METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 4, 2006 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, May 4, 2006, 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: Harold Warner Jr., Chair; Darrell Downing Vice-Chair; John W. McKay Jr. (in @ 1:35); Bill Johnson; Bob Aldrich; Elizabeth Bishop (out @350); M.S. Mitchell; Don Anderson; Ronald Marnell; Hoyt Hillman and Morris K. Dunlap. Bud Hentzen; Michael Gisick and Denise Sherman were not present. Staff members present were: John L. Schlegel, Secretary; Dale Miller, Current Plans Manager; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner; Jess McNeely, Senior Planner; Scott Dunakey, Associate Planner; David Barber, Advanced Plans Manager; and Lisa Estrada, Recording Secretary. -------------------------------------------------- 1. Presentation of Sedgwick County Arena design options, by Stephanie Knebel. STEPHANIE KNEBEL presented report. Good afternoon Commissioners, I am Stephanie Knebel, Project Manager for Sedgwick County for the Downtown Arena. I thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to explain, where we are in the project and the (3) Designs. You have in front of you a hand out that I brought with me. There are three, one page summaries on each of the exterior building ideas. The fast Facts page describes where we have been and where we are going on the process. Finally, you have a survey I would encourage you to fill out, giving us your input about the three designs. Please fill out and leave with Dale Miller who will return it to me. There is a large agenda in front of you I am going to go rather quickly through the ideas. One of the key considerations before getting to how the exterior of the arena looks, is how does bowl design work and where are the seat at as we work through this. Once that decision is made then you can start to understand a little bit better, why the exterior design are what they are. The bowl design on all three of the options are identical, they all have two concourses, 360 degree around the arena, the green boxes are called fan services, those are a combination of concessions, retail sales, restrooms and any other support space needed. We have an end zone club on the first level which is a bar and restaurant open to anybody who may attend an arena event. That will only be open during arena events. Along the edge are club seats, the premium seats; those are a combination of club and loge boxes, loge being a new idea, introduced to this community. A semi suite, private area, the yellow across the back are the sideline club, which is the club area designed to service the premium seats as well as we are trying to figure out how to make it multi purpose to also serve concessions when on the outside concourse. Flip this side and you can start to see where the first level of suites are located, on top of the premium seats, right on top of the club area; adding in the second level suites, the pink, and the press box in purple. For all of the premium seats we are working with the outside consultant the Superlative Group who is going through an analysis right now to help us understand how many premium seats our community can afford and can support as we move through the years. I have added in the second concourse layer, right through here again with green boxes for fan services and entrances to the second level that you would walk up to get to your seats. That is the bowl design for all three. All bowls have been designed to support 15,000 seats for a basketball game. There are some slight variations for the different supporting events but that was the goal for 15,000 seats. Here is Option A for the exterior design, you can see this is an aerial view showing Emporia and Waterman, we have the railroad tracks at the top, Spaghetti Warehouse building, the Loft Project through here; Eaton Hotel and then Old Town. This is set diagonally on the site which will be different than the others but with it being diagonal we have the main entrance squared up for lack of a better word right along English so that when you are at Century II looking straight down English, you will be able to get a nice framed view of that entrance. On street level view, at the corner of Emporia & Waterman is how the front entrance will start to look. Three or four story glass façade, interior stairs; you can also start to see some of the glass. We have red brick coming in to help tie in the Historic Buildings in that area. The site plan lay out with the railroad tracks, Williams, Emporia, and Waterman you can see the bowl shape diagonally. We have the existing Historic Buildings; we are showing an entrance point at the back, to account for traffic that could be walking in from the arts district or even from a parking lot along Waterman on the eastside of the railroad tracks. We are showing a parking lot with an entrance off the parking lot; an entrance plaza, all sorts of green space around the plaza with a Loft Garden; the loft expansion being hidden, with landscape through there. We have main entry points along Emporia, and Old Town entrance to help people who are walking in from Old Town. The cutout, you can see the two concourse levels, we have the club area, and two suite levels, mechanical space. All three of the arenas are about the same height, between 108 to 120 feet up in the air. All options show an arena floor at ground level, we won't be sinking the bowl into the ground, there are to many concerns dealing with ground water and contaminated ground water. We have chosen to leave it at a ground level entrance. You can start to see the tall atrium. We have prepared a series of computer generated images, where elevated along Kellogg at the railroad tracks. This is the view along Kellogg, more of the red brick, glass exterior. You can see some of the pillars at the entrance. Not all of the building are shone, but you do start to get a since of the height of the building and how it will look for the cityscape. We are at ground level where we have Commerce Street and Waterman, again the red brick exterior around the building, glass with the roof being just a bit darker on this, rather then a shinny silver color you will see in the others along with entrance portion along Emporia. Ground level again, this is Emporia looking north, you can see the entrance all squared up, glass, a darker roof, red brick starting to come around. An aerial view, we have English, you can see that front centered on English, you get that framing effect, and you can start to see the brick, coming around for the front entrance from Old Town. Again plenty of public gathering space, civic space on all of these designs you can see very well from these angles. We are at Emporia and William Street looking back south, again starting to wrap ourselves around the building. This is the parking structure for the Loft Apartments development that is going on; again the entrance, just starting to peak through north of the Old Town entrance. An aerial of the Old Town Entrance through, the Loft Apartment, we have a drop-off circulation on all three of those, for people to walk directly to this point. A computer graphic design showing the big expansive space in the entrance area, we have the three- story glass along Emporia, a combination of stairs and escalators, ticket booth, all showing the first concourse, looking into that big space. Again an overhead aerial, of Option A street rendering. Option B is oriented to the East and West for the bowl. We still have the streets in the same place where we had Emporia and Waterman and the railroad tracks, the Spaghetti Warehouse Building, the Lofts and Eaton Place. This entrance is parallel to Kellogg, so when you are driving along Kellogg that view is what you would primarily see, in addition to post formation. English is along here, so we have this part of the building being centered on English. This option has all exterior stairs being shown. Here is the street view of that, Option B, the big wide entrance centered on Kellogg. This one starts to show steps, entrance steps, grand entrance steps of about 8, the idea being you are starting to enter the building for a presentation, you would still have to walk up some step to get to the first concourse. The distance would not be as great since you are starting elevate on the outside. Of course, there are ramps and ADA accessibility issues as this design develops further. Big grand expansive glass, we have some horizontal shielding going, there might be a better word, to help keep the direct sunlight out of this big expanse; a big post rock point at the very end with a beam. This site plan is the same basic idea but with the east, west orientation is different, we have a main entrance shown, the purple dot, another entrance towards the back, purple, and the Old Town entrance. Again, we have a little bit more parking on this option because it is straight east west and the Lofts and again the civic space along Emporia; starting to show some drop-off areas for buses or for cars along Emporia. You can see with this cutout the slop of the roof; there is a big difference between the two different roof levels of about 10 to 15 feet. That is a dramatic effect, big expensive glass coming in off the ground level and climbing the steps before coming into the big open space. We have first and second concourses. Elevated from Kellogg and Waterman, you would be able to see a bright shining beacon while driving along Kellogg. Again, a good view of the two different roof levels. At ground level at Waterman and Commerce, you can start to see how big this building is starting to be. You are starting to see red brick elements in addition to the limestone elements. Not quite at the corner of Waterman and Emporia but you can see the steps and the different kinds of building materials. The glass structure is a little bit difference and the roof structure is unique looking structure for this option. An aerial lined up here along English again the different materials, glass structure, again the civic space out front and the Loft project. Ground level at Emporia and Williams looking back, the exterior stair structures, the main entrance through here, a drop off, this is starting to show the north entrance from Old Town and civic space. An aerial view on the north side showing the entrance to Old Town and the same similar concepts between the drive through and the loft garage. A ground view of Old Town entry, the other two options need to be further developed for this entrance, but you kind of get the idea of what it would look like in scale with panes of glass on the north side. This is the big open entrance for Option B. This is what is it is along south, or the south side of the building, being able to see entrance and first and second concourse and the upper suites all having a big view of that four or five story space, again the aerial of that option and the ground view of that option. Option C, this is the aerial view, the inspiration of this was the airplane manufacturing heritage here in Wichita, you can see the curve of the wing, I was told it looked like the Nike swish. This is the on street view of this same option, basically at the corner of Emporia and Waterman you can see, instead of louvers, you will see glass and an outside balcony perhaps in through here with louvers being lifted up to see inside. We have this big pane of glass, actually tilted in this version, rather than being straight vertical, support pillars and columns all trying to get their design ideas from the airplane-manufacturing heritage. Site plans all the same through here, parking different with the bowl being configured north and south. The main entrance being centered off Emporia, a secondary entrance on the south and another secondary entrance along the north for Old Town. The building section you can see this shape through here and the downward tilt, same idea with the four or five story span of glass leading out to a view down English and our sweet levels and our concourse levels here. The elevated view from Kellogg and Waterman you can see the back of the building with louvers being air circulation for the mechanical system needed for the building. A closer look, not from ground level, but again it is the shape; you can see more of the windows and the balcony effects. Elevated look along English, on English will be that main entrance, full of glass and minimal support. This plan shows some monument signage along the corners, the entrance on the south and the entrance along the north. A better view rendering of the main entrance centered along English, this is the corner of English and Williams, starting to see the main entrance here and the Loft Apartment, and the entrance on the Old Town side. This is the aerial from Old Town, the north entrance, the drop off zone and again just celebration of that shape and heritage, glass panes, public space. This is an interior view showing the panes of glass from the west, you can see out on English, Century II toward the west again full appreciation of the big expanse looking from the different concourses and the suite levels all the way down to the entry level, the aerial view, the street view, and then all three small versions. The commissioners are on track hopefully with all the Public Hearings to make their decision on May 24, 2006. Please fill out surveys. Schlegel asked if there was any desire for the Commission to take a position as a board on any of these options or would you prefer to give own individual input. It was suggested to do it individually. -------------------------------------------------- ? SUBDIVISION ITEMS 2. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations from the meeting of April 27, 2006. 2-1. SUB 2006-35: One-Step Final Plat -- NEWMARKET OFFICE ADDITION, located on the north side of 29th Street North and west of Maize Road. NOTE: This is an unplatted site located within the City. The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2004-41) from SF-5, Single-Family Residential to GO, General Office. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Applicant needs to either pay in lieu of assessment for water connection or contact Public Works Engineering to see if they can be assessed for newly installed water main. A sewer lateral extension is needed through a petition or by a private project. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved subject to revisions. Detention ponds should be platted within a drainage Reserve. The subdivision should be submitted using an approved datum. An off-site drainage agreement may be needed with the landowner to the east. The Cadillac Lake drainage basin study shall be completed prior to the submittal of this plat to City Council. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for any improvements to perimeter streets. A left-turn lane is needed into the major openings. E. The dedication of access controls is needed along 29th St. North. The final plat shall state that "All access openings shall be in accordance with minimum spacing requirements of the Wichita/Sedgwick County Access Management Standards." The final plat shall reference the dedication of access controls in the plattor's text. F. 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. G. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) H. 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. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. 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. K. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. 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. O. A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address: cholloway@wichita.gov. Please include the name of the plat on the disc. MOTION: Approved per staff comments HILLMAN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 2-2. SUB 2006-34: One-Step Final Plat -- CLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL ADDITION, located on the on north side of 55th Street South and east of Hillside. NOTE: This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2005-61) from SF-20, Single-Family Residential to LC, Limited Commercial. The Clifton Heights Commercial Community Unit Plan (CUP 2005-75, DP-294) was also approved for this site. The site is located within the 100-year floodplain. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer (main and lateral) and City water to serve the lots being platted. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved by City Engineering subject to revisions. Minimum pad elevations should be stated for all lots. A 20' drainage easement needs to be included on the plat along the east line of lots 1-5 and between lots 7 & 6. E. County Engineering requests that development of this site should be deferred until Sedgwick County Project D-20 (Clifton Drainage) or an acceptable alternative project is completed. The applicant will be submitting a restrictive covenant to address this restriction enabling the plat to proceed. F. In accordance with the CUP, the applicant shall provide a guarantee for the construction of a third lane on Clifton. G. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes three openings along Clifton, with the southernmost opening limited to rights-in/out. Two openings have been denoted along 55th South with the westernmost opening denoted as rights-in/out. Access controls are approved. H. The joint access easements shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. I. In accordance with the CUP, a cross-lot circulation agreement is needed to assure internal vehicular movement between the lots. J. The perimeters of the proposed lots shall match the perimeters of the CUP boundaries. A CUP adjustment will need to be approved which also reflects the revised access controls. K. The site is located within the Maximum Mission Area of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study to identify noise impact areas around McConnell Air Force Base. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. L. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP and its special conditions for development on this property. M. On the final plat tracing, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat indicating that this Addition is subject to the conditions of the Clifton Heights Commercial Community Unit Plan (CUP 2005-75, DP-294). N. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. O. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. P. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) Q. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. R. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. S. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. T. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. U. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. V. Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. W. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. X. A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address: cholloway@wichita.gov. Please include the name of the plat on the disc. MOTION: Approved per staff comments. HILLMAN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 2-3. SUB 2006-33: One-Step Final Plat -- CLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL 2nd ADDITION, located on the on the north side of 55th Street South and west of Oliver. NOTE: This site is located in the County adjoining Wichita's city limits and annexation is required. The site has been approved for a zone change (ZON 2005-59) from SF-20, Single-Family Residential to LC, Limited Commercial. A Protective Overlay (P-O #168) was also approved for this site addressing uses, outside storage and building height. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, annexation of the property will need to be completed. B. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer (main and lateral) and City water to serve the lots being platted. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning Department for recording. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. Sedgwick County Engineering requests a flood study for this plat or a careful review of existing flood studies from 55th St. bridge construction. City Engineering requests that all areas located within the 100-year floodplain shall be located within the Reserve. This needs to be completed prior to the plat being forwarded to City Council. E. Traffic/County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat denotes one opening along 55th South. Access controls are approved. F. The site is located within the Maximum Mission Area of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) study to identify noise impact areas around McConnell Air Force Base. The applicant shall submit an avigational easement covering all of the subject plat and a restrictive covenant assuring that adequate construction methods will be used to minimize the effects of noise pollution in the habitable structures constructed on subject property. G. Since drainage will be directed onto the adjacent railroad right-of-way, a letter shall be provided from that railroad indicating their agreement to accept such drainage. H. A Protective Overlay Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved Protective Overlay and its special conditions for development on this property. I. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. J. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities that are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone: 316-946-4556) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should note that any construction that results in earthwork activities that will disturb one (1) acre or more of ground cover requires a Federal/State NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Also, for projects located within the City of Wichita, erosion and sediment control devices must be used on ALL projects. For projects outside of the City of Wichita, but within the Wichita Metropolitan area, the owner should contact the appropriate governmental jurisdiction concerning erosion and sediment control device requirements. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within 30 days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. S. A compact disc (CD), which will be used by the City and County GIS Departments, detailing the final plat in digital format in AutoCAD. If a disc is not provided, please send via e-mail to Cheryl Holloway (E-Mail address: cholloway@wichita.gov. Please include the name of the plat on the disc. MOTION: Approved per staff comments. HILLMAN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- ? PUBLIC HEARINGS – VACATION ITEMS 3-1. VAC 2006-18: Request to Vacate an Easement Dedicated by Separate Instrument and Platted Access Control, APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Slawson East, Inc. AGENT: PEC, c/o Rob Hartman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Generally described as the platted 40-foot right-in – right-out access control located between Lots 5 & 6 and the 20-foot wide easement dedicated by separate instrument (Film 1716, Page 940) located within the platted access control requesting vacation all in the Cross Pointe Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas LOCATION: Generally located on the southeast corner of the 21st Street North – Greenwich Road intersection (WCC District #II) REASON FOR REQUEST: Boundary shift CURRENT ZONING: The site and all abutting and adjacent properties are zoned "LC" Limited Commercial. The site is part of CUP DP-279 The applicant has applied for the vacation of the described platted complete access control along the site's 21st Street North frontage. The request will remove the platted drive and relocate it approximately 10-feet east of its current location as right- out only. The subject site is part of CUP DP-279, which has integrated access, circulation and parking, including six (6) existing/permitted platted access/drives, including 3 with full movement, onto 21st Street North. At this location 21st is a four-lane arterial with a center turn lane. North of the site, across 21st, is the largely undeveloped Manhattan Addition, which has permitted, per the plat, three (3) drives onto 21st, one of them being full movement. There are manholes and a sewer line located in an easement dedicated by separate instrument, which the applicant has requested to be vacated. Comments from franchised utilities have not been received and are needed to determine if they have utilities in the easement and 40-foot drive. The applicant proposes a 20-foot replacement easement. The Cross Pointe Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds July 22, 2005. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from Public Works, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the platted access control, per the approval of the Traffic Engineer, and the easement dedicated by separate instrument, with conditions. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 13, 2006 which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described portion of platted complete access control and the easement dedicated by separate instrument and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of the platted complete access control and the easement dedicated by separate instrument described in the petition should be approved with conditions; (1) Vacate that portion of platted access control along the site's 21st Street frontage, as approved by the Traffic Engineer to realign the drive. Provide Staff with an e-mail word document of the metes and bounds description of the location of the new drive (movement on the drive to be approved by the Traffic Engineer) and provide Staff with dedication of access control over the old drive's location. (2) There are manholes and sewer line in the easement dedicated by separate instrument. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. Provide staff with a petition/guarantee to relocate the manholes and sewer line. Provide staff with an easement to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Retain the easement until all utilities have been relocated or a petition/guarantee to relocate all utilities. (3) All improvements shall be according to City Standards, including any driveways from private property onto public ROW. All improvements shall be at the applicant's expense. (4) Per MAPC Policy Statement #7,all conditions to be completed within one year of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions; (1) Vacate that portion of platted access control along the site's 21st Street frontage, as approved by the Traffic Engineer to realign the drive. Provide Staff with an e-mail word document of the metes and bounds description of the location of the new drive (movement on the drive to be approved by the Traffic Engineer) and provide Staff with dedication of access control over the old drive's location. (2) There are manholes and sewer line in the easement dedicated by separate instrument. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. Provide staff with a petition/guarantee to relocate the manholes and sewer line. Provide staff with an easement to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Retain the easement until all utilities have been relocated or a petition/guarantee to relocate all utilities. (3) All improvements shall be according to City Standards, including any driveways from private property onto public ROW. All improvements shall be at the applicant's expense. (4) Per MAPC Policy Statement #7,all conditions to be completed within one year of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds. MOTION: Approved per staff comments. HILLMAN moved, DOWNING seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 3-2. VAC 2006-19: Request to Vacate Portions of Platted Easements. OWNER/APPLICANT: Dillon Real Estate Co., Inc. AGENT: Pickering Inc., c/o Cara Martin, PE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See legal & exhibit: Generally described as the platted 8-foot & 10-foot utility easements running along the common lot lines of 6, 7, & 8, Block A, Loma-Linda Gardens Addition and Lot 1, Dillon 10th Addition, the 2-foot easement (ZON2005-50), dedicated by separate instrument, running parallel to the platted 8-foot easement running along the north lot lines of 6, 7, & 8, Block A, Loma-Linda Gardens Addition, and the west portion of the platted 20-foot utility easement, located on Lot 1, Dillon 10th Addition, all in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. LOCATION: Generally located southwest of the Seneca Street – 31st Street South intersection, on the northwest corner of Exposition Avenue and 32nd Street South (WCC #IV) REASON FOR REQUEST: Proposed expansion of existing building CURRENT ZONING: Portions of the subject properties are zoned "LC" Limited Commercial, "GO" General Office, "SF-5" Single-family Residential, & "TF-3", Duplex Residential. Property east of the site is zoned "LC". Public right-of-way abuts the site's west (Exposition Avenue), north (31st Street South) and south (32nd Street South) sides. The applicant proposes to vacate the described portions of the platted and dedicated by separate instrument easements, as shown on the applicant's exhibit. There appears to be manholes and sewer lines in the easements. The Loma-Linda Gardens Addition recorded with the Register of Deeds September 13, 1955. The Dillon 10th Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds August 16, 1984. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the described portions of platted and dedicated by separate instrument easements with conditions. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 13, 2006 which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described portions of platted and dedicated by separate instrument easements and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portions of the platted easements and easement dedicated by separate instrument described in the petition should be approved with conditions; (1) Provide Staff with a copy of any required additional public easements (with original signatures) dedicated by separate instrument, as needed and approved by Public Works, Water & Sewer, Storm Water and franchised utilities. These easements will go with the Vacation Order to City Council for final action and recording with the Register of Deeds. (2) Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility and at the expense of the applicant. Provide Public Works/Water & Sewer and franchised utilities with any needed plans for review for location of utilities. Provide a petition/guarantee for the relocation of the sewer line and manholes. (3) Retain the easements until all utilities have been relocated or a petition/guarantee for relocation of the utilities has been accepted by the City and the new easements for the relocated utilities has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. (4) All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. (5) Per MAPC Policy Statement #7,all conditions to be completed within one year of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide Staff with a copy of any required additional public easements (with original signatures) dedicated by separate instrument, as needed and approved by Public Works, Water & Sewer, Storm Water and franchised utilities. These easements will go with the Vacation Order to City Council for final action and recording with the Register of Deeds. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility and at the expense of the applicant. Provide Public Works/Water & Sewer and franchised utilities with any needed plans for review for location of utilities. Provide a petition/guarantee for the relocation of the sewer line and manholes. 3. Retain the easements until all utilities have been relocated or a petition/guarantee for relocation of the utilities has been accepted by the City and the new easements for the relocated utilities has been recorded with the Register of Deeds. 4. All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. 5. Per MAPC Policy Statement #7,all conditions to be completed within one year of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County and/or franchised utilities and the necessary documents have been recorded with the Register of Deeds MOTION: Approved per staff comments. DUNLAP moved, ALDRICH seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- 3-3. VAC 2006-20: Request to Vacate an Egress/Ingress Easement Dedicated by Separate Instrument, generally located east of Rock Road, on the north side of Kellogg Avenue and west of the dead-end Heather Road. APPLICANT: AGENT ABC LLC K E Miller Engineering, PA c/o Kirk Miller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument (Film 409, Page 643), located in the west 7-feet, except the north 10-feet, of Lot 1, Mark 8 Addition, and the west 13-feet of the east 63-feet, except the north 10-feet, of Lot 8, Ruth Addition, all in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas LOCATION: Generally located east of Rock Road, on the north side of Kellogg Drive and west of Heather Road (WCC #II) REASON FOR REQUEST: Due to Kellogg Street expansion, easement is no longer needed CURRENT ZONING: The site, the abutting eastern and western properties are zoned "LC" Limited Commercial. The abutting northern properties are zoned "SF-5" Single-family residential. The abutting southern property is public street ROW: Kellogg Drive and Kellogg Avenue The applicant is requesting vacation of the described ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument. The recent expansion of Kellogg Street has reconfigured and reduced the size of its abutting northern properties and moved utilities along this portion of the ROW's north frontage. There are no manholes, sewer or water lines in the described easement. Sewer appears to be located in the platted 10-foot utility easement located along the site's north lot line of Lot 1, Mark 8 Addition. Sewer also appears to be located in the platted 8-foot utility easement located along the site's north lot line of Lot 8, Ruth Addition. Water appears to be located in the newly expanded Kellogg ROW. Comments from franchised utilities have not been received and are needed to determine if they have utilities in the easement. The Ruth Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds July 15, 1959. The Mark 8 Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds May 30, 1980. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument, as described with conditions. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 13, 2006 which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 1. Retain the ingress/egress easement until comments have been received from all utility companies. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. 3. Dedicate an additional 2-feet of easement to run the length of the platted 8-foot easement located along the north lot line of Lot 8, Ruth Addition. Provide Planning Staff with that original dedicated to forward it with the Vacation Order to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. 4. Access control will be per the current Traffic Management Standards. 5. All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. 6. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County or franchised utilities and recorded with the Register of Deeds. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Retain the ingress/egress easement until comments have been received from all utility companies. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. 3. Dedicate an additional 2-feet of easement to run the length of the platted 8-foot easement located along the north lot line of Lot 8, Ruth Addition. Provide Planning Staff with that original dedicated to forward it with the Vacation Order to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. 4. Access control will be per the current Traffic Management Standards. 5. All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. 6. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County or franchised utilities and recorded with the Register of Deeds. Subsequent research by Planning Staff determined that this vacation request was not necessary and advised the MAPC that this case was being withdrawn. --------------------------------------------------- 3-4. VAC 2006-21: Request to Vacate a Platted Easement, generally located east Rock Road, on the north side Kellogg Avenue and west of the dead-end Heather Road. APPLICANT: AGENT ABC LLC KE Miller Engineering, PA c/o Kirk Miller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The platted 10-foot wide utility easement, located in the west 10-feet of the west 135-feet, except the north 10-feet, all in Lot 1, the McDonald's First Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas LOCATION: Generally located east of Rock Road, on the north side of Kellogg Drive and west of Heather Road (WCC #II) REASON FOR REQUEST: Due to Kellogg Street expansion, easement is no longer used CURRENT ZONING: The site and the abutting western properties are zoned "LC" Limited Commercial. The adjacent northern properties are zoned "SF-5" Single-family residential. The abutting southern property is public street right-of-way (ROW): Kellogg Drive and Kellogg Street. The abutting eastern property is undeveloped, dead-end public ROW: Heather Road The applicant is requesting vacation of the described platted utility easement. The recent expansion of Kellogg Street has reconfigured and reduced the size of its abutting northern properties and moved utilities along this portion of the ROW's north frontage. There are no manholes, sewer or water lines in the platted utility easement. Sewer appears to be located in the platted 10-foot utility easement located along the site's north lot line. Water appears to be located in the newly expanded Kellogg ROW. Comments from franchised utilities have not been received and are needed to determine if they have utilities in the easement. The McDonald's First Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds May 13, 1984. Based upon information available prior to the public hearings and reserving the right to make recommendations based on subsequent comments from City Public Works, franchised utility representatives and other interested parties, Planning Staff recommends approval to vacate the platted 10-foot wide utility easement, as described with conditions. A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time April 13, 2006 which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described platted utility easement and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner, the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the portion of the ingress/egress easement dedicated by separate instrument described in the petition should be approved with conditions; 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. 2. All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. 3. Retain the easement until comments have been received from all utility companies. Provide any needed easements for relocated utilities. 4. Access control will be per the current Traffic Management Standards. 5. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County or franchised utilities and recorded with the Register of Deeds. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicants and at the applicant's expense. 2. All improvements shall be according to City Standards and at the applicant's expense. 3. Retain the easement until comments have been received from all utility companies. Provide any needed easements for relocated utilities. 4. Access control will be per the current Traffic Management Standards. 5. All conditions to be completed within 6 months of approval by the MAPC or the vacation request will be considered null and void. All vacation request are not complete until the Wichita City Council or the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners have taken final action on the request and the vacation order and all required documents have been provided to the City, County or franchised utilities and recorded with the Register of Deeds. MOTION: Approved per staff comments. DUNLAP moved, ALDRICH seconded the motion, and it carried (11-0). --------------------------------------------------- ? PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Case No.: DR2005-32 - Request Amendments to the Unified Zoning Code Pertaining to Manufactured Home Parks MAPC deferred March 16, 2006 Background: On March 16, 2006, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) considered proposed amendments to manufactured home park regulations. At the hearing, numerous representatives of the manufactured home park industry spoke against the proposal, citing several concerns. The MAPC voted to direct staff to work with representatives of the manufactured home park industry to revise the proposal in light of their concerns and return the proposal to the Advance Plans Committee for consideration. On April 11, 2006, staff met with 15 representatives of the manufactured home park industry to work on revisions to the proposal. As a result of that meeting, the following changes to the proposal (see Attachment 1) have been made: 1) Section 26.04.038 of the licensing regulations (Page 10, Attachment 2) was revised to permit the operation of a manufactured home park during the period in which an appeal from the refusal to renew a license is being heard. 2) Section 26.04.117 of the licensing regulations (Page 20-21, Attachment 2) was revised to require notification of manufactured home park residents of a license revocation and to permit the operation of a manufactured home park during the period in which an appeal of a license revocation is being heard. 3) Section 26.04.120(i) of the licensing regulations (Page 25, Attachment 2) was revised to allow 24 months, instead of 12 months, from the date of license renewal to install screening for existing manufactured home parks. 4) The proposal to increase the fine for violating the licensing ordinance was removed. 5) Section IV.B.3.a.(1) of the zoning regulations (Page 3, Attachment 3) was revised to allow screening along arterial streets to be a masonry wall, a wood fence, or evergreen vegetation. The regulation also was revised to require screening only for new, and not for expanded, manufactured home parks. 6) Section V-I.2.o. of the zoning regulations (Page 3-4, Attachment 3) was proposed to be created to allow a reduction or waiver of the screening proposed to be required for existing manufactured home parks. 7) Section VII-G.2.g. of the zoning regulations (Page 5, Attachment 3) was revised to clarify that a manufactured home space is considered occupied if a manufactured home meeting minimum occupancy standards and connected to utilities within the past 180 days is located on the space. The proposed changes were presented to the Advance Plans Committee on April 20, 2006. The Advance Plans Committee voted to refer the proposed changes to the full Planning Commission for consideration on May 4, 2006. In February and March, each District Advisory Board reviewed the proposed manufactured home park regulation changes. A report entitled "District Advisory Board Overview: Proposed Manufactured Home Park Zoning and Licensing Code Amendments" (Attachment 4) is attached and summarizes the feedback from the District Advisory Boards. Recommended Action: Based on information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to manufacture home park regulations. This recommendation is based on the following findings. 1. Relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the loss in value or the hardship imposed upon property owners: The proposed amendments are intended to further the health, safety and welfare of the community by providing additional enforcement mechanisms for addressing violations of City code by manufactured home parks. These violations create housing conditions that are unsafe and generate numerous complaints from surrounding property owners due to the negative impacts of these violations on their property. Owners of manufactured home parks will be faced with the hardship of complying with additional regulations, but the gains to public health, safety and welfare out weigh this hardship. 2. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The South Wichita- Haysville Area Plan is an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan, and it recommends significant changes to manufactured home park regulations. The proposed amendments do not implement the recommendations of that plan in their entirety, but are intended to provide reasonable regulations that address issues identified in the plan. 3. Opposition or support of neighborhood residents: The desires of residents in the South-Wichita Haysville area to improve the perception of their area, which they feel is negatively impacted by poorly maintained manufacture home parks, led to the recommendations of the South Wichita-Haysville Area Plan to amend manufactured home park regulations. SCOTT KNEBEL Planning staff presented report of the Proposed Amendments zoning regulations pertaining to Manufactured Home Parks. The Planning Commission heard the item on March 16, 2006, and there where a number of concerns cited by the manufactured home park Industry at that meeting. The Planning Commission deferred action on the proposal and directed staff to meet with industry representatives to bring back a modified proposal. We met with the industry on April 11, with 15 industry representatives attending that meeting. We came up with seven changes to the proposal, which you have before you. Advanced Plans heard this proposal on April 20, and recommended that it come to the full commission, which is this hearing today. Staff recommends that the changes be approved, and the findings are on the second page of this report. DUNLAP Have you had any contact with the association since that Advanced Plans Committee meeting. KNEBEL I have been in contact with them and provided written comments for the commission to consider. Essentially, their position is that the two items that are proposed that they do not support are the requirements that all manufactured home parks come into compliance with the current screening standards and that new manufacturing home park be required to screen along the arterial or collectors streets. TOM BYRNE, 1001 S. Stage Coach. I'm a small business owner in the manufactured housing industry. and I am on the executive committee for the Kansas Manufactured Home Association. I would like to apologize, Martha Smith could not be here today. She is at the state house on a tax bill issue, and wished she could have been here. As Scott said, Martha did reduce her comments to writing and provided it to the commission, as she was asked. I will summarize that there are two items, and only two items out of the many changes that have been made, that we do not support: 1) the removal of the grand fathering clause for providing rear and side screening, and 2) the new zoning ordinance for screening property that abuts arterial and collector streets. I would like to answer any questions to Martha's comments. I have been at all the meetings, and pretty much know the association's position. ROGER CRANDON, 3201 N. St. Clair, I would like to invite all of you to look at the trailer park at 29th and St. Clair, it runs from St. Clair to Meridian. It is very necessary that we have screening all the way around it, so we can stop the trash from going all over our yards. If I could get you to drive through the park, you would have to move one of the mattresses that is laying in the driveway so that you can get in there. We have a problem up there. Everybody seems to ignore it. I also want to put on record that they are tearing some of these down, and there is no guard to stop the kids from playing in these things. After school, they are playing in these trailers they are tearing down. It is not when, but if, one of the kids get hurt over there, and they sue. You all are aware of the problems we are having up there. I might ask the crowd how many want that screened. You see these people here. They have to live down there. We have insulation blowing down the street. We have trash blowing down the street, and it is a mess. Come by and look at it before you decide that some of these folks don't need to be screened. DUNLAP Have you complained to code enforcement about this issue. ROGER, That laughter is the response. We have complained over and over again. What happens is that Jay, the fellow we are working with, he contacts the people in the trailer. They say no they don't own the trailer. They are just renting it. He then contacts Mr. Mott who owns the place, Mr. Mott replies that he owns the lot. He doesn't own the trailer. This goes back and forth. They placarded the trailers, and then in the evening after Jay gets off work, they break the windows and live in there anyway. Jay has tried and tried, and he is getting no support from anybody else on this commission or the rest of the city. MITCHELL my question is, if you had the ordinance written the way it is, in the blue report, what makes you think it would be enforced any better.? ROGER I'm here because I do not know what to do. JUDY GOMEZ 2864 N. Meridian, I have lived at that address for 25 years, I know that you all have been interested in looking at the blight in the city. That is the perfect example of blight in the city limits. I wish you could take a good look at reviewing the grandfather clause that allows these things to exist. It has gone from bad to worse over the years. When we heard that screening was going to be a possibility, that was exciting. That was the first that we had heard that was toward our benefit. Not only was it a benefit for homeowners, it is better for the occupants of this area. There are numerous under age children that are loose in that area. There are public schools with buses right next door. 29th is rather a busy street. I have to say, it doesn't do a lot for our confidence in our leaders when people on the east side can have a blue roof changed because it doesn't fit within their neighborhood, but we can't get anyone to look at the trailer park that is right in the center of a modest area. WARNER the only comment I might add is that the city paid for the blue roof and a businessman is going to pay for the wall. GOMEZ we would like the city to support our concern over the blight in our area. BRENT ANDERSON in my normal job I am an Assistant United States Attorney. I am a federal prosecutor; however, the neighbors in this area, near 29th and Meridian came to me and asked for help. I obtained permission from the United States Department of Justice to try to help them. That is why I am here today. I have observed this so-called trailer park for the last 15 or 20 years for various reasons. I live close to the area, but not in the immediate area. I can tell you it is an embarrassment as a life long Wichitan that this trailer park exists. It is sad that it does, and I am going to do everything in my power to see to it that it no longer exists. In the mean time, anything that the Planning Commission can do to encourage the City Council to cause Mr. Mott to do something to at least shield the hideous blight of this trailer park at 29th and Meridian would be greatly appreciated. If you haven't seen it, and you drive by it and you drive through it, you will not believe it. It is a shameful place. It is terrible and this neighborhood, it is a nice neighborhood, there are two schools adjacent to this trailer park, Pleasant Valley Middle and Elementary Schools. It is shocking that this has been permitted to go on. If you would at least permit the grandfather screening that would help a little in the short term until we can get this out there. I would also suggest to you that when you drive through, you should note that I have talked to the police officer that works in that area for years, and that is where all the crime reports come from. That is where all the drug deals are. That is where the domestic violence cases are. I can tell you that the immigration authorities estimate that at least 70% of the residents are illegal aliens. They are not supposed to be in the United States. It is a good indication of what we have been talking about. This frankly doesn't have anything to do with the responsible businessmen that are here today on these ordinances. This is a unique situation. Anything you can do to tighten the regulation of mobile home parks will help avoid something like this happening in other neighborhoods, because, as it has been proven here, it can happen. I will give one last description so that you will know what we are talking about. In 1949 a little strip center was built at 29th and Meridian. It went out of business because the roads changed. Starting in 1971, I assume that it was Mr. Mott, but I am not sure of that, but someone started parking these trailers on a parking lot, and that is what is there today. We have a bunch of so-called mobile homes that are over 30 years old sitting on a parking lot at 29th and Meridian. Thank you for whatever you can do to tighten up these regulations. ALDRICH just for clarification, do you oppose the fact of the mobile homes or do you oppose of the individuals that can afford to live in the homes. ANDERSON we oppose the presence of these homes on this parking lot. This slumlord caters to people who don't have resources. They are just scraping by, so as you might imagine, they don't have any money to paint. They don't have money to do anything to upkeep these mobile homes. As a result, the trash that has been described accumulates. The mattresses that nobody can afford to drive down to the landfill are set outside the mobile homes, and they deteriorate and the wind blows and they blow into this nice neighborhood that is directly adjacent to this mobile home park. It is nothing against the people that are there. They are desperate people, and they have nowhere else to go. They are abused by the gentleman who owns this park. Because of their circumstances, they are not able to properly maintain their home. Just drive through, and you can see what I am talking about. No one is against the people that are there. They are victims of the person who owns this place. MARNELL you understand that we are involved with land use and land use issues. Is there any thing specifically, any comments on anything on what is before us today, as opposed to what I would characterize as code enforcement. ANDERSON I would say that the grandfather screening should stay in. It at least requires someone, I am not sure of the proper name these days, but to some extent shield their appearance from the outside neighborhoods. Some of these places are very nice and managed by responsible people. Then there are some that are horrible. No one would want to look at them for 35 years, as these people have had too. The other thing I would say is the neighborhood, and the people I have talked to, strongly support your licensing changes that would tighten up licensing and put in a requirement that the licensing could actually be revoked. They do support that. The tighter the better. The way is it set up now with the two years, and the person can appeal to City Council, appeal to this body, etc. I have practiced law for 20 years. I could stall that out for 4 years at least. I would recommend tightening up the licensing procedure where if you revoke a license, a person is not allowed to operate their park while in the appeal is pending. I know the neighborhood would support going back to the original draft, don't allow them to operate the park while they are appealing to the district court. Obviously, to the City Council, they should be able to operate, but once they appeal to district court, court of appeal, Supreme Court, that takes years and years. It if it is not tighter that that, that won't happen. DUNLAP you have been placed in the position of the expert. These folks don't understand the process quite as well as you after 20 years of law experience. I would like to ask your opinion about the enforcement of the codes, both from the trash and the things you have seen. I have been there, so I know what it looks like. The health department, and one that you mentioned, which was INS, if all of those were administered correctly to the law that we have today, would that fix the problem. ANDERSON I don't know how it would. These folks have been complaining to anyone who would listen. They have complained to INS, which their job is to prosecute criminals on immigration cases. I can tell you this it not something they are going to be able to do anything about. It doesn't matter who is there. It is people who can't afford to go anywhere else, that is who goes there. Since they have no credit, they have no identity, they have no way to be there, a person basically facilitates there existence in Wichita Kansas by making this so called residence available to them, and taking advantage of their situation because they have no where else to go. They know this person will protect and shield them from the authorities in some way. DUNLAP we have codes in at least three areas, and they are obviously are not being enforced. ANDERSON it has improved. For the first time, two or three homes have been taken out. Although it is creating an incredible dangerous situation for the small children, something has happened. Somebody is doing something, and it is to the surprise of many. What I have encouraged the neighborhood to do is to continue to report what they can see. You have to drive through there if you want to see much, and it is not safe to drive safe through there at any time, but certainly not at night. However, you have to drive through there to see something that you can report. I am hoping we can get together with code enforcement and have them tell us exactly what to look so that we can report to you so that you can go out and enforce. It is a case where the owner has been able to string the City along, and he only does the minimal amount necessary to keep somebody from doing something. DUNLAP I think the process is right. They have brought up the awareness. Some people didn't know if it was 29th North or 29th South. ANDERSON it is 29th north by Pleasant Valley, right by the middle school. Do you agree with me that it looks as I described it? DUNLAP I am in the real estate business, and I thought it was something that we could do with that old shopping center, but apparently not. ANDERSON it is probably filled with asbestos I suspect. MIKE HERRING 2510 Valley Park, which is ½ block from the mobile home park you are talking about. Mr. Mitchell in answer to your question, if the item was on the books, we would find someone, someday to enforce it. If it is not on the books, there is nothing that we can do about it. I agree with Brent, if we had the screening and the licensing that would certainly be a start, at some point we could find somebody that could enforce the screening and the licensing. JAN LONG 3116 N McLean I've lived there for 20 years, I would like to add to what my neighbors have said before to the effect that the property was originally a small shopping center. It is a non conforming use. It is zoned limited commercial. What I would like to see in the regulations is something that would phase out non conforming uses. Some of you may not understand that there were originally 25 trailers there. I think more than three have been demolished. I think a couple more are placarded. I am hoping that maybe a third of them might be gone, so we are not talking about a huge manufactured home park that was designed to be that way, or was maintained as that. It is a non-conforming use. It is because of the nature of the instillation of Wichita-Valley Center Floodway, Meridian does not go through anymore. I think originally it designed to go up and over the ditch. I empathize with the property owner who had a commercial business that was not longer viable, but I certainly do not think mobile home park is an appropriate use of that space. DEVOE TREADWELL, owner of Park Village, 130 South Greenwich Road in Wichita. I do understand what these people are talking about. Even parks like ours, we don't like the places that are pigsties and a blight on the industry. I do not believe that punishing parks that try to do it right is the answer to correcting these people's problem. I do however believe there are laws on the books presently that can correct their problem. I do not believe that taking 500 people, 500 spaces in the City of Wichita, where parks do it right, keep parks clean and do a good job of housing very poor people, that punishing all of those people and all those park owners by raising expenses considerably into the millions of dollars to do additional screening, will help solve the problem. I just simply wanted to say, as a park owner, I feel that the parks in Wichita overall do a very good job, and I do understand the blight these people speak of. Hopefully there is someway to solve their problem. I don't believe punishing the other park owners is going to be the way to do it. MITCHELL I move to defer this item to give the manufactured home lobbyist the opportunity to come and present the issues that she outlined in her paper. Also, if it is appropriate, ask those people in charge of the enforcement and legal issues we heard about today to also appear and see if there is some improvement that can be made regardless of whether these new ordinances changes go into effect or not. MITCHELL moved, DUNLAP seconded the motion. SCHLEGEL, I don't know if Scott or Sharon Dickgrafe can comment on some of the enforcement issues, but I think part of the impetus for these changes, especially on the licensing side, is to improve the capability of the City to enforce. SHARON DICKGRAFE, with the City Law Department, I have worked with Scott regarding the licensing changes as well as the zoning changes. There are certainly ordinances on the book. The problem with that from a licensing standpoint is those could never be, prior to the proposed changes, be used as mechanisms to actually revoke that park's license. Currently there are no provisions in the code that allow licensing to be revoked at all. You pay the fee. You get the license. In my opinion, that has lead to some of the problems we are seeing with this mobile home park, or other mobile home parks in other parts of the city, that clearly have health and other code violations. The code inspectors have worked those violations. What we see happening is the violation is repaired on one particular unit, and then the next one comes into disrepair, and the next one, and you have this on going system. The purpose of the licensing changes is to tighten those up, give us some teeth to say that if you don't get the whole park in compliance, and work on these consistently, we are going to shut you down. With these changes, we would have a way to do that. The screening was part of a committee that Scott had worked on, regarding the South Wichita-Haysville area. I think there is certainly code enforcement going on. The problem with this particular types of units is that the landlord may own the land and someone else may own the trailer. That occupant in the trailer can change. As Mr. Anderson stated, they might be illegal aliens, and we don't know who owns the trailer. We don't know who owns the property, and it gets to be difficult from an enforcement standpoint to figure out who is the responsible party to bring it to court. By the licensing changes, we are placing that burden on the landowner to make sure that the park is brought into compliance. ALDRICH there a couple of problems here, and a lot of it has to do with the matter of enforcement. You had the gentleman earlier that works for the Department of Justice, and I think it is a matter of enforcement. He knows there are illegal immigrants. Do your job. It is the same thing, when we have code violations. We are not just talking about there, we are talking about throughout the city. There are a lot of different hoops that one has to jump through in order to get the actual violators taken care of. We need to look at stream lining it. When there is a complaint, and there is someone in direct violation of the code, take care of it. Quit playing games, and we would not have the situation that we have now. DICKGRAFE I understand that, but the problem with that is that these are criminal violations, which require due process. They require the individual to be taken to court. What you are saying in theory sounds great, but because of those types of limitations, we can't go out and say fix this now or we are going to take you court tomorrow. I am sure Mr. Anderson is well aware of that, that things do take time and staff is certainly aware that this mobile home park is a problem. Do I agree that if we could triple the number of code enforcement officers with the city, would it be better, probably. What we are looking at is a means to try to bring all those together. Currently there is no enforcement arm the licensing ordinances at all. Frankly, the licensing ordinance could go to the City Council without this board's approval at all. You would be voting on the zoning requirements. Staff is recommending that the licensing go on, and part of the licensing problem was that the state law made changes that are mandated, that we can no longer license manufactured home installers. Those regulations have to be adopted or deleted no later than July 1 of this year. I understand that the board wants more time, and frankly staff may be in a situation where the licensing may have to go forward without this board making a decision on it because we are getting up to the July 1st date. ALDRICH are we looking at revising code enforcement altogether. DICKGRAFE we are. There are a number of committees within City Hall that are looking at blight issues, dealing with abandon houses, boarding up houses, certain areas of town. Etc. That is an ongoing process and an ongoing goal, but we need to take it in small steps. MCKAY I don't think anybody has a problem with the licensing portion of this thing in this group, and as far as that going forward, I don't think we have a problem with that. One of the things that has been pointed out today, sure this is an isolated incident, but does this ordinance, the overall ordinance tie together with Central Inspection, to get the teeth you are talking about needing to have. I don't necessarily know that it does. DICKGRAFE from the zoning standpoint or from the licensing stand point? MCKAY licensing, as far as I am concerned, we don't have a problem with, but if we pass an ordinance, and we pass it on to Central Inspection, and their ordinance or rules and regulations don't interact. Lets make it work together. It shouldn't be much of a matter just to tie them together. As far as I am concerned, the licensing can go forward. DICKGRAFE Kurt Schroeder, the director of Central Inspection, worked with Scott and I on the Zoning provisions. If you want teeth, you go back to the original draft that says everything has to be screened. As far as working with the industry, staff worked with the industry. We have made a number of concessions: that expansion of mobile homes that parks do not have to be screened, that we are allowing alternatives to the masonry fence, so we recognize as staff the folks that have spoken here today that are trying to do it right, trying to give them options to meet their needs. However, if we want teeth, we need to go back to "everything needs to be screened" that is a much easier standpoint from an enforcement standpoint. If you have a masonry wall, most likely those are going to be in good repair. If you start looking at fences that are dilapidated, falling down, etc. Is OCI on board with zoning changes, yes I think they are. Are they what staff wanted initially, no, but we have worked with the industry, which was what staff believed what this board wanted us to do, and made some concessions. Those concessions frankly took a lot of the teeth out of the original intent of the zoning changes. WARNER it sound like you want screening, so you have something that you can enforce to revoke a license. DICKGRAFE I don't think so, WARNER I don't think screening is going to stop the drugs. It is not going to stop the trash, the mess. It is not going to stop the illegal immigrants. Screening is not going to do it. If the screening is the number one issue, that mobile home people don't want is to spend a million dollars to put up a screen, so maybe the trash won't blow so bad, but it will not stop the other elements. It looks like an awful expensive requirement for somebody to have to do so the City of Wichita can revoke somebody licensees if they don't do it. It seems if it is not healthy and not clean and it violates all these other ordinances, why in the world can't they stop it that way. DICKGRAFE we are adding those ordinances also as part of the license revocation. The screening came out of a different study. I may defer to Scott, but I think if you ask these people what they would rather live next to a screen or without a screen, they want it screened. Is that going to get rid of the problem? No. Will it make it less visual and allow these people to have higher property value and perhaps a better quality of life? That would be up to those individual people. I am not pushing anything. I am the drafter, but I do think the licensing changes are necessary because we do have parks that are not complying with the regular rules, the housing code violations, the health code violations, and those are not the folks that attended all of the meeting with the industry. We are talking about two very different groups. I agree, is it fair to penalize one group for another group, that has to come down to equality and a policy decision, and I am not the policy maker. We are looking at that, but if you are looking at a criminal penalty, the constitution is going to require us to do certain things. MARNELL there were a couple of things I heard from the gentleman for the US Attorney's Office that seemed disturbing. That he had the attitude that we needed to do something immediately without consideration of due process, and that is what it sounded like. The second was that it took forever to get anything done. Are the time frames here too broad? Why does it take to years to enforce something? DICKGRAFE there are a number of reasons, you have to find the correct person, the owner of the property, or the owner of the mobile home. Unlike any other type of property, those could very well be two different people. The person, if they do not receive the notice, you have to have the notice delivered to them. You have to give them some notice of what it is that has to be fixed. After that process, OCI has in the past allowed extensions to allow the person to get it brought into compliance. That has been a policy decision for the City Council as to how those codes were enforced. The goal is not to be punitive. The goal is to make sure that the property is brought into compliance. At that point, if they are still not incompliance, they can be placed into the court system. As Mr. Anderson said, that takes forever. The one change that was made in the licensing provision based on conversations with the manufactured home parks was to allow them to continue to operate during that appeal process. I agree that will postpone, or certainly lengthen, the amount of time that these cases are floating around when we are trying to shut a park down. That was another concession that staff made in dealing with mobile home industry. MARNELL I think that is a proper one, because we hear people who talk about a specific problem, and I think that they have one, but we can't do this as though that is what everybody operates as, and this is the loaded gun ordinance. We need to look at it in a broad since. If you had a business, and the government was trying to put you out of business, you would want all the legal recourse that was available to you in a proper manner. DICKGRAFE I don't think this is a shot gun wedding, I think Scott and I agree that it will take a long time, and a significant number of violations, before the City is going to try to revoke a license. We have to have a reasonable basis to revoke a license. If there are shingles missing after a hailstorm, are we going to revoke that license? Probably not. If we are talking about the magnitude of violations that are occurring in this park, as well a couple of other parks in town, I think that is the purpose of this ordinance is to at least allow us the enforcement mechanism that we don't have from the licensing standpoint. MARNELL do you think this particular ordinance as it is drafted now strikes a proper balance that you would be able to rapidly go after people who are ignoring the code and operating an unsafe environment versus protecting the rights of legitimate property owners? DICKGRAFE I would have liked to see the time that we allowed some of these parks to fix the problem shortened. We agreed with the manufactured home association that they would be given a written notice and 30-days to comply with that notice, which is similar to the housing code violations. Again, I think it depends upon what the violation is. If it is trash blowing, it shouldn't take them 30-days to pick that up. If it is a mobile home that has been burned out, then maybe it will take 30-days to deal with, maybe it won't. Certainly, we need some way to get those parks attention and to have the appropriate enforcement mechanism, which right now under the licensing ordinance we don't have. The licensing ordinance right now says you tell us who lives there, you pay the fee, and you get a license. HILLMAN, I understand you are under the July 1 deadline. DICKGRAFE for the electrical changes that are also part of this code, that is correct, the electrical and the manufactured home installer licenses. The federal government several years ago took away local authority to licenses manufactured homes installers. HILLMAN is there a portion of this agenda item that we could pass today, in your judgment, that would relate to the licensing side, less to the changes in the other codes, that would meet your needs. DICKGRAFE it would be possible for staff to go through and take out the provisions that deal exclusively with the licensing of manufactured home installers. Generally, the Council likes all changes for one topic to be all at one time. That is what we are trying to strive for. If it gets to be June 1st and we are still here, most likely I would go ahead and put installers issues on the agenda. HILLMAN then you do have the ability to do that? I know we all want to get this right, but that being the case, I would support the deferment that we are discussing. SCHLEGEL I feel compelled to go on the record that the Council, the elected officials from both governing bodies, the County Commission and the City Council that have been promoting these changes really do want you to take action as soon as you can and get it before the two governing bodies. MARNELL I know they have that desire. I've heard that before, but it seems we are heading for a mistake. Once this thing has gone through, it is done and we are off to another issue, and they are off to another issue, and we don't ever get it right. When we had the Advance Plans meeting, we didn't have this group here talking about this kind of problem. We had the owners talking about the owners part, having to do with the financial part, and the property ownership issues, which I think are important, but we never heard the other side of this. I think if we spend a little bit of time and actually get it right, it gets a better balance between those two issues. If the city, in order to stay in compliance with federal law, needs to go ahead and make some changes to the code that has to do with installers, then they should do that. I don't think we would be doing our responsibility to do a lousy job to get it through just so they can be happy. JOHNSON I would like to ask you, if there was a substitute motion made that we would approve the licensing portion of this, which would answer the majority of this, let's defer the landscaping and screening requirement for two weeks for them to come back with some solid numbers. I am hearing some of this information for the first time. It appears there is one or two particular places that we are tying to correct, and we are going to try to change everything to correct them, and I do not feel comfortable doing that. If there is a motion made like that, does that get… SCHLEGEL it is like what Sharon said, with the Council and the County Commissioners, they want to see is this presented to them as a packet for their consideration, not a separate licensing code revision and then later the zoning code revision. JOHNSON if they ended up saying that is what they wanted, then I guess I'm curious if they are ready to make a statement to the people who are in here of how quick this problem is going to be taken care of, once we have moved on it. They talk as if it has been for a number of years. Is it going to be another 15 or 20 years, and some of us won't be here to worry about it? SCHLEGEL what we heard today was about a lack of code enforcement, and what you heard from Sharon Dickgrafe was that we are trying to beef up the licensing code. The city is essentially toothless when it comes to enforcing anything in the mobile home parks right now. Where as I don't think these revisions that are being proposed give the 10-foot fangs that some people would like, it at least gives the City some teeth to go out and do some effective enforcement. We have no enforcement now. We are trying to get a more effective level than what it is presently. Now if it happens over night or not, we are trying to balance out property rights and trying to get things correct in the neighborhoods. You do have to allow for some due process in the procedures. It is not going to satisfy some of the people that have testified today. They want the problem taken care of tonight, and it will not happen that way. What is being proposed in the licensing, those changes will get the City going in the right direction, and in time, they will start to see code enforcement actions. JOHNSON my concern is with the landscaping. It is going to increase the cost of operating a mobile home park. Now, does that force more parks that are halfway decent to become apart of this? Secondly, I don't know that I want them totally screened. I want to see what is going on in there, so if there is a problem, and it needs to have law enforcement called or whatever, there would be some way of doing that. If we just screen them, we turn our backs on the issue, and say whatever is going on inside the screen, so be it. That is my problem. I have no problem with the licensing. I think that needs to happen. I will make the substitute motion on the licensing portion, not doing anything on the landscape. JOHNSON SUBSTITUTE MOTION MCKAY could we ask the people doing the work, what would be the proper motion to move the license portion forward. BISHOP I am not going to support the motion. I am in favor of screening. I think a lot of time what you have with the density of the development for a mobile home park, what you have is a lot of automobiles and generally what people want screened are automobiles. That is also true for multi-family developments. Many multi-family developments plan their garages, carports, or landscape screening for that purpose, because it makes it a pleasant place to live. I have heard about this Pleasant Valley mobile home park for 20 years. It has been going on for 20 years. I understand the City's process in trying to take somebody to court when you have an essence a rotation of ownership. You serve somebody one day, and they are gone. The next week and somebody else is the owner. It can't be done. I think licensing, I would like to see the licensing process stringent, and the 24-months is going backwards. I realize there has been a lot of compromise on the situation. I think it has been worked over thoroughly, and I am ready to move forward with it. ALDRICH I have a problem with the screening because I think all you are going to do is put a bubble over a bad situation. That is not fixing the problem or controlling the problem. I don't see how the screening would do that, just hide the vehicles. They might as well do that for duplexes. We might as well do it for normal buildings, residential that have more than one vehicle. That is not what the problem is. I firmly feel that we have an ordinance, we have laws on the books, and it just needs enforcement. There is too much red tape that one has to go through to take care of right situations. If we didn't have all that junk that we have to go through to enforce the laws, I don't think we would be here right now. Enforce the right issues. Take care of it. BISHOP I would like to suggest one thing. I mean this very sincerely. Go down to Environmental Court, and sit in on it. Maybe once a week for a month's time, and you will see what the problem is. KNEBEL, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. McKay asked the question if it would work logistically for this Commission to approve one ordinance and not the other. These two ordinances are tied together, and that is why we are presenting them as a package. They build upon one another. If you approve one and not the other, then neither is going to work. You can take the screening out. Say you want to take the requirement of the screening out of the licensing ordinance. That would be just one other way that a manufactured home park could not comply with the licenses, but there are still others. The way these two ordinances work together, for a non-conforming manufactured home park, like the one we are hearing about here today, the license is revoked through the licensing ordinance and then the zoning code, since it is non-conforming, the failure to maintain a license for a park for a 24 month period, it then looses its non-conforming status and becomes an illegal use. WARNER we have a motion on the floor to defer and a 2nd, is there any further discussion. JOHNSON are we going to make a substitute motion to approve with the exception of the screening on Section 7. ALDRICH 2nd SCHLEGEL asked for clarification on the substitute motion. KNEBEL are you referring to Section 7 of Attachment 2 on Page 3 of the zoning ordinance that requires screening for a new manufactured home park along an arterial or collector? As I understand it, the recommendation is to approve as presented with the exception that on Page 3 of Attachment 2, Section 7 would be eliminated. Donna asked if Section 8 tied to Section 7, and it is not. JOHNSON presently there is no requirements on existing mobile home parks for screening? KNEBEL that is incorrect. There is no requirement to screen along an arterial or collector street for an existing manufactured home park. The current zoning code has, since 1997, required side and rear property line screening for manufactured home parks that abuts property that is zoned TF-3 or more restrictive. That is in effect today. The licensing recommendation is that in order to renew a license for a manufactured home park, you would have to come into compliance with the existing screening regulation of the zoning code within a certain period of time, even thought you weren't originally required to screen when the park was developed. MCKAY I'm confused. You are saying that you can't pass one without the other, but the legal lady said you can. KNEBEL there are portions of licensing regulations that the City of going to be obligated to take forward, but in terms of addressing the issues that have been discussed today, in terms of enforcing the licenses themselves, the two don't work without one another. You can take this forward by eliminating the current licensing requirement for a manufactured home installer, but you can't just pass one ordinance and not the other. MCKAY that the portion I don't think anybody has a problem with, the fact that you can move forward with. DICKGRAFE we can do that. It is just a matter of what the Council as directed staff to do. Council has directed staff that they want it all in one package. Can we pick out the screening requirements out of the licensing code that is presented, yes? I would agree with Scott that it does not make much sense if we are going to come back and still ask the Council to have those screening requirements, but can I do just the installer revision that are required by July 1. Yes, I could do that. MCKAY that's what I am concerned about, but I am also concerned about some of the things I don't think have been taken care of even though you have meet with Central Inspection. They have not coordinated to use the same rules and regulations for the mobile home parks that they can for single family homes. I would hate to see this take the next step forward where there are neighborhoods that we don't like, so now all those people have to build a fence around their property, because nobody likes them. MARNELL what is the timetable this is one? If we did, in fact, defer this, and if we had another Advance Plans Committee meeting to work on this and have legal show up, which was not at that meeting, and we heard none of this information presented on the enforcement. We heard about financial issues and the owners, and the building expenses for fences everywhere. I would think we could work this out in one meeting and be done with it. KNEBEL in terms of getting this to the City Council for them to adopt an Ordinance by July 1, if you defer today, staff will be under obligation to split the two and present it that way because of the nature of the way the process works. SCHLEGEL you are talking about getting an action from this board at the May 18th meeting? Then we would have three Council meetings in June. KNEBEL I thought he was talking about having an Advance Plans Committee meeting, and then bringing it back to the Planning Commission which would take a month. SCHLEGEL are you trying to get something done by the May 18th meeting? MARNELL what I see us having to comply with is July 1st, and if you are telling me that if we don't get it done by the 18th of May, it can't make it through the process because of legal notice requirements, then we can't do it. SCHLEGEL the problem we have, there are only three Council meetings in June, the first three Tuesdays of June. If we slip this into MAPC action on these ordinances into June, we will not get it adopted by July 1st. MARNELL is that because of the notice time requirements? SCHLEGEL we could not get it onto a Council agenda in time. MARNELL I just hate to see us pass what I think collectively is a flawed ordinance. SCHLEGEL you have the option of voting against it. WARNER but we don't have the option of improving it. SCHLEGEL you do, but we are talking about timing issues here. MARNELL the substitute motion on the floor is to approve the ordinance. JOHNSON I am going along with the motion to defer. I am withdrawing my substitution motion. ALDRICH I withdraw my second of the substitute motion. MOTION ON FLOOR TO DEFER WARNER it has been moved and seconded, can we put some time on it, with the provisions that it goes to Advance Plans next week and before the Commission at the next meeting? MARNELL assuming if we defer this, will the City Council and the County take it as it is and pass it anyway. WARNER sure absolutely. MARNELL my wanting to defer this has nothing to do with frustrating either governing body, it is just trying to get this thing correct. If we are going to defer it and they are going to pass it anyway, it just seems pointless. SCHLEGEL I would not want to suggest to you that your deferring it to try to improve it would be pointless. I think they would appreciate any effort towards to making this a better ordinance. MARNELL how do we do that and still ensure that if we can't get a work product there in a time frame that would fit them? We could make it complicated that this goes forward unless we substitute a revised one before in the proper time frame. I don't know if we can or not from what I am hearing. MITCHELL is there any reason why Advanced Plans cannot hear it in time for the Planning Commission to hear it on May 18th? SCHLEGEL No, do you want to schedule an Advance Plans Committee meeting, either next week or anytime before the 18th that would be great. DUNLAP I would like to schedule a meeting next Thursday, at 7:35 in the morning. ANDERSON would you still present the staff recommendations to the City Council? SCHLEGEL what we will present is all the recommendations that have been made, from staff and MAPC. ANDERSON in other words, if you have already acknowledged the fact that the City Council has apparently made instructions to somebody to bring back an ordinance like this, that is what they are going to do. I think we are blowing smoke. Lets get on with it. MCKAY I disagree with the Don. If staff could come back to Advance Plans Committee and say, this ordinance meets and matched together with the Central Inspection department and this is the primarily for this particular area, or this particular region of enforcement, I think it will satisfy the majority of us. I have been here too long that if we pass something and Central Inspection could not take care of it and 3 years later we are back here doing all kinds of different stuff because we did not take care of it then. I think everybody sitting here talking feels that frustration. It always comes back on this group saying they didn't do their job. We try to do our job, but everybody is always in a big hurry to get things taken care of because of a deadline. We could have taken care of it before the deadline. How long was this in the works? DICKGRAFE, 2 years. MCKAY if we heard it six weeks ago, I'm talking about the ordinance. ANDERSON I think what we ought to do today is approve what the staff is recommending to us in terms of this ordinance. Get it done. BISHOP do you want to make that a substitute motion I will 2nd it. MARNELL I am going to support the motion to defer, but I am going to tell you under what basis. Legal and code enforcement staff need to show enough interest to show up at the Advance Plans Committee meeting. WARNER we have a motion on the floor to defer this and assign it to Advance Plans for next Thursday morning and to be back before this group at the next scheduled meeting, which is May 18. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, opposed. DUNALP 2nd OPPOSED BISHOP AND ANDERSON May 4, 2006 ------------------------------------------ 5. Case No.: ZON2005-58 – Abiola Dipeolu & Joseph Donaldson Request Zone change from "TF-3" Two-family Residential to "NO" Neighborhood Office on property described as; The West 10 feet of Lot 678, and all of Lots 679 and 680, Overlook Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located West of Oliver Avenue, on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Crestway Avenue. Wichita City Council April 4, 2006, returned to MAPC for reconsideration BACKGROUND: The applicants request "NO" Neighborhood Office zoning on the platted 0.22-acre site, which is currently zoned "TF-3" Duplex Residential. The site is located on the northeast corner of Crestway and Central Avenues. The site's current structure appears to be what was originally a single-family residence (approximately 1,428-square feet, single-story, wood lap siding, built late 1920s), facing Central with a detached single car garage in the back. Access to the garage is off of Crestway. There is a paved alley (which is blocked off by a fence located east of the site) abutting the back of the site by the garage, with a graveled area abutting the east side of the garage. There is a 6-foot wooden privacy fence around the back yard of the site. The applicants propose to convert this residential structure into an office. It appears the applicants have already begun the conversion and have a sign posted in the front yard advertising the business. The applicants were advised that the Unified Zoning Code (UZC, Art.IV, Sec. IV-E) permitted his proposed business as a "home occupation, office facilities". The applicants have stated that the office will be operating without an occupant on the site, thus canceling a possible "home occupation" status and that they also wanted a larger on-site sign than what was permitted for a home occupation. Staff also advised the applicants that a variance could be applied for, in regards to the sign they wanted and that is currently on site, if the office was operated as a "home occupation". "TF-3" zoned lots that have been developed as duplexes are east of the site, extending up to where the block ends at Terrance Drive. The next block east of the site east is zoned "TF-3" and "MF-20" Multifamily Residential, and is developed with duplexes and four-plexes, with the exception of the east most corner property being zoned "GO" General Office. This "GO" zoned property is almost two blocks away and is the nearest nonresidential zoning on the north side of Central. The "GO" zoned property is also the west most extension of the commercial ("LC" Limited Commercial) zoning located around the Central – Oliver Avenues intersection, on the north side of Central. South of the site and across Central properties are zoned "TF-3" and "SF-5" Single-family Residential with development being overwhelming single-family residential. There is "LC" zoning almost two blocks east of the site on the south side of Central. Like the previously mention "GO" zoning, it is the west most extension of the commercial ("LC") zoning around the Central – Oliver Avenues intersection. "TF-3" zoning and a mixture of mostly single-family residences and some duplexes are located west, across Crestway Avenue, of the site. The nearest commercial/office zoning west of the site is seven blocks away. "TF-3" zoning and a mixture of mostly single- family residences and a few scattered duplexes are north of the site. CASE HISTORY: The application area is platted as Lots 679, 680 and the west 10-feet of Lot 678, the Overlook Addition. The Overlook Addition was recorded with the Register of Deeds April 2, 1914. The MAPC considered this case at their February 6, 2006 meeting and recommended denial, 6-5, of the requested zone change to "NO". DAB I considered this case at their March 6, 2006 meeting and recommended denial, 8-2, of the requested zone change to "NO". The WCC considered this case at their April 4, 2006 meeting and recommended the case go back to the MAPC for reconsideration, based on the applicant requesting an opportunity to present new information on the case. At the time of the mail out of the case to the MAPC, the applicant had not presented any new information to include in the MAPC's case packet for the MAPC May 4, 2006 meeting. Per a phone conversation with the applicant, in reference to any new materials for the MAPC to consider for this case, staff's impression is that the applicant will make a photo presentation to the MAPC. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "TF-3" Single–family residences, duplex SOUTH: "SF-5", "TF-3" Single–family residences EAST: "TF-3" Duplexes WEST: "TF-3" Duplexes, single–family residences PUBLIC SERVICES: Current traffic counts on this segment of Central Avenue are approximately 20,326 vehicles per day. Central is a four-lane, arterial street at this location with a 40-foot half street right-of-way (ROW). The 2030 Transportation Plan indicates no change in classification for this section of Central. Crestway Avenue is a paved residential street. The application area currently has no drive onto Central, but does have a drive onto Crestway. All public services are available at the site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The "Wichita Functional Land Use Guide" of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies the application area as appropriate for "urban residential". The range of uses in this category include single detached homes, semi-detached homes, zero lot line units, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, apartments and multi-family units, condominiums, mobile home parks, special residential accommodations for the elderly (assisted living, congregate care and nursing homes). Elementary and middle schools, churches, playgrounds, parks and other similar residential serving uses may also be found in this category. The Guide classifies the proposed office use as "local commercial". The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features that limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The request does not conform to the Land Use Guide. The 2030 Transportation Plan projects this section of Central Avenue, between Oliver and Hillside Avenues, to remain a four-lane arterial, which is its current statues and configuration. As observed, development around this section of Central is mostly single-family residential, fewer duplexes and even fewer four-plexes. Beyond this section of Central, east of Oliver and west of Hillside, Central is a five-lane arterial and the development around it is primarily commercial/retail/office. The conclusion can be drawn that the intent of the 2030 Transportation Plan for this section of Central would be to maintain the current residential development abutting it rather than phase it out with nonresidential development. In other words a change to a five-lane arterial statues would have indicated the current residential development was declining to the point that the land use along this section of Central was in transition from low density residential to office/commercial and thus the "stripping out" of this section of Central would be appropriate; the 2030 Transportation Plan does change this section of Central's statues as a four-lane arterial. The Comprehensive Plan's "office" locational goals indicate new strip development should be regulated to areas identified as "local or regional commercial" on the Land Use Guide. The Land Use Guide shows this site as appropriate for "urban residential". This site is a mid-mile site that is also inconsistent with the "office" location guidelines, which identifies "office" zoning as a transitional zoning that buffers residential zoning from more intense "commercial" zoning. Approval of the "NO" zoning at this location would insert a less restrictive zoning into the residential zoning/development without any buffering afford by a transitional zoning pattern. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant's request is spot zoning and would be the first rezoning to allow isolated non-residential development to be introduced into the middle of the low-density residential neighborhood. If approved the requested zoning would encourage the breaking up of the current low density residential development along Central in a random and unpredictable manner with no transitional zoning to protect the remaining low density residential development. Therefore, based upon information available prior to the public hearings, Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested "NO" zoning This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: This proposed rezoning and land use is out of character with neighborhood's "TF-3" and "SF-5" zoning and its mostly single-family residences and duplex residential development. The nearest existing commercial/office zoning in the area radiates out from the Oliver – Central Avenues intersection, along Central, approximately 2 blocks from the site. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property could continue to be used as a single-family residence or as a duplex as currently zoned. For the proposed "NO" zoning and office use the site is small and on site parking appears to be problematic. Currently the site has no access onto Central Avenue, but instead uses Crestway Avenue, a residential street, for access. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed "NO" zoning would allow nonresidential development to be introduced into the low-density residential neighborhood, at a location in the middle of the block. Allowing the proposed "NO" zoning could possibly lead to the beginning of the "stripping out" of Central Avenue in a random and unpredictable manner, which would compromise the low density residential neighborhood. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The "Wichita Functional Land Use Guide" of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as appropriate for "urban residential" development, which the proposed "NO" zoning is not in conformance with. The proposed rezoning is not in conformance with the Office Locational Guidelines of the plan, in that the site is not adjacent to existing commercial development and zoning, and would not serve as a transitional land use from more intense development to the existing residential development along this section of Central Avenue. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed office development could increase traffic at this location on Central. SCHLEGEL Council sent this case back to the Planning Commission because the applicant had indicated they had new information for them to consider BILL LONGECKER I'm not sure what the applicants' new information is, I'll let the applicant make that presentation. Staff's recommendation remains the same and I'll make a presentation if the Commission wants me to. WARNER We've heard it once, lets hear the new stuff. APPLICANT JOSPEH DONALDOSN, Director of First Stop Rehabilitation and Behavior, address is 4402 E Central. Mr. Chairman and Commission members thank you for having us here again. As mentioned earlier, this meeting is about our sign. I want to let you know that we are a Vocational Rehabilitation planning services and mental health treatment firm. We work with people with physical disabilities, assisting them with returning to work. We also provide mental health services for individuals, couple, and families, which are referred to us. Several businesses are located within one block of First Star, consisting of home occupations, general offices and others. A business called King Treatment Center, located at 4515 E Central, is less than one block away. During the last meeting one of the Commission members asked if we were going to provide alcohol and substance abuse on one of the properties, we stated that we would not. Now we see here that this service has already been provided not less than one block away. Here are some other businesses in the area, 4516, right across the street from the King Treatment Center. This business, American Family Insurance is next to that building. C Downs Reality is down the street, and then the dentist office at Central and Fountain. This business four blocks away from us, four blocks west has a sign made similar to ours with one exception, theirs is lighted for night viewing. Also during that last DAB meeting Councilman Brewer asked Mr. Longnecker the question, why was the dentist office allowed to have a lighted sign that was not in line with the code for home occupation, and we asked for an explanation about the exception that was made for this home office. We are here because of our sign. We simply respectfully disagree with Mr. Longnecker's findings that we are attempting spot zoning. Since this issue in February, 19 of 20 owners have no complaints of our business or its operation. In addition, since the issue, the only owner to complain is the owner Ricky Powell, and he is the neighbor to the north. His objection is centered on the issues of the alley and the potential danger of additional traffic opposed to grandchildren and neighborhood children that play in the alley. Since February, we have not seen any of our neighbor's grandchildren, nor neighborhood children playing in the alley, just on Crestway north of our property. The time business is conducted should be considered as well. Most children are in school the times we do conduct our business. We see clients from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The rest of the time, from 4:30 to 10:00 the business is doing additional paperwork. We have approximately 11 clients that come in on a regular basis. They do not come at the same time, and they come at different times and only at scheduled appointments. We do not take clients off the street; in fact, all clients are referred. Most clients are dropped off and picked up by family members, and community workers. There is not a significant need to drive through the alley or to use the parking, however should the need arise for the parking space to be used, that is why we have three spaces for that. Clients are dropped adjacent to the building. The clients we see have rarely used the alley entrance off Crestway and when they do, they do not drive through the entire alley. The entire length of the alley that is driven through is most often used by Ricky Powell and his tenants. We disagree with Mr. Ricky Powell that by becoming a neighborhood office that traffic flow would increase in the alley, obstructing his access and causing a danger to his children and neighborhood kids. There will not be any obstruction or interference of Mr. Powell's uses of the alley since there are two entrances and exits to the alley. (Showing both on slides.) The west entrance exit in the alley is directly in front of his two-car garage. There is a significant point we would like to make, whether we are granted Neighborhood Office zoning will not stop any traffic usage of the alley. It was designed that way by the City of Wichita. Therefore, the possibility of alleviating danger to children playing in the alley will not be affected. In fact denying us the neighborhood zoning will increase the usage because of family members, friends and other which come to visit. Beside the possibility of clients using the alley to access our parking spaces, by granting us the Neighborhood Office zoning we will only use the parking area for business purposes only, lessening any possible additional traffic related to our property. We encourage you to drive through the alley unannounced and at your convenience. We mentioned that you would find there were no children playing in the alley and the alley is hardly used at all during the day. ALDRICH I didn't hear you, what is your address? DONALDSON 4402 E. Central. ALDRICH What is the address of the office use? DONALDSON 4402 E. Central DOWNING Sir, are you currently offering counseling services at this location. DONALDSON Yes as a home occupation. BISHOP So you are living at the office? DONALDSON It is a home occupation. That is also the address where I also live. BISHOP Why the zone change? DONALDSON I got married, and I would like to change residences as well have the opportunity to come and go in my office. We still do the same kinds of things. We want to use it as a neighborhood office. HILLMAN You said everything has a scheduled appointments, so if there were any conflicts say between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. with neighborhood kids, you may not have appointments during that time because appointments will be earlier or later. DONALDSON We strictly have appointments during those times, but we also work on Saturdays from 9:00 to 12:00, so if there is any time that we miss an appointment for whatever reason I make myself and my partner available at that time as well. ABIOLA DIPEOLU, I am a professor at Wichita State University, and a Professor with the School of Psychology. I live at 641 N Woodlawn, Unit 9, 67208. The issue of children in that alley is not an issue. Secondly, with my position as a Professor of School Psychology, I teach my students about the ethics of working with children. I am concerned about children also. If I see any child playing unsupervised in an alley that is made for traffic, it is almost like child endangerment, or neglect. I clearly teach my students, you don't have to think about everything, just call SRS, and let them make that decision. With that issue, I think that has been taken care of by our law. We have tenants also, and we are concerned about their children. Two of our tenants have children also under the age of five, and could you believe that none of them allowed their children to play in the alley without us having to tell them. They know instantly that you shouldn't have children playing in the alley. To reinforce what my partner said since the time we have been here, we have not seen a single child playing in the alley. WARNER Your time has expired. MARNELL I do have a question on the other half of the application. In our report, the attachment you provided, point number 6 said, "since this issue began on February 2, 19 of the 20 owners or business have not complained. Where are the 19 and where is the 1? What does that mean? DONALDSON Information was sent out about the changing of zoning and 20 property owners were notified with the ownership list we provided. MARNELL There were 20 owners notified, and one out of the 20 complained about the traffic in the alley affecting his children. DOWNING In the staff report it states that the applicants have stated that the office will be operating without an occupant on site, and today the requestor has said that this is his residence; do we know the resolution to that issue? LONGNECKER When the application was made the applicant said they were not going to live there. At the District Advisory Board, there was discussion if the applicant was living there now or if he planned too. I don't think the status of residence has been resolved. DOWNING Is this service authorized in the "TF-3" zoning? LONGNECKER As a home occupation with the standards as stated in the zoning code. DOWNING With a resident living in the building. LONGNECKER Correct. BISHOP My understanding when I asked the applicant the question is that yes he is residing there now, so I asked him, why the need for zone change and his answer was he does not intend to reside there in the future. That is the reason he is asking for the zone change. MARNELL As I recall from the last time, an issue was having a sign larger than what would be allowed under the home occupancy, if my memory serves me correctly from the last hearing. BISHOP I believe the sign is what was brought to the gentleman's attention, and that he would need either a waiver of the sign ordinance or a zone change. He could have gone the other way and maintained it as a home occupation and asked for a waver of the sign ordinance. ALDRICH The bottom line is that the applicant still resides there, therefore the home occupation status would apply. WARNER Would he have to apply for zoning? ALDRICH Why would he apply, he is living there. MARNELL The last time this came here it did not have to do with an issue of children playing in the alley. This was very close and could have gone either way. I am quite familiar with that area. This comes down if we are going to do spot zoning and strip out this area, and I think that is still the issue. This is not an issue of if this being a home occupation or not. Either it is or it isn't. If he is living there, it is home occupation. He may have to change his sign, but business goes on. What this is about is if we are going to zone it to Neighborhood Office, and if that rezoning is detrimental to the overall area. If 20 property owners were notified, and there is