manufactured home on a permanent foundation which has minimum dimensions of 22 body feet in width a pitched roof, and siding and roofing materials which are customarily used on site-built homes, and which complies with architectural and aesthetic standards specified in Sec. IV-D of the UZC), to be placed on lots zoned “MH” Manufactured Housing or on lots larger than 20 acres in size. The UZC requires all manufactured homes to be placed on a permanent enclosed perimeter foundation, or be skirted around the perimeter of the home, within 45 days of the placement of the home, by solid concrete or masonry walls or a material designed to be used as mobile home skirting that does not have a flame spread rating in excess of 25. The manufactured home shall also be provided with handrails on all outside stairs that have a rise of more than 30 inches from grade to finished floor elevation and shall have any stairs, porches and handrails constructed so as to be structurally sound. The manufactured home in question does not currently conform to all of these requirements. This site could possibly serve approximately 20 manufactured homes based upon the density permitted in the “MH” district for a “park” that is if served by public water and sewer. Staff is recommending if the request is approved, that the property be limited to one manufactured home on each of two lots. At the time of platting, the City of Wichita Fire Department will require that all structures be within 600 feet of the entrance to Lot 2, the driveway be constructed as a 20 foot wide gravel roadway with a turnaround at the north terminus, and the construction of a fire hydrant along MacArthur, once municipal water is available. The Health Department has stated that, if the zoning request is approved, both lots would be permitted a septic system. There are site-built single-family homes located to the east, south and west on property zoned “SF-20.” A church exists to the north of the application area zoned “SF-6.” CASE HISTORY: Stated in the background section. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” Church SOUTH: “SF-20” Single-family homes EAST: “SF-20” Single-family homes WEST: “SF-20” Single-family homes PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access to MacArthur Road, a two-lane arterial with current traffic volumes of 6,460. The 2020 Transportation Plan estimates these volumes will increase to 8,667. There are no improvements for this stretch of roadway listed in the City of Wichita or Sedgwick County Capital Improvement Program. Municipal sewer is located east of this property approximately 500 feet. Municipal water is not available to serve this site currently. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide identifies this area as appropriate for low density residential uses. This category provides for the lowest density of urban residential land use and consists of traditional, single- family detached homes, zero lot line units and cluster subdivisions, as well as schools, churches, and similar uses found in such areas. The Comprehensive Plan calls for mobile home parks to be located on larger tracts and buffered by physical barriers from traditional single-family neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff has a policy of not supporting new “MH” Manufactured Housing zoning except for areas where similar uses or zoning are already established. The surrounding residential units are characterized by site-built single- family homes on property zoned “SF-20.” Therefore, Planning staff recommends the request be DENIED. However, if the Planning Commission feels the request is appropriate, then Planning staff recommends that a Protective Overlay be placed on this request, stating that the property shall be platted, within one year, into two separate lots, and be limited to one manufactured home or site-built home per lot. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There are single-family homes located to the east, west and south on property zoned “SF-20.” Most if not all the homes are site built homes. A church is built on the property to the north, zoned “SF-6.” 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently zoned “SF-20” and could be developed with a use permitted “by-right” in this district. The applicant has not explained to staff why a site built home could not be constructed at this location. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: If this property is rezoned, it could possibly set the precedent to permit other Manufactured Housing zoning in the area. There is a perception that non- residential designed manufactured home detrimentally affect property values of nearby site-built homes. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The application area is shown to be appropriate for low-density residential uses, which this request does comply with. However, the residential locational guidelines recommend, “mobile home parks should be located on larger tracts, buffered by physical barriers (e.g. freeways, drainage ways, other land uses) from traditional single-family neighborhoods.” Therefore, this manufactured home which would generally be found in either a mobile home park or subdivision should be buffered from other traditional single-family neighborhoods. This request does not conform to the locational guidelines for manufactured homes. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: This development should not generate significant traffic nor should it impact other community facilities. GOOCH “This case was deferred from the last meeting.” GAROFALO “Keith, now that we have some new members, could you explain why this was deferred?” GOOCH “This was deferred, based on a question about a permit that was issued to expand the second manufactured home that was permitted originally, by a special use exception to allow the care provider to live on site and take care of the applicant’s wife. She was ill and needed care. I think it was the applicant’s daughter and son-in-law who lived on site in the other home for the time being. After the wife no longer lived on site, a permit was issued to allow for a new manufactured home through Sedgwick County Code Enforcement. That permit was issued in error. Manufactured homes are not permitted to be located on this property without either going through a rezoning process, which they are today. The second manufactured home is required through the use exception to be removed after 30 or 60 days after the wife no longer lived on site. They failed to do that. There was court action brought against the applicant and the Sedgwick County District Court has required that the said manufactured home either be removed or this piece of property be brought into compliance with today’s Zoning Code, which would require them to rezone this piece of property. That is basically why County Code Enforcement is here today, to explain the history on this about why that permit was issued back in 1995 for the expansion of that manufactured home, even though the wife didn’t live on site. That is the reason it was deferred from the August 26th meeting to today was to allow County Code Enforcement to be present to explain a little bit more of the history of this request. WARREN “Could I maybe have you explain a little bit about what the potential options are? Then, also, do I understand that if this request is approved, would that existing mobile home site have to be moved to what we are now looking at as Lot 2 on this plat?” GOOCH “That is correct.” WARREN “It would. Is Lot 1 and 2 split now, or is that a condition of this?” GOOCH “It would be a condition. They would have to replat this property into two separate properties with one manufactured home on each site.” WARREN “Thank you. One could be on Lot 1 and one could be on Lot 2.” GOOCH “The existing southern manufactured is a permitted use and is permitted to stay.” WARREN “Do I further understand that we don’t have within our power, through some kind of a non-conforming grant to allow it to remain where it is, is that right?” GOOCH “That is correct. It is not a conforming use.” KROUT “Well, the first one is.” GAROFALO “Let’s hold up on our questions until Keith gives the whole explanation of what is going on here. Mostly for the benefit of the new members.” GOOCH “What I just stated is pretty much what is going on and what is required. There is a little bit more background on the staff report. There are site-built homes that surround this piece of property to the east, south and west on property zoned ‘SF-20’. A church exists to the north, which is shown here in white, on property zoned ‘SF-6’. Planning staff is recommending denial. We have had the policy of not supporting new Manufactured Housing zoning except for areas for similar uses or where zoning is already established in the general area. The closest manufactured housing I could find when I was out there was located to the west. Basically, in this area there are one or two manufactured houses. Most of the other property around this is developed with site-built homes. The other reason this was deferred was to allow County Code Enforcement to be here. There was a question about whether or not they could put the second home on a permanent foundation, which is required by Code. And if they did the platting on the two separate lots if that one home could be moved to the other lot and both be permitted to stay, without rezoning. That was one of the reasons we wanted County Code to speak on that. Are there questions of staff?” GAROFALO “Okay. Let’s hear from them.” GEORGE BLOESING “I am a Zoning Inspector with Sedgwick County, representing our director, Glen Wiltse, who is out of town on business. What I have is basically a statement of facts. The occurrences of this happened before my employment as a Zoning Inspector, so as far as actual questions on the statement of facts that I am going to read, I really don’t know whether I will have the answer or not. Before Mr. Wiltse left town, we went through and came up with this statement of facts. The permit for the replacement manufactured home was issued on March 13, 1997 by a now former employee of Sedgwick County Code Enforcement. The permit was issued in error. Upon review of the permits that were issued that day by the supervisor, it was learned that the permit was issued in error, and other persons in Code Enforcement were notified. The third fact is that a now former Zoning Inspector notified Mr. Donaldson, the property owner by telephone conversation that the error was in the issuance of the permit the following day, which was on March 14, 1997. A certified letter, stating the same was mailed as a follow-up, mailed certified on March 17, 1997. On March 21, 1997, Mr. Donaldson, the property owner, and a third now former employee of Code Enforcement met with Mr. Wiltse in his office. In that meeting, Mr. Wiltse was asked by the former employee if he could just look the other way on this situation and allow that second mobile home to be allowed on the property. The fifth fact is that this case has been in some legal process since the day of the actual issuance of the permit after the certified letters, and it has now come to this Commission. It has been through County Court, through District Court and it has now come to this Commission for some type of resolve.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions?” MCKAY “Couldn’t the courts settle it?” BLOESING “I believe in District Court, the case was dismissed. Apparently what happened was in District Court, the citation that was actually issued went through County Court and it was a guilty finding on that. It was appealed to District Court and the District Court found that the citation that was issued by the former Zoning Inspector was issued also in error by using the wrong actual complaint or statute, so the case was dismissed. I was involved in a meeting where Mr. Donaldson came in and met with Mr. Wiltse, and Mr. Wiltse explained to Mr. Donaldson, what, in his interpretation by Zoning Code, he would have to do to get the property into compliance. That was the things that are here, to split the lots and to rezone it to Manufactured Housing.” KROUT “If the Planning Commission and the County Commission were to deny this rezoning, then the County Code Enforcement would go back to enforcement and probably issue another citation, referencing the ordinances and statutes and continue to purse enforcement.” BLOESING “That is exactly correct.” MICHAELIS “If this home were put on a permanent foundation on Lot No. 2, and if it did meet all of the other requirements, it would be suitable for ‘SF-20’ zoning.” BLOESING “It is my understanding that that is correct.” Unable to hear some of the dialog because of excessive noise and coughing. MICHAELIS “I am going to ask why they are not willing to put it on a foundation and do that. I can’t figure out why you would want to go through a zoning change if they could just put it on a foundation and comply.” BLOESING “Apparently, if they would keep the second home there, it wouldn’t meet current zoning at this time. That is my understanding.” GOOCH “I understood, when I talked to Glen, that the northern home, the one the permit was issued in error on was not permitted to stay. There was a question that even if they put it on a permanent foundation that it would meet the regulations of today’s code. He told me that they would have to submit some information to Glen (Wiltse); Glen would review it, and then, at that time, he would issue a statement as to whether it was permitted or not.” MICHAELIS “I guess that is essentially my question. It just seems like if it is permitted to be moved and put on a foundation and it would conform, then there really isn’t any sense for a zone change.” Unable to hear some of the dialog because of coughing. BARFIELD “I guess I am at loss. You said that the staff’s position was no one could move in a manufactured home unless the immediate area was zoned for that, but you mentioned an exception in this case?” GOOCH “No. The area surrounding this is not zoned for Manufactured Housing and singlewide or doublewides not on foundations. The property surrounding it is ‘SF-20’ or ‘SF-6’ and does not permit double-widens not on a permanent foundation. It does permit doublewides on permanent foundations that meet certain requirements, like a pitched roof, and being 22 feet wide.” Unable to hear dialog because of coughing. BARFIELD “But I thought I heard you say that by saying that staff was recommending this for approval.” GOOCH “I hope I didn’t say that. Staff is recommending that this request be denied.” OSBORNE-HOWE “What period of time passed between the time that the County determined this and they were notified that there was an error? Would you say the next day?” BLOESING “It was the next day. The permit was actually issued on March 13. He was notified by phone conversation on the 14th of March.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So it was one day later.” BLOESING “Right.” WARREN “I would like to clarify a little bit. Assuming that Lot 2 is a legal platted lot, and assuming it was going to be zoned as ‘SF- 6’, then do I hear that in all likelihood that that manufactured home on a permanent foundation would be a conforming use on a platted lot ‘SF-6’?” GOOCH “A double-wide manufactured home that meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, which is 22 feet, pitched roof, and some other requirements, is permitted in the ‘SF-20’ district.” WARREN “So there is a question on the part of Wiltse to determine whether or not that one does apply, but generally speaking, if it does apply, then they wouldn’t need mobile home zoning. He could go in on ‘SF-6’.” GOOCH “He could go in on ‘SF-6’, or ‘SF-20’.” WARREN “Do I understand further that Lot 2 isn’t really a platted lot? It would have to be platted?” GOOCH “Correct.” HENTZEN “I want to follow up on what Jerry said. I want to carefully ask that if we approve this request, does that mobile home that is sitting there qualify to be moved to Lot 2? And if it doesn’t, are we giving permission for them to go out and buy one that does and put it on Lot 2?” GOOCH “If this request is denied, they could go out and buy a home that meets those requirements in the Zoning Code, double- wide permanent foundation and put it on Lot 2. And move the other one.” HENTZEN “Can the inspector tell us, will this particular one qualify to be moved to Lot 2?” GOOCH “He says no he can’t. And as I understood from Glen Wiltse, it takes more information from the applicant to provide to Glen for him to understand whether or not it would. That is what I understood from Glen.” KROUT “Do we know what kind of information Glen doesn’t have already?” GOOCH “I do not know that.” MCKAY “Keith, would you go back to the slide that shows the unit that they are having to move?” GOOCH (Indicating) “That is the existing one on the south.” MCKAY “No, I want to see the one they have to move. Does that have a pitched roof, and is it 22 feet wide?” GOOCH “Yes. He is shaking his head yes.” KROUT “Was it built since 1976?” SHERMAN DONALDSON “I live at 3330 West MacArthur. Yes, it is suitable for that, but we don’t want to put a foundation on there because it is going to cost about $15,000 to do that. These kids have already spent a lot out there. That is one reason we just want to get this rezoned and move it back there and sit it there. We know we are going to have to move it 50 foot to get it on the other piece of property. We are trying to get around the $15,000 for the foundation and then have it set on that foundation.” GAROFALO “Do we have any other questions that have to be asked of staff right now? If not, we will go to the applicant and let him have his say. You have ten minutes to tell us your position.” DONALDSON “Well, we took the permit out…the mobile home that was on there first was moved, in compliance with our first permits. The County was notified, and Hugo Shea, who was a county inspector at that time, did come out and verify that. Then the kids went up there and got another permit for this one, and when we put that mobile home on there and called in for an inspection, that is when they told us we had to move it, after they had already told us we could put it on there. We don’t think that they should be able to do that.” KROUT “Just to clarify, are you saying that you got a permit in the 13th and you moved it on that date before you got the telephone call the next day.” DONALDSON “We had it set up the next day, yes. We didn’t know that we couldn’t have it there until we called in for an inspection.” KROUT “Does that mean that you moved it before the 13th?” DONALDSON “No. We moved it on the 13th and set it up. I don’t have the dates here in front of me, but we got the permit one day, they gave us the permit and we moved it in there and set it up and called the next day for an inspection and then they came out and told us we couldn’t have it there.” BARFIELD “Staff says they called you on the 14th.” DONALDSON “Well, after the inspectors were out there and told us we couldn’t have it there, they went back to their office and someone called from their office. The inspectors had already been here.” WARREN “I am kind of confused because this whole thing started some time back, as I understand it, as kind of a hardship case to allow a mobile home to be put in there for a limited period of time for the Mother. Now, is this that mobile home, and was it set up this way?” DONALDSON “No. That was a singlewide mobile home that I pulled a permit for in 1995 to put on there. After my wife died, we had 90 days to move it. She died in December and we moved that mobile home in February. Hugo Shea, who was the County Inspector came out and verified that we moved it. That was a singlewide, this is a doublewide that is on there now.” GAROFALO “Was the single-wide removed from the property?” DONALDSON “It was removed from the property in February completely.” GAROFALO “And when did you move in this other one?” DONALDSON “In March.” GAROFALO “And when did you get the permit?” DONALDSON “In March. We got the permit one-day and moved the mobile home also. The same day.” GAROFALO “And then you were notified the next day that..” DONALDSON “Well, we called for inspection the next day, and when the inspectors came out, they informed us that we couldn’t have it there.” GAROFALO “Then what did you do?” DONALDSON “I told them it was already there and I had a permit to put it there. They issued the permit.” GAROFALO “When did you go to court? Did you go to court?” DONALDSON “Yes. I can’t remember the exact date we went to court. They gave me 90 days to move it and I didn’t do it. They issued me a ticket. Then we went through the court system. Well, first we went through small claims, then we appealed that and went to District Court and they dismissed it. They said the county was in error for issuing the permit.” GAROFALO “So in other words, did the court tell you to remove it?” DONALDSON “No, sir.” BARFIELD “Are you asking for this zoning change on this property for just these two mobile homes?” DONALDSON “Just for these two. We will sign a waiver or anything you want us to sign. These two mobile homes will be all that will be put on that piece of property. Legally we can’t put any more on there because there are no utilities there. The only thing we are trying to do is just to keep these kids from spending another $15,000 that they don’t have to put this thing on a foundation.” HENTZEN “I think he has boiled this down to what he is asking for now. No. 1, they did comply with taking the original one away as a result of the care taking they needed to do. Now, I think they are asking us to approve them putting a doublewide up there without a foundation, as required by the rules. I don’t think we have the authority to adjust or change the County’s rules on a doublewide. I don’t know. Why would we be able to do that?” DONALDSON “Well, if we can get our zoning, we won’t have to put it on a foundation. If we do get this changed to ‘MH’ Manufactured Housing, we would not have to put it on a foundation. That is what we are up here for, trying to get it rezoned to Manufactured Housing.” HENTZEN “Okay, I understand now.” KROUT “Can you put the unit back up on the screen. Does that unit have a metal roof?” DONALDSON “No. Shingled roof. It would go on a foundation; there is no question about that. It is a 1995 or 1996 mobile home. It does meet the requirements.” KROUT “Okay. That is what I thought.” DONALDSON “The kids just don’t meet the requirements on the $15,000 it takes to put it on there. If we had done this back in 1997 before the change, we wouldn’t have to be going through this now.” KROUT “Is that $15,000 for just the foundation?” DONALDSON “Uh, huh.” MICHAELIS “Have you gotten an estimate from a business?” DONALDSON “Yes. We had it checked and that is basically what it is going to cost.” MICHAELIS “I know some people who would love to bid on that project.” DONALDSON “They want $8,500 for the foundation and $4,000 for a house mover to come in there and move it and set it on there.” MCKAY “You would have that cost regardless.” DONALDSON “No. If we don’t have the $8,500 to put the foundation there, we can move it ourselves.” GAROFALO “What do you mean, you could move it yourselves?” DONALDSON “We’re in the mobile home business. We own the Donaldson Mobile Home Service.” GAROFALO “Would it stay where it is then?” DONALDSON “No, we’ve got to move it, regardless. We just don’t want to have to put it on a foundation. We would have to move it about 50 foot.” GAROFALO “It is setting where the temporary one was?” DONALDSON “Fairly close, yes.” GAROFALO “So you would have to move it.” DONALDSON “We have got to move it regardless of which way we go. But we can do it ourselves if we don’t have to put it on a foundation.” WARREN “Are we done with the applicant?” GAROFALO “I guess so, unless there are some more questions. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in favor of this application?” MICHELE GOODRICH “I am with Terre Tech Land Surveying. The only alternative that I could see before we made this application for the zone change was to consider that this structure would also be classified as a non-conforming use and leave the zoning as ‘SF-20’ with a non-conforming structure on it. I would prefer that scenario if it could be supported. The zoning change that created the mobile home zoning was done after the permit was pulled on the second home. Therefore, it seems to me that it ought to be grandfathered in. ‘MH’ zoning is a less restrictive zoning. I don’t think it is necessarily what you want to do in this area. If you could leave it as ‘SF-20’ with a non-conforming structure on it, if either one of these got hit by a tornado and they weren’t replaced within a year, they would have to be replaced with stick-built homes. If you change the zoning to ‘MH’ and the same thing happens, they could even be replaced with singlewides. So that is a consideration.” MCKAY “Not if there was an overlay put on it, they can’t.” GOODRICH “No, not if there is an overlay. Well, you would have to include that specific item in the overlay itself to restrict it to a double-wide home then.” WARREN “Are you suggesting that we have the power, maybe to allow it to remain where it is as some kind of a non-conforming use?” GOODRICH “You have to determine that it has a non-conforming status. In the Subdivision Regulations, it says ‘in all cases, the property owner has the burden of establishing that a non-conforming use or non-conforming structure lawfully exists under this Code. So if you believe that the permit was not done by means of fraud, that it was a good faith effort on Mr. Donaldson’s part to apply for that permit, just because it was issued in error, doesn’t mean that it was issued illegally or unlawfully, then I believe that you can interpret this as saying that that second home is also a non-conforming structure.” KROUT “Commissioners, I am sorry that we don’t have someone from the Law Department here to verify this, but this is not an issue that the Planning Commission over to determine whether this is a non-conforming structure or not. It is an issue that the County Code Enforcement office thinks they have determined to be an illegal structure, not a non-conforming structure. If there is any appeal of that interpretation, it is something that would have to go to the County Board of Zoning Appeals. It seems pretty clear from the facts, though, that this is an illegal structure. It is true that the County Code Enforcement issued that permit in error, but you can’t use that fact to declare something a legal use that is not a legal use. So, regardless, it is not an issue that in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.” GOODRICH “There are a couple of non-conformities going on here, though. When this permit was issued, before there was a ‘MH’ Mobile Home zoning, the only thing that was in non-conformity was that you had two houses on one property. That was the non- conformity. The other one was that both of the houses were tied into one septic. They each had a septic tank, but they were tied into the same lateral system. If they would have brought this into conformity when it was first raised, all they would have had to do was to plat that and move the house to the second one, and be done with it. If that house had already been placed where it didn’t need to be moved, I am of the opinion that a permit wouldn’t have had to have been drawn to have brought this into compliance and they wouldn’t have had to go through the zone change at all. But because he has to move it, he has to get a permit to move it, and to a get a permit, you have to comply with all of the conditions. So it is kind of splitting hairs of conformity. Now he has two non- comformances to deal with, one with the platting subdivision regulations, the setbacks, easements and that, plus the zoning on top of it. So what I was asking for is the nonconformity being because it conforms with the Zoning Code, not the structure itself.” KROUT “Even in March of 1997 before later that year, when the Planning Commission and the County Commission changed the zoning requirements to say that you had to have ‘MH’ zoning, there was still the Conditional Use process in affect. It wasn’t allowed by right. So I just don’t see any way to consider this to be a legal non-conforming structure. But again, it is really not an issue in the Planning Commission jurisdiction.” GOODRICH “Correct. So that means that the only way we have to leave this without a foundation is to change the zoning to ‘MH’ with a Protective Overlay to keep it from being anything other than a double-wide or anything more than two dwellings on the whole property. If that is what we have to do and that is the only option available, then we would hope that you would support it.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? I will bring it back to the Commission.” WARREN “It would seem to me that our only options are 1) to consider a new plat, which is 52 lots; 2) is to how we are going to zone that Lot 2. One would be ‘MH’ the other would be ‘SF-6’. I personally would prefer ‘MF-18’ with a Protective Overlay. One thing I am concerned about though, is that we have had two cases since I have been on this board, and I think maybe three where we have allowed mobile homes for some hardship cases, for parents and things like that. And I hate to see us have something like this ‘muddy-up’ those waters, like ‘well, if we allow it, we are going to deal forever’; because we have had some cases that had merit, I thought, but they did have limitation of time, and that is what gave them merit. Here, we are kind of setting a precedence of what was there, but again, we have two choices, one to look at a new plat and then how are we going to zone it. I am going to be opposed to ‘MH’ zoning.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I think Mr. Warren brings up a good point. That is that we have a situation here where you have a hardship case. I am a little bit concerned, too, that some of these can come in through the back door, so to speak. I think that we, as the Planning Commission, what we have before us is the responsibility to decide whether or not this is an appropriate zoning request for this area.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There are single-family homes located to the east, west and south on property zoned “SF-20.” Most if not all the homes are site built homes. A church is built on the property to the north, zoned “SF-6.” The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently zoned “SF-20” and could be developed with a use permitted “by-right” in this district. The applicant has not explained to staff why a site built home could not be constructed at this location. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: If this property is rezoned, it could possibly set the precedent to permit other Manufactured Housing zoning in the area. There is a perception that non-residential designed manufactured home detrimentally affect property values of nearby site-built homes. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The application area is shown to be appropriate for low-density residential uses, which this request does comply with. However, the residential locational guidelines recommend, “mobile home parks should be located on larger tracts, buffered by physical barriers (e.g. freeways, drainage ways, other land uses) from traditional single-family neighborhoods.” Therefore, this manufactured home which would generally be found in either a Mobile Home Park or subdivision should be buffered from other traditional single-family neighborhoods. This request does not conform to the locational guidelines for manufactured homes. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: This development should not generate significant traffic nor should it impact other community facilities.) I move that we deny the request. WHEELER moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion. MCKAY “Just for clarification, if we turn this down and the applicant decides he wants to go ahead and move it 50 or 60 feet and put a foundation under it, he does not have to replat, rezone or anything?” KROUT “It is not a platted lot, so he has to plat the lot.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion? If not, we will take a voice vote on this.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (12-0). KROUT “This case will go on to the County Commission unless they happen to withdraw it.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5a. DP-246 – Gerald and Janice Gray (Owners); Oakwood Homes (Lesee); and S.M. Hasan (Agent), request the creation of the Oakwood Homes Community Unit Plan, and 5b. Z-3333 – Gerald and Janice Gray (Owners); Oakwood Homes (Lessee); and S.M. Hasan (Agent), request a zone change from “SF-6” Single-Family and “LC” Limited Commercial zoning to “GC” General Commercial on property described as: Beginning 2206.45 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence running East 1323 feet to a point 2208.95 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 102.49 feet, more or less, to a point 334.56 feet South of the North line of said Northwest Quarter; thence West parallel with the North line of said Northwest Quarter 1323 feet to the West line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 94.99 feet more or less to the place of beginning, except the West 280 feet thereof. and Beginning 2107.68 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1323 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1323 feet to the West line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Northwest Quarter to the place of beginning. and Beginning 2,008.91 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1323 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 98.77 feet; thence West parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1323 feet to the West line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Northwest Quarter to the place of beginning. and Beginning 1877.21 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence North 131.7 feet; thence East 1323 feet; thence South 131.7 feet; thence West to the point of beginning. and Beginning 1745.51 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence East 1323; thence North 131.7 feet; thence West 1323 feet; thence South 131.7 feet to the place of beginning, except the West 50 feet thereof for road. and Beginning at a point 1580.876 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, thence East 1323 feet; thence North 164.634 feet; thence West 1323 feet; thence South 164.634 feet to the point of beginning, except the West 50 feet for road. Generally located south of MacArthur and east of Broadway. KEITH GOOCH, Planning Staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting to rezone a 12.09 acre unplatted tract from “SF-6” and “LC” to “GC” General Commercial and create the Oakwood Homes C.U.P. on the 12.09 acre tract plus an additional 5.2 acre unplatted tract currently zoned “GC.” This property is located south of MacArthur between Broadway and I-235. Parcel 1 is currently vacant, except for a single-family home, which will be removed, while Parcel 2 is developed with an existing vehicle sales lot and mobile home park. The mobile home park is a nonconforming use and should be removed from Parcel 2 of the C.U.P. This area is not required to be a part of the C.U.P. The applicant is proposing to split the 17.29 acres into two separate parcels with the north 13.41 acres (Parcel 1) being developed as a manufactured home sales lot (Oakwood Homes). This parcel is requested to have one opening to Broadway, which would line up with the driveway across the street. The driveway across Broadway is the current location for Oakwood Homes. Manufactured homes sales would be the only permitted use on this parcel, as proposed by the applicant. The floor area ratio and maximum building coverage would be limited to 30 percent. Parcel 2 (3.88 acres) would be limited to “LC” uses as requested by the applicant and also be limited to 30 percent floor area ratio and maximum building coverage. The applicant is not requesting an access opening to this parcel. The remaining general provisions of the C.U.P. are typically found in most recent C.U.P.s except that the applicant is requesting that the required six to eight foot masonry wall be waived until such time as the property to the north and south be developed with residential property and that no wall is required where adjacent to commercial zoning. Planning staff is in agreement with waiving the wall around the perimeter of the property but due to I-135 being elevated along this property, staff is requesting that a solid row of evergreen trees be planted along the east property line adjacent to I-135. The applicant is advised that at the time of platting, staff will request the extension of Emporia to the south across this C.U.P. This extension should be shown on the C.U.P. drawing. There are heavy commercial uses with outside display and storage located to the north, south and west on property zoned “SF-6,” “GC,” and “LI.” East of the application area is I-135. CASE HISTORY: None ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “GC” and “LI” Commercial and industrial uses SOUTH: “GC” and “SF-6” Vacant property and commercial uses EAST: I-135 WEST: “GC” Manufactured home sales PUBLIC SERVICES: This property has access to Broadway, a four-lane arterial with current traffic volumes of 14,917. The 2030 Transportation Plan preliminarily estimates these volumes will increase to 18-20,000. There are no improvements forecast in the City of Wichita Capital Improvement Program. This site is provided municipal sewer and water service. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for commercial uses. The Plan recommends that commercial developments of this size should be located in "planned centers" versus extended strip developments. Such "centers" should be designed with shared internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, combined signage, similar landscaping and building materials, and combined ingress/egress locations. RECOMMENDATION: The C.U.P. requested by the applicant does generally meet the requirements for controlled access, architectural controls and other requirements which have been placed upon most Community Unit Plans recently approved. Therefore, Planning staff is recommending the request be APPROVED, subject to platting the property within 1-year and the following conditions: 1. The southern 164.66 feet of Parcel 2 shall be removed from the C.U.P. 2. General provisions #9 shall also include the following; “a solid row of evergreen trees shall be planted and maintained along the east property line of Parcel 1.” 3. The words “and screening” shall be removed from general provision #10. 4. Parcel 1 and 2 shall be limited to one opening a piece with these openings located 300 feet from each other and any opening to the north or south of these openings along the east side of Broadway. At the time of platting, the applicant shall guarantee the closure of the existing openings on Parcel 2. 5. A provision shall be provided for cross lot access between the two parcels and also the property to the south and east of this property. 6. At the time of platting, the applicant shall show a contingent dedication for the extension of Emporia across this property and a guarantee to the paving of this roadway. 7. Only those signs permitted in the “LC” zoning district shall be permitted on this site. No temporary display signs are permitted on any parcel developed with auto or manufactured home sales, including the use of commercial flags, banners, portable, pennants, streamers, pinwheels, string lights, search lights, bunting and balloons, except that fixed banners, affixed to light poles and not exceeding 50 square feet of material per light pole, will be permitted. However, in addition to the above, affixed banners or special promotional items shall be limited to twelve (12) events per year not to exceed ninety (90) days per year for all events. 8. Parcel description 1 shall read as follows: Gross Area 13.41 acres Maximum Building Coverage 175,241 square feet Maximum Gross Floor Area 175,241 square feet Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Maximum Building Height 35 feet Permitted uses Sales center for manufactured home and vehicle sales and other uses permitted in the “LC” zoning district Parcel 2 Gross Area 3.88 acres Maximum Building Coverage 50,704 square feet Maximum Gross Floor Area 50,704 square feet Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Maximum Building Height 35 feet Permitted uses Sales center for manufactured home and vehicle sales and other uses permitted in the “LC” zoning district 9. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 10. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 11. Prior to publishing the ordinance establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-246) includes special conditions for development on this property. 12. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of both C.U.P.’s to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment 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: There are vehicles and manufactured home sales lots located to the south, west and east as well as other heavy commercial and industrial uses. Interstate 135 is located just east of this property. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently zoned “SF-6,” “LC” and “GC.” It seems highly unlikely due to the interstate, Broadway and the heavy commercial uses that surround this property that the application area is suitable for residential uses. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The applicant is attempting to rezone this property, similar to how the property is used which abuts it. Therefore, this should not detrimentally affect the nearby properties. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: This request does conform to the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies it as appropriate for commercial uses. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Additional traffic will be generated by this use, but Broadway is not at capacity for a four-lane arterial and should be able to manage the additional traffic. No impact is expected on municipal water and sewer. CARRAHER “Mr. Chair, I am going to remove myself from issues 5a and 5b since I voted on them at CPO Council 4, which is my CPO, and that would constitute a conflict of interest.” GOOCH “There is one thing I want to point out in the conditions. Item No. 1 should be removed. That is the area that is a mobile home park. It is a non-conforming use. It will be permitted to play. It is kind of like the same thing you heard in the previous case. As long as remains there and there are no problems, they can keep using it as a mobile home park; if it isn’t destroyed by a tornado or something, it is a non-conforming use.” WARREN “Where is that?” GOOCH “It is the red portion right here (indicating). The pink portion is developed with a body shop and a sales lot. This area right here is developed with a mobile home park. “ GAROFALO “Keith, where is the car lot?” GOOCH “It’s the front half of the pink portion right there. The back half is a body shop.” GAROFALO “Will that remain a car lot as far as you know?” GOOCH “As far as I know, yes. It is permitted through the CUP that we are establishing here.” WARREN “What are you going to use it for? Does it go anywhere?” GOOCH “If you look here to the south on these parcel maps that I have over here, there are parcels broken out, elongated parcels. Some of them are broken out, as you see on this Allison Addition. There is a back half that is zoned ‘SF-6’. It is under the same ownership, but they are broken out separately so there is a possibility in the future that those could be sold off for other people and there would be no way to provide access to them to get out in the future in this area. Before, it could serve as access to the back half of some of these lots.” KROUT “We are talking about a contingent dedication though, so it is not like the street will be immediately constructed. It is only if and when there is continuation of the development to the south.” WARREN “And what would trigger that?” KROUT “A street petition and development request in that locked up area.” GAROFALO “Keith, did you say that we are to strike condition No. 1?” GOOCH “Strike it, yes.” GAROFALO “Item 4 says Parcels 1 and 2 shall be limited to one opening apiece.” GOOCH “Right. On the CUP they submitted, on Page 11 there, it talks about access control, driveways on the development on the south property shall line up with any existing driveway on the left side of Broadway. They didn’t talk about Parcel No. 2 having any openings, so I am not sure if they are asking for one or not. But what staff is requesting is that each parcel have one opening, and they be separated by 300 feet from each other, and any openings to the north, or to the south from the east side of Broadway.” GAROFALO “That is staff’s recommendation?” GOOCH “Yes, that is what staff is recommending.” WARREN “Are we required to replat?” GOOCH “It isn’t platted yet; they would have to plat.” WARREN “This is all unplatted?” GOOCH “Yes. The only property that is platted is there to the north of the application, and a couple of pieces here to the south. So, most of this around here is unplatted.” WARREN “Those openings would show up in the plat?” GOOCH “Yes. If you look at the aerial, south is to the top and north is to the bottom. It is flipped around a little bit.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of staff?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Just a real brief question. I notice that on No. 7, you talked about display signs commercial flags and banners and pennants, and such, which we often times talk about car lots as well, but I don’t see anything here about outside speakers. I thought maybe I had just missed it.” GOOCH “You got me again. I missed that, didn’t put it in.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Wouldn’t you expect that to be in there?” GOOCH “Generally what we have done lately is put it in.” WARREN “On this Emporia Street extension, now we are going to get a plat on this, obviously, if it goes any further, and are you asking him to plat Emporia Street in there as a contingent plat?” GOOCH “A contingent dedication.” WARREN “How are you going to configure it? Who is going to decide that?” GOOCH “At the time of platting, I think they can submit what they would like and then Traffic Engineering will review it and see if however they have designed it is appropriate or not. It will kind of be between the applicants and Traffic, and then the Subdivision and Planning Commission will also have their say. I can’t tell you today what it is going to work like.” WARREN “I can see that if, in fact, Emporia was brought to there at the request of somebody in the south, it could be horribly expensive. He would have to pay for all of Emporia Street and down through the application area.” MICHAELIS “Keith, could you go back to that aerial? Where is Emporia on there? Is that that little kind of like a drive-way there? So it does not continue on north. It is just what, half a block or so?” WARREN “Show me on that map to the south then, how you envision Emporia might somehow come into play, going on south of this applicant’s area?” GOOCH “It kind of swoops back here a little bit. It goes on down through and comes back out, maybe here?” WARREN “Isn’t that kind of a stretch of the imagination? Or a stretch of the dedication.” GOOCH “Well, it is a contingent dedication, so they might never need it, and it might never be able to be built.” WARREN “But it might have an effect on how he would use this lot down here, particularly if he is going to put a building on it.” GOOCH “I understand all of that, but they are only going to have one building and that is going to be around Broadway and the rest is going to be storing of the manufactured homes for sale.” GAROFALO “I think we are ready to hear from the applicant or agent.” LARRY WEINS “Mr. Chair and Commission members, I represent Oakwood Homes and I am here on behalf of the applicant. I live at 806 Lazy Creek, in Newton, Kansas. Really, the only thing I have to say on behalf of Emporia Street, it would be our preference, naturally, that that would never come in. If it did, however, it wouldn’t really affect us. I think we can work it out, the way it looks like it would come in, it would be set back far enough to where the division of the property really wouldn’t affect us. Our sales office will be more towards the front, more towards Broadway with display models set up in that area and inventory more towards the back. So, from our standpoint, Emporia is not a determining factor as to whether this site works or doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter to us, but to the people who own the property with regard to the costs they may incur on this in the future, she may want to address that, but again, from our standpoint, it is not real important.” GAROFALO “Are you in agreement with the conditions that are outlined in the staff report?” WEINS “Yes, sir.” GAROFALO “Will you answered the question I had about accesses? Do you, or do you not want an access onto Parcel 2?” WEINS “We are not concerned with Parcel 2 ourselves, because our lease and what we are doing is all on Parcel 1, and we would have one approach into the property that would go back to the sales office and of getting the houses and taking them back to the inventory section.” WARREN “Mr. Chair, did I hear you right, are you saying that there is no access to Parcel 2? I thought we had one to Parcel 2 and one to Parcel 1.” GAROFALO “I was just going by what it says here on Page 2.” WARREN “I was looking at the recommendations.” GAROFALO “This says that the applicant is not requesting an access opening to this Parcel. Then over here, it says each one will have an access.” WARREN “I didn’t realize that.” GAROFALO “Keith, can you clarify?” GOOCH “I would have to say that in my estimation that this was the gentleman from Florida who did this CUP. He possibly didn’t understand the process here in Wichita, and didn’t outline it exactly. He works for Oakwood Homes, so I think he was more concerned with Parcel 1 than he was with Parcel 2. He didn’t go into great detail on Parcel 2, so he inadvertently left that off, I believe. So, I would have to say that the background section especially detailed what is on the CUP; however, I don’t think that is what the applicants are really requesting, if you would talk to them. They do need at least one opening to Parcel 2.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application?” JANICE GRAY “I live at 1135 Glenwood Court in Wichita. I am the owner of two of the properties involved. My son owns the third. We are in favor of Oakwood Homes being able to use these parcels as Manufactured Homes sales. We have been concerned with the cost of this if it did come through, but we have tried, numerous times, to get answers on this and can’t. I think that one of the photos he showed where what would be Emporia now enters off of MacArthur Road is right up next to I-135. Why it is showing differential property, and it is a fact that this property has just been purchased over the last 10-15 years, and nothing is on deeds or anything showing where they have the right to take a certain amount for Emporia, but they say they do. We do have some concerns on that, but there is commercial property all around us. We know that at some point that this land in there will go commercial and there is not a whole lot we can do, when we are dealing with the City and zoning, about what amount of your property they will take.” GAROFALO “Ma’am, are you saying that the map there is incorrect regarding Emporia, showing where Emporia is?” GRAY “I am just saying…” GAROFALO “Where do you say it is?” GRAY “Okay, he had one slide that showed the Interstate running down….see, we lived on MacArthur Road for 30 some years, and just moved within the past two years. The entrance of what they said might one day be Emporia is right up next to…” GAROFALO “Will you go to the slide?” GRAY (Indicating) “This is the Interstate, and that opening that is Emporia is like a drainage ditch.” WARREN “What is this other one over here in the middle they are calling Emporia?” GRAY “I don’t know what Emporia is. This is all business. This is Olson’s. He has everything up to this right here.” GAROFALO “Is that just a drive-way?” GRAY “Well, he has driveways into his businesses. This right here is a driveway into his business.” WARREN “And that is not Emporia Street?” GRAY “No. This is all business right here from Broadway back. This gentleman that has this car lot owns all of this, back.” WARREN “Where does Emporia north at that point, do you have any idea?” GRAY “North? Emporia? Well, you can get on Emporia off of 47th Street.” WARREN “But you can’t get onto Emporia off of MacArthur?” GRAY “No. There is no Emporia off of MacArthur at this time.” KROUT “Is that the right-of-way he is showing?” WARREN “It has to be.” GOOCH “What I said was Emporia is unimproved, but it is dedicated for right-of-way. It has never been improved. That is what I was estimating, that that driveway was right there at the location where Emporia would be.” GAROFALO “But there actually is a street at this point, designated as Emporia?” MCKAY “Designated right-of-way for it.” GOOCH “Right.” WARREN “But we don’t know for sure where it is.” GOOCH “Yeah. Through the plats on the east and west, they have dedicated an Emporia right-of-way. (Indicating) It is shown here. That is Emporia, right there.” OSBORNE-HOWES “And down at the bottom, is that Emporia there?” GOOCH “Well….maybe and maybe not.” KROUT “It looks like what happened was that there was a zoning request, but for some reason there was not a requirement to plat that was associated with it, but the zoning was only granted for the area outside of the prospective extension for Emporia. That is what it looks like to us. It is probably very old zoning.” GAROFALO “Marvin, she says that she can’t get any answers regarding the cost of extending that.” KROUT “Has there been any inquiries about the cost of the Emporia extension?” GOOCH “I thought they would be around…she should talk to Paul Gunzelman in Traffic Engineering. I guess she hasn’t had an opportunity to get hold of him.” GRAY “He is hard to get hold of.” KROUT “We probably have an agent in the audience who can tell us what the current price is per running foot of a commercial street. Is it over $100?” GARY WILEY (From the audience) “Oh, yes.” KROUT “Over $150?” WILEY “In the $100 to $150 range.” WARREN “Both sides and curb and gutter?” WILEY “Yeah.” KROUT “Somewhere between $40,000 and $70,000 probably, to get that section of Emporia to the commercial streets.” MCKAY “Yes, but there is going to have to be a petition system, and…” KROUT “It would have to be triggered by an overall petition, approved by the City Council.” MCKAY “Not only her, but the people just south of MacArthur will have to petition.” KROUT “And a public hearing in front of the City Council.” WARREN “John, I don’t want to disagree with you, but she does not have to enter into a petition. If there is a benefit district established south of there and it becomes more than 51% and the dedication is made, or triggered, she doesn’t have to join the petition to be in that benefit district.” MCKAY “If you owned that land to the south, would you do that?” WARREN “Well, somebody on staff is suggesting that it might happen.” MCKAY “No, they just want the right-of-way.” WARREN “For what?” MCKAY “Just because they can get it free now. That is the only reason they want it.” WARREN “That bothers me.” MCKAY “It bothers me, too, but that is the reason why they want it, so they don’t have to go through this process in the event something does happen to this on the south, they already have the right-of-way and they can trigger it.” WARREN “I don’t know whether or not we have the right to make that a condition of zoning, a condition of platting, unless we have good cause for a street.” HENTZEN “Marvin may be able to answer this question, what alternatives does the City have if we grant this without that dedication? If ever they need it, can they not condemn what they want?” KROUT “They can condemn property, but CUP could allow buildings to be constructed on it, and you are going to zone it commercial, which is going to add to the cost of it someday. Typically, this is the time when you are platting property, and you are platting a lot of acreage property in subdivisions all of the time, and you require dedication and you require petitions for street improvements. Eventually, this land can take on all kinds of uses, can be developed more intensively. This could be some kind of retail or motel development. If you think about it, just down at 47th Street and Broadway there is an internal street, there is an extension of Emporia, and there if there are developments that are off of that internal street that aren’t just facing Broadway and 47th Street, and I think we have a quarter mile of land of mile there between Broadway and the Expressway with no other access, the idea of providing for the possibility of future subdivision and future interior lot development on a street system, and being able to get access to both Broadway and MacArthur, to us, it makes a lot of sense for about a 100 acre area along Broadway that could be developed fairly intensively.” MCKAY “Why don’t we do it like we did that piece of property on West Maple? The shopping center just west of Ridge Road. We utilized their parking area as a drive-through from Maple down to University Street.” KROUT “This property can be used for mobile home sales or for any other purpose. It is just that it can’t be built on because of the contingent right-of-way.” MCKAY “Can’t we do it like we did on West Maple? We used their parking lot for a drive-through from Maple to University. It is a lot higher of a density factor in that area than this is going to be." KROUT “There wasn’t a requirement,….you left the bench for a little while, there wasn’t a requirement for a dedication on that one.” MCKAY “No, no, I understand that.” KROUT “There is a private garage there. If you don’t feel that the right-of-way is necessary, we are kind of getting into a platting issue, but it is a CUP, you could require setbacks to be established, but there is a reserve there, so at least there aren’t any buildings on it. You could require that the right-of-way be dedicated, but not require any petitions. The only thing that is going to trigger a petition is through a hearing process whereby this owner and other owners would be able to address the City Council about that issue. I don’t think it is good planning for the future if you don’t keep that contingency in mind.” WARREN “I agree, by and large that we should. We ought to provide for the ingress/egress movement of traffic, any time there is a threat. I don’t see this as that case at all.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of the applicant? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this application? If not, I will return it to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: There are vehicles and manufactured home sales lots located to the south, west and east as well as other heavy commercial and industrial uses. Interstate 135 is located just east of this property. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is currently zoned “SF-6,” “LC” and “GC.” It seems highly unlikely due to the interstate, Broadway and the heavy commercial uses that surround this property that the application area is suitable for residential uses. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The applicant is attempting to rezone this property, similar to how the property is used which abuts it. Therefore, this should not detrimentally affect the nearby properties. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: This request does conform to the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies it as appropriate for commercial uses. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Additional traffic will be generated by this use, but Broadway is not at capacity for a four-lane arterial and should be able to manage the additional traffic. No impact is expected on municipal water and sewer.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: A. APPROVE the zone change (Z-3333) to “GC” General Commercial, subject to platting of the entire property within one year. B. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-246), subject to the following conditions: 1. General provisions #9 shall also include the following; “a solid row of evergreen trees shall be planted and maintained along the east property line of Parcel 1.” 2. The words “and screening” shall be removed from general provision #10. 3. Parcel 1 and 2 shall be limited to one opening apiece with these openings located 300 feet from each other and any opening to the north or south of these openings along the east side of Broadway. At the time of platting, the applicant shall guarantee the closure of the existing openings on Parcel 2. 4. A provision shall be provided for cross lot access between the two parcels and also the property to the south and east of this property. 5. For a period of 20 years, no buildings may be constructed in the possible extension of Emporia across Parcel 1. 6. Only those signs permitted in the “LC” zoning district shall be permitted on this site. No temporary display signs are permitted on any parcel developed with auto or manufactured home sales, including the use of commercial flags, banners, portable, pennants, streamers, pinwheels, string lights, search lights, bunting and balloons, except that fixed banners, affixed to light poles and not exceeding 50 square feet of material per light pole, will be permitted. However, in addition to the above, affixed banners or special promotional items shall be limited to twelve (12) events per year not to exceed ninety (90) days per year for all events. 7. Parcel description 1 shall read as follows: Gross Area 13.41 acres Maximum Building Coverage 175,241 square feet Maximum Gross Floor Area 175,241 square feet Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Maximum Building Height 35 feet Permitted uses Sales center for manufactured home and vehicle sales and other uses permitted in the “LC” zoning district Parcel 2 Gross Area 3.88 acres Maximum Building Coverage 50,704 square feet Maximum Gross Floor Area 50,704 square feet Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Maximum Building Height 35 feet Permitted uses Sales center for manufactured home and vehicle sales and other uses permitted in the “LC” zoning district 8. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 9. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 10. Prior to publishing the ordinance establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-246) includes special conditions for development on this property. 11. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of both C.U.P.’s to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. WARREN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion. MCKAY “Ray, are you saying that on the CUP that they have to give an easement down through there? Is that what you are saying? Like Marvin said, with setbacks and they won’t build buildings on it?” WARREN “The CUP can provide for a proposed extension of Emporia Street without dedication. In that CUP draft of the proposal they would agree not to build a building in that area for a period of 20 years.” KROUT “And the plat would not show right-of-way; it would probably not show setbacks either. We would just rely on the CUP to protect that area.” WARREN “That’s right. It would at least protect the cost for the future of that road coming down through there.” GAROFALO “Would it have to show up on the site?” KROUT “I don’t think so, because 20 years from now, you could have setbacks, but then you would have to vacate if you wanted a reserve; you would have to vacate if you wanted to use it. So, I suggest that you just show it on the CUP and not show anything on the plat.” MICHAELIS “I guess my question on that is, if we do something like that without a definition of where that applies to, we are essentially saying that they can’t build any building anywhere on that property.” WARREN “No, Jerry, I am saying to go ahead and show it on the CUP. The proposed extension of Emporia acceptable to everybody concerned, and agree not to build in that area.” MICHAELIS “Okay. I didn’t catch that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Would you also add ‘no outside speakers allowed’? ” WARREN “Just for you, Susan.” MCKAY “Well, and staff recommended removing No. 1 also, Ray.” WARREN “Well, that would be under staff recommendations. I meant for all staff recommendations to be included in that.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 11 votes in favor. There was no opposition. Carraher abstained. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Case No. CU-539 – Advantage Properties (owner/applicant); John Tassett (Agent) requests a Conditional Use to allow ancillary parking on property described as: Lot 9, Block AA, Audrey Matlock Heights First Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 21st Street North and east of Prince. LISA VERTS, Planning Staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use to allow off-street parking on property zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential. The property is located north of 21st Street North and east of Prince; it consists of one vacant lot that is 60 feet wide by 100 feet long and fronts on Prince. According to the applicant, this parking will be used as additional parking for County Personnel in the adjacent Kay Plaza strip center. The site is bordered to the north and west by single-family homes on property zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential. To the south is a vacant lot that is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. The property to the east has a single-family home on property zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and an Optometry office on property zoned “GO” General Office. The applicant has provided a site plan for the development of the parking area. The parking lot will accommodate sixteen (16) parking spaces and be screened with a six-foot wood fence along the north boundary and the north 25 feet of the east boundary; this screening is required on all boundaries adjacent to residentially zoned property. This site will be required to meet the requirements of the City of Wichita Landscape Ordinance. A landscaping plan has been submitted for the approval of the Planning Director. The lot currently has an 8-foot half-utility easement along the rear property line. In an attempt to upgrade these easements to today’s standards, the City of Wichita will ask for an additional 2 feet of utility easement to bring the total easement up to 20 feet. CASE HISTORY: The subject property is in the Audrey Matlock Heights 1st Addition, which was platted January 16, 1951. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” – Single-Family Home SOUTH: “LC” – Vacant EAST: “SF-6” & “GO” – Single-Family Home and Optometry Office WEST: “SF-6” – Single-Family Home PUBLIC SERVICES: Municipal water and sewer is available to this site. Prince Street, a local street, provides access to this site, but no traffic volumes are available CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Low Density Residential and part of a “Re-establishment” area. The MAPC has an unofficial policy of supporting the expansion of existing businesses when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information available prior to public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the parking lot shall comply with the submitted site plan, an approved Landscape plan, and with the standards listed in Section III-D.6.p of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 2 feet of utility easement along the rear property line by separate instrument. 3. Any violation of the conditions approved as part of this request shall render the conditional use null and void. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The area to the south of this property is transitional in nature. This use, although mixed with existing residential homes, provides a relatively low-impact transition from commercial uses along 21st Street North to low-density residential uses. The required landscaping along Prince and the solid fencing should help to minimize the impact on the surrounding residential uses. 2. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already be restricted: The site is currently zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and could remain as such; however the lot has been vacant for some time without any move to build a single-family home. The proximity to 21st Street North makes this lot less than ideal for the construction of a new home. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Given that the lot is currently vacant and unattended, regular upkeep of landscaping and driveways should add to the appearance of the neighborhood. This use should not detrimentally affect any nearby property given the screening requirement. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a transition region and would support commercial uses. The MAPC has an unofficial policy of supporting the expansion of existing businesses when appropriate. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed parking areas will not require municipal sewer and water services, except for landscaping requirements. Prince is a paved street, which will be minimally impacted by the increase in traffic. VERTS “CPO Council 1 did not have a quorum to vote on this. I will answer any questions that you have.” BARFIELD “Do you know if there are any restrictive covenants on this piece of property?” VERTS “I am not aware of any.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of staff? We will hear from the applicant.” GREG BARNES “I am with Advantage Properties. We are running out of parking space. We tried to purchase the land across the street from the City, but the City wouldn’t sell it. This is the only land that is available to us to purchase. In order to get more renters in, we need more parking space.” BARFIELD “What is the occupancy rate for Kay Plaza right now?” BARNES “About 90 per cent.” BARFIELD “Okay. So what are you going to do for parking when you get the other 10 per cent in?” BARNES “That is why we need this here. We need an extra 16 spaces.” BARFIELD “It is my understanding that you want this for the people who work at the Health…” BARNES “Yeah, the Health and Welfare Center.” BARFIELD “So, how many parking places are we talking about?” BARNES “They have a total of 25 employees. We have enough for them in the parking lot, with the 16 and then we could ut 4 right behind that. It is paved in the back. We can put parking spaces in the back.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay. We will bring it back to the Commission.” KROUT “Just by way of explanation, I do remember that the inquiry came about buying the City lot across the street for this extra parking. Staff thought it wasn’t a good idea to encourage people to be parking across 21st Street from where they were going to be working and walking across the street regularly every day. There isn’t any kind of protection. We did encourage the applicant to look at the adjacent property, and that is exactly what he has done. I also think he has done a great job of re-doing this center and doing it, unlike a lot of projects on 21st Street, without any City assistance. I just want to take the opportunity to bring that up.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The area to the south of this property is transitional in nature. This use, although mixed with existing residential homes, provides a relatively low-impact transition from commercial uses along 21st Street North to low-density residential uses. The required landscaping along Prince and the solid fencing should help to minimize the impact on the surrounding residential uses. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already be restricted: The site is currently zoned “SF-6” Single-Family Residential and could remain as such; however the lot has been vacant for some time without any move to build a single-family home. The proximity to 21st Street North makes this lot less than ideal for the construction of a new home. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Given that the lot is currently vacant and unattended, regular upkeep of landscaping and driveways should add to the appearance of the neighborhood. This use should not detrimentally affect any nearby property given the screening requirement. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a transition region and would support commercial uses. The MAPC has an unofficial policy of supporting the expansion of existing businesses when appropriate. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed parking areas will not require municipal sewer and water services, except for landscaping requirements. Prince is a paved street, which will be minimally impacted by the increase in traffic.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the parking lot shall comply with the submitted site plan, an approved Landscape plan, and with the standards listed in Section III-D.6.p of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 2 feet of utility easement along the rear property line by separate instrument. 3. Any violation of the conditions approved as part of this request shall render the conditional use null and void. HENTZEN moved, WHEELER seconded the motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “Is that subject to staff comments?” HENTZEN “Yes, subject to staff comments, without any flags being waved up there.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (12-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Case No. CU-538 – Steven L. Greer; Tolliver & Mildred Matthews (Owner/Applicants) request a Conditional Use to allow a temporary accessory manufactured home, on property described as: The East 330 feet of the West 720 feet of the South 960 feet of the Southeast Quarter except the South 726 feet and 1/2 vacated Midland-Valley ROW, Section 33, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 71st Street South and east of Ida Avenue. LISA VERTS, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a Conditional Use to allow an accessory manufactured home on 2 unplatted acres zoned “SF-20” Single-Family Residential. The application area is located north of 71st Street South on the east side of Ida Avenue. The applicant is doing major remodeling on the site-built home that exists on the property and requires temporary living facilities while this is being done. The applicant anticipates the remodeling project to be completed in one year. The applicant has indicated on the site plan the location for the temporary manufactured home, east of the existing home and towards the rear of the lot. This location meets all the zoning setback requirements. Access to the temporary manufactured home will be along the existing driveway and north of the existing home to the site of the temporary home. The surrounding uses are primarily single-family homes on property zoned “RR” Rural Residential and “SF-20” Single-Family Residential. There is a communication tower (one of two in the immediate area) directly east of the site. Across Ida Avenue and west of the site there is a single-family home with an accessory automotive workshop. The Unified Zoning Code allow the placement of a temporary single-wide manufactured home while a “single-family dwelling is being constructed on the same lot” without a Conditional Use permit. County Code Enforcement has taken the literal interpretation of the Code and excludes home remodeling as an allowable condition for the temporary use without a Conditional Use. This condition triggers the need for this application for a Conditional Use under Section III-D.6.l.(3) of the Unified Zoning Code. Section III-D.6.l.(3) of the Unified Zoning Code permits manufactured homes as accessory structures provided: (a) The location of the manufactured home shall conform to all setback requirements of the district in which located; (b) The lot area for the manufactured home need not comply with the area requirements of the zoning district, provided that the unit is connected to a public water supply and a municipal-type sewer system, the minimum lot size shall be determined by the County Health Department; (c) The unit shall comply with all of the standards of Section III-D.6.l.(2); (d) The applicant shall show due cause that hardship exists and that the hardship cannot reasonably be alleviated without the granting of the Conditional Use; and (e) The Planning Commission shall determine a reasonable time limit for each individual case. The manufactured/mobile home shall be removed from the property within 90 days after any change in the circumstances used as a basis for the Conditional Use. CASE HISTORY: None. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “RR” & “SF-20” – Vacant SOUTH: “SF-20” – Single-Family Home EAST: “SF-20” – Communication Tower and Vacant WEST: “RR” & “SF-20” – Single-Family Home with accessory automotive workshop PUBLIC SERVICES: There is a water well and septic system on site that services the main structure; these will be used for the temporary manufactured home. Ida Avenue, a local street, provides access to the site, but no traffic volumes are available. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “agricultural” uses. This category has the intent of protecting agricultural resources and is meant to accommodate agricultural operations on substantial acreage. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information available prior to public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits including, but not limited to: building, health and zoning. Specifically, the requirements of Section III-D 6.l.(3) of the Zoning Code shall be met. 2. The accessory home shall remain on the site as an accessory dwelling for the applicant and his family while the existing site-built home is being remodeled. 3. The manufactured home shall be removed from the property within 90 days after final remodeling of the existing home is finished, (no longer than one year). 4. The temporary manufactured home shall be placed on the site as indicated on the site plan. 5. Any violation of the conditions approved as part of this request shall render the conditional use null and void. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The application area and all property adjoining it are zoned “SF-20” or “RR” Residential. The area is characterized by large lot single-family homes and agricultural uses. 2. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already be restricted: The Code permits a temporary, accessory manufactured home in the “SF-20” Single-Family Residential District provided the applicant and the site meet the specified criteria; both appear to do so. The site could continue to be used as currently zoned, but the applicant would not be able to remodel his home and live on the property at the same time. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Given the rural nature of the application area and the temporary nature of the use, there should not be any detrimental effects on nearby property. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The plan does not speak specifically to accessory homes in rural areas of the county. The Zoning Code anticipated these uses and made specific provision for the process. This site appears to comply with all of the provisions outlined in the code. Approval of this request will go against any Comprehensive Plan policies or guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None identified. VERTS “The Haysville Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this Conditional Use. The applicant is in agreement with all of the conditions. Are there any questions?” OSBORNE-HOWES “What if it takes ten years to build this? It says after the home is finished, whenever it is finished.” VERTS “As part of the Conditional Use, we can stipulate a time limit. On the last part of Condition No. 3, it says ‘no longer than one year’.” WARREN “Where did you say you implied that they were only going to have it for one year?” VERTS “In Item No. 3, on Page 3.” WARREN “Oh, okay.” OSBORNE-HOWES “So that means after one year, he has 90 days?” VERTS “That is correct.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Okay. That is okay then.” HENTZEN “Do you know, when you take out a permit to remodel a house, how long can it run for?” VERTS “One year.” HENTZEN “Let me just add a little bit to this discussion. Oftentimes when fires occur in homes, we get requests to pull in a trailer and put the family up in a trailer. All I am saying to you is that a years’ time to remodel that house, unless they are doing it part-time or by themselves, is an awfully long time.” VERTS “I believe the applicant is doing it himself.” HENTZEN “Okay. Has the permit been taken out on this house yet?” VERTS “The applicant can better answer that.” MICHAELIS “Basically, I would rather see it say removal within 90 days of final inspection. Because if the remodeling was done in 90 days and the final inspection was 90 days after that, then I agree with you, the chances are it is not going to take a year to do that remodeling, so why give more time than we would have to?” HENTZEN “I think with a permit, it either has to be completed within that time, or they have to ask for an extension of time from the Code Enforcement people, which sometimes happens. Say you grant this and the man is doing it himself and he has a serious illness and it delays him.” GAROFALO “The year would start when? The day of approval by the County? Oh, no, this is a Conditional Use. I think our Inspector was shaking his head ‘no’ about a year.” GEORGE BLOESING, Sedgwick County Zoning Inspector, “That is incorrect, also. When a permit is issued, the permit is valid for 180 days. You can get one extension of an additional 180 days. So, in Sedgwick County, the permits are issued before. They have to be completed, or have the final inspection within 180 days, but you can get one extension.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” MCKAY “On Item B, it talks about ‘multi-type sewer can be approved by the County Health Department’. That means that there is no sewer here?” VERTS “He has his own septic system and well on site for the temporary use.” MCKAY “I just didn’t know what multi-type sewer system was.” VERTS “A Municipal type, I think. That is what the Code says.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay. We will hear from the applicant.” STEVE GREER “I live at 7058 South Shahin drive in Haysville, currently. We agree to everything they have said and yes, we are doing it ourselves. My brother-in-law, who is in construction and my father-in-law has even volunteered to help, and myself. We are going to gut it out through the winter-time, and then hit it hard in the Spring, when the weather turns decent. We don’t want the mobile home there any longer than it has to be, because we don’t want it in the middle of our patio out back. If you have any questions, I will attempt to answer them.” MICHAELIS “Would you be opposed to something like I was talking about, that we put more of a restrictive time limit on it to have it be 90 days upon completion?” GREER “I don’t have a problem with that. The way the plan is drawn out now, we are going to start it in March and hopefully be moving in by Labor Day weekend next year. Then 90 days will figure to the end of the year. But if we get finished earlier and 90 days starts on the time of completion, I have no problem with that.” MCKAY “Well, I think we might have a clarification on when it starts. It starts today, according to this, but we need to put something in there. Do you have a building permit issued yet?” GREER “Not yet.” MCKAY “If it is 30 days before you get that building permit or something, you will have lost one month there. Then you’ve got a year in here, but we have a bunch of other stuff.” KROUT “You might say something like this, ‘the Manufactured Home shall be removed from the property 90 days after the final inspection of the existing home, and under no circumstance shall remain more than 15 months from the issuance of a remodeling permit’.” WARREN “When are you going to move it in?” GREER “The moment you all say yes. I believe the two-week period ends the 30,th so on the 1st, I am already on vacation, so I can move. I want to move so that we can get set up and get going. We are going to move the mobile home in right away. We are currently living in the mobile home, paying lot rent. That will save us some money on lot rent to apply to house and such.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, I will take it back to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The application area and all property adjoining it are zoned “SF-20” or “RR” Residential. The area is characterized by large lot single-family homes and agricultural uses. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already be restricted: The Code permits a temporary, accessory manufactured home in the “SF-20” Single- Family Residential District provided the applicant and the site meet the specified criteria; both appear to do so. The site could continue to be used as currently zoned, but the applicant would not be able to remodel his home and live on the property at the same time. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Given the rural nature of the application area and the temporary nature of the use, there should not be any detrimental effects on nearby property. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The plan does not speak specifically to accessory homes in rural areas of the county. The Zoning Code anticipated these uses and made specific provision for the process. This site appears to comply with all of the provisions outlined in the code. Approval of this request will go against any Comprehensive Plan policies or guidelines. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None identified.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits including, but not limited to: building, health and zoning. Specifically, the requirements of Section III-D 6.I.(3) of the Zoning code shall be met. 2. The accessory home shall remain on the site as an accessory dwelling for the applicant and his family while the existing site-built home is being remodeled. 3. The manufactured home shall be removed from the property within 90 days after final inspection of the remodeled existing home, but no longer than 15 months from the issuance of remodeling permit. 4. The temporary manufactured home shall be placed on the site as indicated on the site plan. 5. Any violation of the conditions approved as part of this request shall render the conditional use null and void. 6. The site shall be developed in general conformance as with the approved site plan attached to and made a part of this resolution. MICHAELIS moved, WHEELER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8a. Case No. Z-3334 – Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc., c/o Robert C. Copple, P.E.; Via Christi Property Services, Inc. c/o David Mohr (owners); PEC, c/o Gary Wiley, (agent), request zone change from “GC” General Commercial; “B” Multi-Family; and 8b. Case No. DP-132 – Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc., c/o Robert C. Copple, P.E.; Via Christi Property Services, Inc. c/o David Mohr (owners); PEC, c/o Gary Wiley, (agent), request an amendment to the St. Francis Regional Medical Center Commercial CUP, described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Ross 3rd Addition; thence North, along the West line of said addition and the East line of Topeka, to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, St. Francis Regional Medical Center Addition; thence East along the North line of said Lot 1, 150.29 feet to the East line of Lot 5, Tuttle’s Addition; thence North along said East line and extended East line to a point in Lot 1, Block 1, St. Francis Regional Medical Center 2nd Addition; thence East along the South line of said Lot 1 to the West line of Emporia Circle; thence North along the West line of Emporia Circle, 30 feet; thence East along the North line of Emporia Circle, 80 feet to the East line of Emporia Circle; thence south along the East line of Emporia circle to the North line of Murdock; thence West along the North line of Murdock to the point of beginning. Generally located at the northeast corner of Murdock and Topeka. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to revise the St. Francis Regional Medical Center Commercial C.U.P. by incorporating four small areas abutting the current boundaries of the C.U.P., and rezoning two small areas from “B” Multi-family to “GC” General Commercial. As proposed, the amendment would clean up the perimeter of the C.U.P. but maintain the boundaries of the medical complex within its current domain defined by Murdock on the south, Topeka on the west, 10th Street on the north, and Santa Fe Avenue on the east. A minor aspect of the amendment would be to rename the C.U.P. as Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Inc. St. Francis Campus to reflect the name adopted by St. Francis Hospital after its merger with St. Joseph Hospital. The rezoning request would unify the zoning district classification of the entire C.U.P. as “GC” General Commercial. The uses allowed by the C.U.P. have not changed. Small changes are proposed for each parcel in the C.U.P. Parcel One would increase from 30.4 acres to 30.6 acres, primarily by addition of a small tract adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing Parcel One boundary. This tract is developed as a parking area next to Heritage Plaza. Parcel Two would increase from 2.0 acres to 5.6 acres. The additional area includes right-of-way of Emporia Avenue, which the applicant is seeking to be vacated as part of a replat of the area, and inclusion of a triangular piece of land between Emporia, Topeka, and Murdock currently being used as a parking lot. A strip of this parking lot is zoned “B” Multi-Family. The final addition to Parcel Two would be a tract of land located adjacent to the north of the current parcel boundary. This tract is approximately 0.5 acre in size. It was previously occupied by two residences and is zoned “B” Multi-Family. The zoning change request would affect this tract, as well as the strip of the existing parking lot by bringing the entire parcel into the “GC” General Commercial district. The reconfiguration would also make Parcel One and Parcel Two co