BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Minutes
April 24, 2001

The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Wichita, 
Kansas, was held at 1:30 p.m., on April 24, 2001, in the Planning Department 
Conference Room, Tenth Floor of City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas.
	
The following Board members were in attendance: JOHN ROGERS, MARY 
DESENA, RANDY PHILLIPS, FLOYD PITTS, and JAMES RUANE.  The 
following Board members were absent: BRADLEY TIDEMANN, JAMES 
SKELTON.   

The following Planning Department staff members were present: DALE 
MILLER, Secretary, SCOTT KNEBEL Assistant Secretary, Recording Secretary, 
ROSE M. SIMMERING.

Also present: SHARON DICKGRAFE -- Assistant City Attorney. 

Also present:  J.R.COX – Commercial Plan Review/Commercial Zoning -- Office 
of Central Inspection. 

PITTS:  I am going to ask the Secretary to call the role, please.

SIMMERING:  Completes role call.

PITTS:  We do have a quorum.  The first item on the Agenda is the approval of 
the meeting minutes of the February 27, 2001 and March 27, 2001.  I have on 
February 27, 2001 those minutes the approval was deferred because there was 
some ambiguity of the remarks of one Commissioner was attributed to another.  
But, those corrections have been made and the Chair is open for approval of 
February 27, 2001 and March 27, 2001 minutes if you have an opportunity to 
review those.

RUANE:  I have some corrections on March 27, 2001 minutes.

PITTS:  Alright, why don't we take these one at a time then.  So let's entertain a 
motion for approval of February 27, 2001.

ROGER moves PITTS seconds to the approval the meeting minutes of 
February 27, 2001.

MOTION CARRIES 5-0.

PITTS:  Alright, you had some questions on March 27, 2001?

RUANE:  Regarding the March 27th minutes I have a few corrections that I 
would like to make.

RUANE:  On page 6 of those minutes, on the top third of the page, the comments 
attributed to me, in the second line, I will just read the sentence as I think it 
should be.  "I think for a point of clarity, the applicant has requested that we defer 
this for 60-days to allow (rather than all) a survey etc. to be obtained.  

Then dropping down a line the comment sentence beginning with "Because I 
don't know, but procedurally I think that we should at least recognize that as the 
first issue to be addressed if somebody wants to make a motion to that affect.  (I 
think it is effect with an "e" there).  That is all on page 6. 

Then on page 9, I have two changes that I would request.  In the conclusion of my 
first remarks on that page in the top third of the page.  I will read from the phrase, 
"I want you to know that that's out there and that in that there are only four of us 
present today it does not seem to allow for an abstention."  

Then dropping down to the next comments of mine, the last three words, "makes 
me unbiased" rather than "make be unbiased".  

PITTS:  Excuse me, what page are you on?  

RUANE:  Page 9.  Any questions?  Did I go too quickly on that?

SIMMERING:  No.

PITTS:  Are there any other corrections or additions?  Did you get those 
corrections Rose?

SIMMERING:  Yes, I did.

RUANE moves ROGERS seconds with those corrections I would 
move approval.

MOTION CARRIES 5-0.

PITTS:  Item number 2, case number BZA 2001-0009, request of zoning 
interpretation of the Zoning Administrator, staff.

MILLER:  As you know Board members this is an Appeal of an Administrative 
interpretation of the Code.  Your responsibility in this is to review the material 
that was sent to you in the Agenda packet and to hear the testimony today to 
determine whether or not in your opinion the interpretation that was rendered by 
the Director of Central Inspection regarding this particular type of use is 
consistent with the way you understand the Code to be written.  

Then make a decision we have three choices, as I understand it, you can either 
concur and support the opinion as rendered, you can determine that the opinion is 
not correct, or you can modify that opinion.  So with that you would probably 
want to hear from the representative for the Superintendent of Central Inspection 
first I believe.  Sharon?

DICKGRAFE:  I think that the parties may want to make some kind of opening 
remarks or statements to the Board as to how they want to proceed today before 
we start with the evidence.  I have been notified that there maybe some changes as 
to whether or not this issue is even going to go before the Board today.  I don't 
know if the applicant wants to start at this point and then perhaps the 
representative from Community Solutions.

ELIZABETH BISHOP, 8518 Longlake Street:  What I would like to tell you 
just very briefly is a little bit about the context of what brings us here today. This 
won't take long and you may find that some of it is not totally 100 percent 
germane to the issue but at the end of approximately two minutes I will make a 
brief request.

It is appropriate that we are addressing this, this week, because April 22nd was the 
start of Crime Victims Week.  And in a sense we are all Victims of crime because 
we are required to expend a considerable amount of public and private resources 
on addressing the problem of crime.  

A year ago the Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 323 also known as the 
Corrections Mega Bill.  That did two main things that concern us today.  Number 
one, it greatly reduced the length of parole time and thereby reduced the number 
of people on parole.  In looking at the statistics from the Department of 
Corrections, the number of people in the State Of Kansas on parole today has 
been reduced by approximately 31 percent.  At the same time it established plans 
for three, Day Reporting Centers one in Kansas City, to serve 60 individuals, one 
in Topeka to serve 40 individuals and one in Wichita to serve 120 individuals.  
This service is to be done via a contract from the Department of Corrections using 
federal money and to be provided by a private contractor.  

I might tell you that I serve on the Community Corrections Advisory Board and 
one of the things that I have learned from that service is that the parole population 
that is out there today tends to be more trouble prone.  They tend to have more 
substance abuse problems, more mental health problems.  So, what this means 
today for us as citizens is that we have a slightly more trouble prone parole 
population and a shorter amount of time to deal with them.  That is one of the 
reasons for the creation of the Day Reporting Center concept along with the fact 
that it was a desire to not have to build more prisons because our prisons have 
been running at somewhere between 93 and 95 percent of being full.  Which in 
essence is full.  

Then we have the local story and I am going to go into a very brief rant here and 
you will please forgive me, please indulge me.  A few months ago the Wichita 
City Council chose to disband the Alternative Correction Housing Board.  A 
Board I served on the task force that created the Alternative Correctional Housing 
process to licensed halfway houses in the community serving Paroles and 
Probationers.  That process was allowed to lapse and then languish for several 
months when the Day Reporting Center suddenly was on the Agenda the City 
then had to then quickly re-establish the Alternative Correctional Housing Board 
with many different people on it, get them oriented, and get them prepared to 
begin to deal with the case. 
My point is that the Alternative Correctional Housing Board as it previously 
existed was ready, willing and able to deal with both proactively and forthrightly 
with the issue of Day Reporting Centers in Wichita, but it was not allowed to do 
so.  But, rant over, that is history, and that is water under the bridge.  Where are 
we today?  Where we are is that we need a better process for dealing with this 
entire issue one that brings together all different elements of the problem the 
State, the City, and the local communities and the neighborhoods that are likely to 
be impacted by it.  This is a serious social issue, one that we all need to be more 
aware of and more prepared to deal with and in a way that does not overly burden 
anyone neighborhood.  Because currently there are several other bodies that are 
working on this issue including the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission with 
some new proposed zoning regulations and definitions.  The Wichita City 
Council, the State Legislature and the newly configured Alternative Correctional 
Housing Board which is looking at licensor issues.  

We formally request a deferral of this case, at this time for 60 days.  I will stand 
for any questions.

PITTS:  Thank you very much, for your presentation, is there any questions for 
Mrs. Bishop from the bench?  Thank you. Is there any other person from the 
Appellants group to appear before the group? Please approach the microphone 
and give your identity.

RICHARD RUMSEY, 2308 Hyacinth, Wichita, KS 67204, also an Attorney, 
Richard Rumsey 1041 Waco, Wichita, KS 67203:  Which is in the general area 
of this proposed Day Reporting Center.  I certainly don't have a big argument to 
make, if in fact a continuance is going to be granted.  I think you have seen the 
Appellants arguments at least set out in part in the application for Appeal that was 
filed with this Body and the written statement that was attached to it in 
accordance with the City Code.  That is certainly our argument and we could 
certainly elaborate on it but I don't want to entice any further fires if we don't 
have to and if the matter is going to be continued as I think the lien holder at least 
wants it continued and I think they have an announcement that might be 
beneficial for at least the Twin Lakes area and yet preserve some of the issues that 
have been raised by the Zoning Administrator in his report. 

PITTS:  Thank you very much.  Legal, should we listen to anything from the 
Superintendents office before we make any type of decision on the deferment 
since this came from the Appellant?

DICKGRAFE:  Certainly the Superintendent has a right to make a statement to 
the Board.  But, I think for the record purposes and for the Boards information 
that it would be appropriate for a representative from Community Solutions to 
make a statement, which my understanding is a large part of why the request to 
defer is being made by the Appellant.  So, I think if Mr. Docking wants to go 
ahead and make a statement to the Board, he is representing Community 
Solutions.



TOM DOCKING, 200 W. Douglas, 4th Floor, Suite 400, Wichita, KS 67202:  I 
am with the Morris Lange Law Firm representing Community Solutions which is 
the company that has the contract with the Kansas Department of Corrections for 
the provision of the Day Reporting Center services that we have here before us 
sought to provide out of Twin Lakes Shopping Center at 21st Street and Amidon.  

I learned after considerable discussion of the matter on Friday, from the 
Company's representative out of their Topeka office, that in light of the 
controversial circumstances and factors that affect or will affect the neighborhood 
at Twin Lakes if this facility does in fact go into that property that the company 
wishes to withdraw any consideration of the Twin Lakes site.  And the company 
will be seeking, although I am not authorized to do so yet we will seek to have the 
application for building permit that is on file that would authorize the provision of 
the services at the facility to be withdrawn.  

It is my belief after consulting with the City Attorney's staff on this matter that 
may remove the basis for which the Appeal in this case was filed and render the 
matter moot for the time being.  

In terms of the larger context and I will just take a moment or two in that regard.  
We have received multiple communications from people at the City, both from 
the City Council and from Legal staff and from Planning and Economic 
Development that it is very much in the City's interest to work with Community 
Solutions on site selection factors.  There maybe a more appropriate location for 
this kind of facility than has here before been considered and that the City would 
like to play a more active and cooperative role in that process.  Community 
Solutions is in fact banking on the sincerity of that expression.  We want to bring 
the City more directly into this process and hopefully in the course of doing that 
take into account some of the neighborhood concerns that have been expressed at 
Twin Lakes.  It is our believe that no matter where this facility is proposed to be 
located, there is going to be neighborhood impact and there are going to be people 
who are not going to be happy about it.  In some fashion a balance has to be 
struck between these legitimate neighborhood concerns and the federal law that 
provides that these kinds of services shall be provided in a community of our size.  

Thus, Community Solutions is in agreement with the Appellants in this case that 
if we have 60 days in which to explore the matter much more aggressively with 
the City and see how real is the interest in resolving this matter in a cooperative 
way that we should be able to determine and answer a lot of these questions in 
ways that may not generate quite the concern from the neighborhoods affected.  
So we are in agreement with the Appellant that a 60-day deferral is appropriate 
and we hope that you approve that on the basis that we are taking a run at a much 
larger type of approach to this whole question.  I am available to answer any 
question that you may have.

PITTS:  Thank you Mr. Docking.  Are there any questions from the bench? 

RUANE:  At this late date is there still some potential for the State Legislature to 
weigh in on this issue and provide some additional guidance?

DOCKING:  The answer I believe is, yes, but I am not familiar enough with the 
Legislative process.  Elizabeth, are you prepared to say one way or the other?  I 
was informed that there was a bill that would prohibit municipalities from 
interfering in the site selection process for this program.  I have also been told that 
there was a bill that would cut off funding for this program.  In other words, I 
have been told that there is either extreme out there and I don't know what the 
status of those bills are and I frankly don't even know how that description is.

ROSALIE BRADLEY SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE:  The status of 
the second one that you brought up is down that no funding unless there was local 
input is not in the ..unless it comes up of course they go back tomorrow.  

DOCKING:  The veto section starts pretty quick here and they are worried about 
bigger fish right now with the budget.

ROSALIE BRADLEY STILL SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE:  As of 
last weekend I was advised that the original one that you referred to doing away 
with any City input was still in the works now what that means is something else.  

DOCKING:  If I can offer by way of context there are three locations, one in 
Wichita, one in Topeka and on in Kansas, City Kansas.  To my knowledge in 
Topeka there has been very little public outcry over the facility.  The location has 
been picked and their door are not open yet but they have had very little of what 
we have witnessed down here.  

On the other extreme in Wyandotte County I believe today is when they are 
holding a hearing on Community Solutions application for a temporary restraining 
order against the Unified Government because they are refusing to grant a 
building permit there for a facility that they contend meets the requirements of the 
law.  So, you have kind of two extremes out there in Wyandotte County, big 
surprise, it is all screwed up, and what we are trying to do now is to avoid that 
kind of result.  The City has said that they want to work with us and believe me 
we want to work with the City and we think that everybody is going to be happier 
with the result if we are able to pull that off.

PITTS:  Thank you.  Is there any other persons from the Appellants group to 
address the issues germane to this case?  Mr. Schroeder, do you need to make a 
statement?  I wasn't trying to cut anyone else off were you ready speak Mr. 
Ramsey?

RAMSEY:  I just want to make one thing certain that if this matter is not 
continued we have an argument to make in regards to the Appellants' position 
that I am hopeful that we won't have to make it.  It is my understanding that if 
this matter is continued the building permit will be withdrawn and the issues 
pertaining to or the possibility of this being placed in Twin Lakes will be 
irrevocably, and I am using their terms, withdrawn no longer considered and that 
the issues that remain would be those legal issues that surround the report that the 
Zoning Administrator has made.  I am not going to go into those but I hate to get 
involved if we don't have to.

PITTS:  Will I think that may have been the reason for the request for a 60-day 
deferment rather than for us to take any other action, Thank You.  Are there 
others to speak?  Mr. Schroeder you may approach please.

KURT SCHROEDER SUPERIENTDENT OF THE OFFICE OF 
CENTRAL INSPECTION AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 
CITY OF WICHITA:  I too am prepared to make an argument if you want to 
hear that on my side of the issue.  However, my Legal Counsel here has informed 
me that if the applicant for the building permit that was submitted, is agreeable to 
withdraw that building permit application, void that permit application, that also 
at this time could withdraw the interpretation specific to that particular permit 
application at this time, and we could defer this or hear it at another time if we can 
do that I will be prepared to that as well.

PITTS:  I don't think that this bench is going to be prepared to make a decision 
on granting or denying a request for deferment based on some other action that is 
being taking place.  But that is something that we will have to discuss so that it 
can't be a conditional based on some subsequent action to be provided.

DICKGRAFE:  I think that the request has been made that the entire case be 
deferred 60-days.  If the actions that are anticipated happen, then at that point my 
understanding is that this case would not even come back to this Board it would 
be moot there would be no building permit, there would be no interpretation.  If 
those actions in fact do not happen, the posture of the parties has not changed, and 
at that point this Board would certainly have the full authority to hear the 
arguments of both sides, look at the legal issues and determine whether not Mr. 
Schroeder's interpretation was correct.  So, I don't think that this is a request for a 
conditional deferment.

PITTS:  Thank you.  Any other persons in the audience have reasons to address 
any issues germane to this particular case?  If not we will restrict any of the action 
to the Board.  Are we prepared for a motion?  You have any comments, Randy?

RUANE moves ROGERS seconds that the item be deferred for 60-
days.

MOTION carries 5-0.

PITTS:  Bickley Foster did you have something to say?

FOSTER:  Just to be sure that you are talking about the June meeting right? Not 
just 60-days I am just clarifying that.  Two months I am not sure that 60-days is 
the June meeting.
 
PITTS:  Rather than 60-days it will be the meeting that occurs the month after 
next and I think that is clear. Reports from Central Inspection regarding 
compliance with requirements of various cases, J.R. Cox.

COX:  No sir, I do not have a report.

PITTS:  Is there any new business to come before the Board?  

Meeting adjourned 2 p.m.

BZA MINUTES                   APRIL 24, 2001                    PAGE 8