METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

March 8, 2001

The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, March 
8, 2001 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:  Jerry Michaelis, Acting Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Kerry Coulter 
(late arrival); Frank Garofalo; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; George Platt; 
Harold Warner; and Ray Warren.  Susan Osborne-Howes was not present.  Staff members present were Marvin Krout, 
Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner, Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Bill 
Longnecker, Senior Planner; Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary; and Valerie Robinson for Unified Zoning Code.

1.	Approval of minutes for January 4, 2001 and January 18, 2001.

MICHAELIS "We can take these separately or at the same time."

MARNELL "I have some changes for the January 4 meeting.  I have them written and will give them to the secretary."

WARREN "I also gave her a couple of changes for the January 4 meeting."

GAROFALO "And I have one.  I will give it to her, too."

MOTION:	That the minutes for January 4, 2001 be approved as amended, and 
that the minutes for January 18, 2001 be approved as submitted.

JOHNSON moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(9-0).

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

2.	Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations

MCKAY "On Item 2/1, I have a conflict of interest and will be abstaining."

2/1.	SUB 2000-30 – Revised final plat of AUBURN HILLS 11TH ADDITION, located east of 151st Street West, north 
of Kellogg Drive.
A.	The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. 

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. An off-site drainage easement and cross-lot drainage easement are required.  

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

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

F.	The township needs to be added to the surveyor's certification. 

G.	Lot 2, Block 2 does not conform to the 50-foot lot width requirement at the front property line. A building setback 
should be platted at a minimum of 50 feet measured from the side lot lines.  City Fire Department has required 
a fire hydrant placed at the front of this lot. The building setback has been platted as requested. 

H.	The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets. 

I.	The 10-ft easement dimension on Lot 3, Block B, needs corrected. 

J.	City Fire Department should comment on the length of Sandwedge Circle (700 ft), which exceeds the 600 ft 
maximum for a cul-de-sac. City Fire has approved this street length with the addition of a second point of 
access. In the event the second point of access does not occur through Fawnwood, the northern segment of 
Fawnwood abutting this plat should be vacated. 

K.	Block B shall be revised to "Block 1". 

L.	Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council 
consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid.

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

N.	The platting binder indicates three parties holding a mortgage on the site. All of these party's names must be 
included as signatories on the plat, or else documentation provided indicating that such mortgages have been 
released.

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

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

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 316-729-0102) 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 be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than 
five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of 
Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best 
management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. 

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

V.	Recording of the plat within thirty (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. KGE has requested additional utility easements. 

X.	The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department 
detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department.

MICHAELIS "Is there anyone here to speak on this item?"

Subdivision Committee item 2/1 was approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations.  HENTZEN 
moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0-1).

Lopez arrived at the meeting at 1:35 p.m.

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

3/1.	VAC2001-00001	-  Request to vacate an alley right-of-way, described as:  

	East-west alley running behind Lots 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 of Peter's Subdivision of Lot 17 in Mathewson's First 
Addition; and the east 96 5/5 feet and south 135 feet of Lot 15; the west 48 1/3 feet and south 135 feet of Lot 15 
of Mathewson's First Addition, all to the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of 
Douglas, it is the only alley (running east to west) that connects Cleveland and Indiana Streets, between 
Douglas and 1st Street.

REASON FOR REQUEST:	Applicant wants to incorporate the alley into Old Town Auto (display/sales), 
located between Douglas and the alley.

CURRENT ZONING:	The zoning of the subject property is LI Light Industrial.  The zoning of the 
properties to the north, east, south, and north is LI Light Industrial

Applicant wants to incorporate the alley into Old Town Auto (display/sales), located between Douglas and the alley. 
Currently there is a solid fence (metal with barbed wire on top) that runs along the northern end of Old Town Auto and the 
south side of the alley.  Old Town Auto Mechanics occupies Lots 5 & 6 (stacked north to south on top of each other) on 
the northeast side of the side of the alley.  The Old Town Auto Mechanics (the Mechanics building) building is set back 
from the alley and has 10 bay doors that open onto the alley.  The Applicant proposes to remove the section of fence that 
is between the Mechanics building (on the north side of the alley) and the display/sales area (Old Town Auto) along the 
southeast side of the alley, close off the alley and thus allowing controlled access between the two areas.
 
Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings 
and recommendation to the City Council:

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 February 2, 2001, 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 alley right-
of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby.

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


Therefore, the vacation of alley right-of-way described in the petition should be approved subject to the following 
conditions:

1.	The alley shall be retained as a utility easement for existing private and public utilities located in it.  
Another 5-ft (width of the length of the easement) shall be obtained from the applicant to upgrade the 
utility easement to current City standards.  The applicant shall provide a dedication providing the 
easement and the additional 5-ft of width for the length of the alley.

2.	The applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Department any access issues prior to consideration by 
the City Council.

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility 
of the applicant
 
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1.	The alley shall be retained as a utility easement for existing private and public utilities located in it.  Another 5-ft 
(width of the length of the easement) shall be obtained from the applicant to upgrade the utility easement to 
current City standards. The applicant shall provide a dedication providing the easement and the additional 5-ft 
of width for the length of the alley.

2.	The applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Department any access issues prior to consideration by the City 
Council.

3.	Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the 
applicant.
 
BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff "This is a request to vacate an alley right-of-way.  The alley is located north of 
Douglas and runs east/west between Cleveland and Indiana Streets.  The applicant wants to incorporate the alley into Old 
Town Auto (display/sales) located between Douglas and the alley.

The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this vacation request based on 3 criteria.  'The alley shall be 
retained as a utility easement for existing private and public utilities located in it.  The Public Works Department requested 
an additional 5-foot of width to run the length of the existing utility easement.  This will upgrade the utility easement to 
current city standards of 20 foot per utility easement.  The applicant shall provide a dedication providing the easement and 
the additional 5 foot'.

Item 2 is 'any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the 
applicant'.

The third consideration that they have is that 'the Fire Department shall coordinate with the applicant any access issues to 
consideration by the City Council'.  I spoke with Mark Jenkins of the Fire Department earlier this afternoon.  He assured 
me that he will be getting with the applicant and going over that.  I believe that is mainly about access for the Fire 
Department.  Are there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?"

GAROFALO "I have one question.  Is this alley an open alley where the other people use it?  Do you know?"

LONGNECKER "Currently, it is an open alley.  Old Town Auto Sales also has a 10-bay garage located on these two lots 
here (indicating).  This area, all the way from the alley up to First Street is occupied by ABC Roofing.  The only concerns I 
have heard expressed by ABC Roofing is that they are concerned that the alley would be closed off on both ends.  Staff 
has assured ABC Roofing that if it was going to be closed off, everybody that was abutting the alley would have to be in 
agreement to that, and also, the Fire Department would have to approve anything like that.  

So right now, the applicant is looking for controlled access from their sales lot here (indicating), to their garage here.  At 
this point, I don't believe they are looking to close off the access on either side right now.  But they are looking to have 
controlled access right through here, (indicating) from the garage over to the auto sales area."

GAROFALO "They can do that now, I would think.  Can't they walk back and forth across the alley?"

LONGNECKER "Well, right now, they have a fence up and they are looking to tear the fence down.  At one point, they 
were looking to go ahead and close off this end of the alley.  That last comment was, again, that we are looking for the 
Fire Department to make a comment on the advisability of that.  ABC Roofing, as I understand it, does not want this end 
of the alley closed off.  But the applicant, again, was contemplating at one point a closing off of this end of the alley so 
they could just have controlled access from their sales to their garage.  They believed that by closing that off, they would 
have a safer access.  Right now, the applicant has a metal fence running along the length of the south side of the alley 
between the sales unit and the alley itself."

GAROFALO "Does the roofing company use the alley quite a bit?  Do they use access right off onto their property?"

LONGNECKER "The roofing company has access off of First Street up here and Indiana Street.  In talking to the 
individual that owns this property that ABC Roofing is located on, their use of this alley is infrequent.  They also have a 
fence lined up on the alley.  It is a chain-link fence."

Coulter arrived at the meeting at 1:43 p.m.

WARREN "I think you failed to give testimony to the fact that this applicant, as I recall, in the Subdivision Committee 
meeting agreed to put an emergency gate there on the west end of that alley if the Fire Department wanted it."

LONGNECKER "Yes, sir, that is correct."

KROUT "Bill, did ABC Roofing sign the application, since they are abutting this alley?"

LONGNECKER "I would have to look.  They were notified of this public hearing."

MILLER "They would need to be an applicant.  All owners abutting the property have to be an applicant."

LONGNECKER "That is on the application."

MICHAELIS "Any further questions of staff? Okay, thank you.  May we hear from the applicant?"

JAY SWANSON "I am representing the Old Town Auto Plaza.  As a practical matter, gentleman, the alley has three 
telephone poles in it that are almost a protrusion in that alley, and therefore it is very difficult for a truck to drive down that 
alley.  Cars can go up and down there.  Our idea is to open that fence and put a temporary gate across where we can get 
to our garage, but not on each end.  In the middle there where we can get to our mechanics."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant?  All right.  Thank you, Mr. Swanson.  Is there anyone in the 
audience wishing to speak in favor of this application?  Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition?  Seeing none, we 
will bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	That the item be approved, subject to staff comments.

JOHNSON moved, WARREN seconded the motion.

GAROFALO "I kind of think this may be a little premature to approve this.  The Fire Department hasn't commented on it."

WARREN "The Fire Department was in the Subdivision meeting."

GAROFALO "They were?  I thought Bill told us that they had to approve it.  Have they approved it?"

WARREN "Yes."

LONGNECKER "The Fire Department still wanted to go out.  They hadn't gone out and looked at the site yet.  The 
recommendation by the Subdivision Committee was prior to the City Council that the Fire Department resolves any issues 
of access, prior to consideration by the City Council.  

I talked to Mr. Jenkins this afternoon on his cell phone, and at this point, he had not gone out there.  I reminded him that 
this was part of the conditions that were on this vacation request.  He assured me that he would be there sometime within 
the next week to get this done."

PLATT  "I specifically asked the Fire Department representative at the Subdivision Committee meeting if he wanted us to 
hold up the vacation, and he said no."

MICHAELIS  "Okay."

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried unanimously (12-0).

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

Barfield arrived at the meeting at 1:50 p.m.

JERRY MICHAELIS, Acting Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of 
Wichita zoning cases:  
     
Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the 
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.  Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and 
copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience.

The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a 
total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of 
that hearing.  All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person.  However, if they 
feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote.

All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak.  When you are done 
speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the 
audience.  This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item.  Please note 
that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official 
record.  If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in 
on that same sheet.

The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our 
agenda items.  However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of 
facts or opinions, which have already been stated.

For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning and vacation items, which is also 
available at the table with the other materials.  They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and 
do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items.

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

Zoning:

4a.	Case No. ZON2001-00009 – K.T. Partnership and Todd Parker (owner); Keith Parker (agent); Savoy Ruggles 
and Bohm, c/o Randy Johnson (agent) request a zone change from "SF-6" Single-Family Residential; "SF-20" 
Single-Family Residential to "LC" Limited Commercial and "GO" General Office; on property described as:

LC ZONING DESCRIPTION

That part of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27-S, R-2-E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as 
commencing at the S.E. Corner of said SE 1/4; thence S 89 degrees 02'54"W, along the south line of said SE 
1/4, 600 feet; thence N 00 degrees 57'30"E, parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 60 feet for a place of 
beginning; thence S89 degrees 02'54"W, 790.02 feet; thence N 00 degrees 57'06"W, 348.53 feet; thence N 60 
degrees 45' 25"E, 153.38 feet; thence N 00 degrees 49'49"W, 82.38 feet; thence S 89 degrees 10'11"W, 105.11 
feet; thence S 33 degrees 30'16"W, 121.28 feet; thence S 54 degrees 56'18"W, 109.53 feet; thence S 17 
degrees 09'28"W, 118.51 feet; thence S 89 degrees 02'54"W, 129.03 feet; thence N 24 degrees 00'27"W, 
102.57 feet; thence N 59 degrees 46'53"W, 166.30 feet; thence N 07 degrees 17'12"W, 332.51 feet; thence N 
00 degrees 49'49"W, 154.29 feet to a point on the south line of the north 1643 feet of said SE 1/4; thence N 89 
degrees 10'11"E, along the south line of the north 1643 feet of said SE 1/4, 1251.18 feet to the westerly line of 
the K-96 Bypass right-of-way as condemned in Case No. 88C 4045; thence S 45 degrees 07'33"E, along said 
westerly line, 146.95 feet; thence S 48 degrees 35'43"E, and continuing along said westerly line, 452.15 feet to 
a point 600 feet north of the south line of said SE 1/4; thence S 89 degrees 02'54"W, 329.52 feet to a point 600 
feet west of the east line of said SE 1/4; thence S 00 degrees 57'30"E, parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 
540 feet to the place of beginning.
AREA 1,089,400.2 Square Feet 25.01 Acres

GO ZONING DESCRIPTION

That part of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27-S, R-2-E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as 
commencing at the S.W. Corner of said SE 1/4; thence N 00 degrees 57'32"W, along the west line of said SE 
1/4, 60 feet for a place of beginning; thence N 00 degrees 57'32"W, 954.24 feet to a point on the south line of 
the north 1643 feet of said SE 1/4; thence N 89 degrees 10'11"E, along the south line of the north 1643 feet of 
said SE 1/4, 569.94 feet; thence S 00 degrees 49'49"E, 259.72 feet; thence S 32 degrees 48'38"W, 88.73 feet; 
thence S 10 degrees 02'20"W, 96.31 feet; thence S 14 degrees 45'02"E, 303.58 feet; thence S 27 degrees 
24'41"E, 84.79 feet; thence S 70 degrees 09'31"E, 90.02 feet; thence N 89 degrees 02'54"E, parallel with the 
south line of said SE 1/4, 177.22 feet; thence S 00 degrees 57'06"E, 122.32 feet to a point 60 feet north of the 
south line of said SE 1/4; thence S 89 degrees 02'54"W, 873.16 feet to the place of beginning.
AREA 568,045.2 Square Feet 13.04 Acres

AND

4b.	CUP2001-00005 – K.T. Partnership and Todd Parker (owner); Keith Parker (agent); Savoy Ruggles and Bohm, 
c/o Randy Johnson (agent) request the creation of KTP Center Addition C.U.P., on property described as:

	The SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27-S, R-2E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, lying west of the K-96 
Bypass right-of-way as condemned in Case No. 88C-4045, except the north 1643 feet thereof, and except the 
right-of-way for Central Avenue and 127th Street East, described as that part of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27-
S, R-2-E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as beginning at the S.E. Corner thereof; thence 
S 89 degrees 02'54" W, along the south line of said SE 1/4, 1791.56 feet to a point 859.88 feet east of the S.W. 
Corner of said SE 1/4; thence N 00 degrees 57'32" W parallel with the west line of said SE 1/4, 60 feet; thence 
N 89 degrees 02'54" E 1441.55 feet to a point 350 feet west of the east line of said SE 1/4; thence N 80 
degrees 37'03" E, 101.12 feet to a point 75 feet north of the south line of said SE 1/4 and 250 feet west of the 
east line of said SE 1/4; thence N 89 degrees 02'54' E, 175 feet to a point 75 feet west of the east line of said 
SE 1/4; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 175 feet; thence N 13 degrees 
04'41" E, 103.08 feet to a point 50 feet west of the east line of said SE 1/4 and 350 feet north of the south line of 
said SE 1/4; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 48.96 feet to the westerly 
line of the K-96 Bypass right-of-way as condemned in Case No. 88C-4045; thence N 89 degrees 02'30" E, 50 
feet to the east line of said SE 1/4; thence S 00 57'30" E, along the east line of said SE 1/4, 398.97 feet to the 
place of beginning, and except that part of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27-S, R-2E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick 
County, Kansas described as commencing at the S.E. Corner of said SE 1/4; thence S 89 degrees 02'54" W, 
along the south line of said SE 1/4, 75 feet; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, parallel with the east line of said SE 
1/4, 75 feet for a place of beginning; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, 175 feet; thence S 89 degrees 02'54" W, 
200 feet; thence S 00 degrees 57'30" E, 178.75 feet; thence N 80 degrees 31'03" E, 25.28 feet; thence N 89 
degrees 02'54" E, 175 feet to the place of beginning, and except that part of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twp. 27S, 
R2E of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, described as commencing at the S.E. Corner of said SE 1/4; 
thence S 89 degrees 02'54" W, along the south line of said SE 1/4, 75 feet; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, 
parallel with the east line of said SE 1/4, 75 feet for a place of beginning; thence N 00 degrees 57'30" W, 175 
feet; thence S 89 degrees 02'54" W 200 feet; thence S 00 57'30" E, 178.75 feet; thence N 80 degrees 31'03" E, 
25.28 feet; thence N 89 degrees 02'54" E, 175 feet to the place of beginning.  Generally located on the 
northwest corner of 127th Street East and Central Avenue.

DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  She reviewed 
the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The applicant requests a zone change from "SF-6" Single-Family Residential to "GO" General Office on 
a 19.17-acre unplatted tract located south of 37th Street North and approximately ½ mile east of Ridge Road.  The 
applicant indicates that the "GO" General Office zoning is requested to permit future development of the site with office 
uses.  The applicant proposes to plat the subject property as part of the Ridge Port North 4th Addition, which is scheduled 
to be heard by the Subdivision Committee at their March 1, 2001 hearing.

The surrounding area is on the fringe of the developing urban area for Wichita, with much of the land in the area still used 
for agriculture.  The properties north and east of the site are zoned "SF-20" Single-Family Residential and are used for 
agriculture. The property northeast of the site is zoned "SF-20" Single-Family Residential and is used for sand and gravel 
extraction.  The properties south and southeast of the site are zoned "SF-6" Single-Family Residential and are proposed 
for the future development of single-family residences in the Ridge Port North 4th Addition.  Most of the property west of 
the site is zoned "GO" General Office and is currently being developed with medical offices. The property west of the 
northern portion the site is zoned "SF-6" Single-Family Residential and is developed with a farm-related residence and 
outbuildings.

CASE HISTORY:  The property is unplatted.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"SF-20"		Agriculture; sand and gravel extraction
SOUTH:	"SF-6"		Undeveloped
EAST:	"SF-20"		Agriculture
WEST:	"SF-6" & "GO"	Farm-related residence; developing medical offices

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The site has access to 37th Street North, an unpaved section-line road.  There are no current traffic 
volumes available and the 2030 Transportation Plan does not provide an estimate of future traffic volumes for this 
segment of 37th Street North.  Planning staff estimates that traffic volumes on 37th Street North will be less than 5,000 
vehicles per day in 2030.  Planning staff will recommend that the applicant guarantee paved access to their property at 
the time of platting.  Other off-site improvements related to traffic, drainage, etc. also may be recommended at the time of 
platting.  Public water and sewer service are available to be extended to the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies 
this area as appropriate for "Office" development. The "Office" category provides for office developments that furnish 
business, finance, insurance, real estate, medical, and other professional services usually permitted in office zoning 
districts.  As proposed, the request for "GO" General Office zoning on the site conforms to the Land Use Guide.

RECOMMENDATION:  Planning staff finds that the subject property is appropriate for office development; however, the 
"GO" General Office zoning district also permits the highest density (75.1 units per acre) of multi-family development.  In 
the opinion of planning staff, the site does not have sufficient access and is not appropriately located in relation to 
surrounding properties for very high-density multi-family development. Therefore, planning staff is recommending a 
protective overlay to limit the density of multi-family development on the site.  Based upon the information available prior 
to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED subject to platting within one year and 
subject to the following provision of a Protective Overlay District:

1.	Residential development shall be limited to a maximum density of 17.4 dwelling units per acre.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is on the fringe of the developing 
urban area for Wichita, with much of the land in the area still used for agriculture.  The properties north and east 
of the site are zoned "SF-20" Single-Family Residential and are used for agriculture.  The property northeast of 
the site is zoned "SF-20" Single-Family Residential and is used for sand and gravel extraction.  The properties 
south and southeast of the site are zoned "SF-6" Single-Family Residential and are proposed for the future 
development of single-family residences in the Ridge Port North 4th Addition.  Most of the property west of the 
site is zoned "GO" General Office and is currently being developed with medical offices. The property west of 
the northern portion the site is zoned "SF-6" Single-Family Residential and is developed with a farm-related 
residence and outbuildings.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The site is zoned "SF-6" 
Singe-Family Residential, which accommodates moderate-density, single-family residential development and 
complementary land uses.  The site is suitable for single-family residential uses.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Detrimental affects should 
be minimized by the recommended provisions of a Protective Overlay and the existing regulations of the Unified 
Zoning Code, Landscape Ordinance, and Sign Code, which should limit noise, lighting, and other activity from 
adversely impacting surrounding residential areas.  

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The 
Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Office" 
development. The "Office" category provides for office developments that furnish business, finance, insurance, 
real estate, medical, and other professional services usually permitted in office zoning districts.  As proposed, 
the request for "GO" General Office zoning conforms to the Land Use Guide.
	
5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Impacts on community facilities will be addressed 
at the time of platting. 

GOLTRY "This is a re-hearing of this case on a 51-acre tract, which is approximately 60 percent 'LC' Limited Commercial 
and 40 percent 'GO' General Office at the northwest corner of 127th Street East and Central.  At the previous Planning 
Commission meeting, we discussed this case and there were several small items that still needed to be discussed and the 
one primary item that still needed resolution and discussion was the idea of providing connectivity to the residential 
subdivision to the north.  

Staff and the applicant for this CUP, as well as an agent for the subdivision to the north, have met and the applicant has 
agreed to provide connectivity in the form of a street that would be located along the boundaries between these two 'GO' 
parcels (indicating at Parcels 1 and 3) and these two 'GO' parcels (Parcels 2 and 4) and then would connect with the 
Balthrop 4th Addition to the north.

The design standards for the street would be a 32-foot wide right-of-way coupled with 29-foot back-to-back, curb-to-curb 
width, and then it would have 15-foot utility and drainage easements on either side of the right-of-way.  In the areas where 
there would be drainage going on, they would not be able to use the property for landscaping and parking purposes, but 
the idea was that in the area that is not used for drainage, this area strictly used as a utility easement could be treated as 
other utility easements are throughout the city, and that is that they can be places where you can think about putting some 
of your parking requirements.

I think that was the major issue that required looking at between staff and the applicant and that was the resolution 
reached on that item.  That covers, if you look at Page 2 of your supplemental memo that covers Item B-1.  I will go 
briefly, now, through the other changes.

In the recommendations of staff from the first meeting, that was, in terms of access openings, there would be 5 points of 
access and I will try to show them to you as we go.  There would be 1 point of access between Parcels 8 and 9; there 
would be another point of access here (indicating) that would be across from Garnett.  The major opening to Parcel 7, the 
possible grocery store parcel; one opening on the eastern edge of this parcel (Parcel 2).  We have said within the eastern 
100 feet because we were trying to keep 350 feet from the 29-foot street here for a good stopping distance length.  There 
may be some drainage issues that the applicant has just discussed with me today about the need to perhaps extend that 
slightly more than 100 feet, they were thinking.  I know our concern was to keep a separation of 350 feet between the 
street and that drive opening.  And then, the last point of access is one on 127th Street, just after you get past the bridge 
structure over K-96.  

I would point out that on the opening for Parcel 11, this opening here and this opening here (indicating) may be subject to 
the situation where medials will be constructed in the future as traffic increases on Central and were that to be the case, 
those would become right/in, right/out only locations.  So we did ask, that since there is the potential for that to happen 
that it would be so notated on the CUP so that anyone purchasing those properties would be aware of the fact that at a 
future date if traffic warranted it, these may become right/in, right/out only.

Skipping down to Item No. 4 on gross floor area, they had requested 35 percent initially.  We had requested 20 percent.  
A compromise situation is 25 per cent, which is slightly less than the CUP to the south and slightly more than the office 
uses that are to the west.  So it is in between.  The maximum height of buildings be reduced to 40 feet.  That is what they 
initially requested, and upon rethinking it, we aren't opposed to the idea of taller buildings.  Then, for the buildings along 
K-96, they would be 75 feet.  Then the other change is in Item No. 8 about General Provision No. 6, to allow two 30-foot 
signs, one on 127th Street and one on Central.  Those are the changes.  

The DAB heard this case on Monday evening and voted to recommend approval of it.  I don't believe there was anyone 
present at the DAB meeting to speak on behalf of the case except for the applicant.  I believe you have that DAB 
recommendation at your chair.  I will stand for any questions."

GAROFALO "Donna, on the access on 8 and 9, the lots, or is it 9 and 10, or what?"

GOLTRY "It is 10 and 11."

GAROFALO "Well, is there a joint access there for 10 and 11?"

GOLTRY (Indicating) "There is an access point right here across from this driveway that is on DP-247."

GAROFALO "So that is not a joint access?"

GOLTRY "It is a cross-lot access and then there is access here (indicating at Parcel 10)."

GAROFALO "Why do they need that other one if there is a cross-lot?"

GOLTRY "They felt they needed the other one.  We did try to work on reducing that.  I believe the applicant has the 
redrawn CUP updated from this, pretty much ready today."

KROUT "I think the difficulty is trying to work when you have an undivided street and you have already agreed to locate 
access on one side of the street, and then you want to either line up the access or separate it adequately if you were to 
move a lot line, you would create a lot that wasn't as marketable because it is too narrow.  If you leave the lot line where it 
is, then an assured access line would be offset, but not offset enough to work.  So in this case, we thought a better 
solution was to allow the additional access point, but make sure that the driveways were lined up.  And realizing that it 
might become right turn only in the future."

BARFIELD "Donna, on No. 9, why is that necessary?"

GOLTRY "Are you speaking of Item No. 9?  Okay.  Because they brought the request there is to have an additional tree 
requirement along the northern property where they are in close proximity to residential lots that are right along here 
(indicating), particularly when you consider the potential heights of 40 feet of your buildings.  That is 5 feet higher than is 
allowed in the adjoining areas by having a stronger tree buffer along that area.  That will help mitigate any conflicts 
between the residential and the office of the residential and the commercial land use.  That was the reason staff 
requested that.

Oh, excuse me.  I have that for No. 7 only.  I stand corrected.  No. 7 would be this one (indicating).  We originally asked, 
last time, for 35 feet on those two parcels, which were adjacent to the residential area.  I am glad you pointed that out.  
That was an omission on my part."

WARREN "But those are General Office, aren't they?"

GOLTRY "Those are General Office to 40 feet—these two.  This is also 40 feet (indicating), but this is 'LC', so we had 
asked for the additional buffer right along that area.  You can project that that will probably be the backs of commercial 
buildings like the parts where the dumpsters are and what-not, so it would be good to have the extra buffer."

JOHNSON "The 32-foot right-of-way, will that be a public street or a private drive?"

GOLTRY "A public street."

JOHNSON "City maintained?"

GOLTRY "Yes."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of staff?  Thank you, Ms. Goltry.  Can we hear from the applicant, please?"

KEITH PARKER "Mr. Chair, members of Commission, I am appearing on behalf of the applicant.  As Donna said, we 
have had several meetings with the staff, with Traffic Engineering, and with the owners of the property to the north, and 
we have agreed on the circulation from the north to allow the residential traffic through this area.  I think this is a good 
solution.  We agreed with the other staff requirements.  I would be glad to answer any other questions you might have."

MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of Mr. Parker?  Okay, thank you, Mr. Parker.  Is there anyone in the audience 
wishing to speak in favor of this item?  Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this item?  Seeing none, we will 
bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	Having considered the factors as contained in Policy 
Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses 
and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is on the fringe of the 
developing urban area for Wichita, with much of the land in the area still used for 
agriculture.  The properties north and east of the site are zoned "SF-20" Single-
Family Residential and are used for agriculture.  The property northeast of the 
site is zoned "SF-20" Single-Family Residential and is used for sand and gravel 
extraction.  The properties south and southeast of the site are zoned "SF-6" 
Single-Family Residential and are proposed for the future development of single-
family residences in the Ridge Port North 4th Addition.  Most of the property west 
of the site is zoned "GO" General Office and is currently being developed with 
medical offices. The property west of the northern portion the site is zoned "SF-6" 
Single-Family Residential and is developed with a farm-related residence and 
outbuildings. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has 
been restricted:  The site is zoned "SF-6" Singe-Family Residential, which 
accommodates moderate-density, single-family residential development and 
complementary land uses.  The site is suitable for single-family residential uses.  
Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby 
property: Detrimental affects should be minimized by the recommended 
provisions of a Protective Overlay and the existing regulations of the Unified 
Zoning Code, Landscape Ordinance, and Sign Code, which should limit noise, 
lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential 
areas.  Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized 
Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Land Use Guide of the 1999 Update to 
the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Office" 
development. The "Office" category provides for office developments that furnish 
business, finance, insurance, real estate, medical, and other professional 
services usually permitted in office zoning districts.  As proposed, the request for 
"GO" General Office zoning conforms to the Land Use Guide. Impact of the 
proposed development on community facilities: Impacts on community facilities 
will be addressed at the time of platting.)  I move that we recommend to the 
governing body that the request be approved, subject to platting within one year 
and subject to the following provision of a Protective Overlay District:

A.	APPROVE the zone change (ZON2001-00009) to "GO" General Office for Parcels 1-4 and 6, and "LC" Limited 
Commercial for Parcels 5 and 7-14, subject to platting of the entire property within one year.

B.	APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-255), subject to the following conditions:

1.	A 32-foot right-of-way with 29-foot back-to-back street shall be provided between Parcels 1 and 3 and Parcels 2 
and 4.  This street shall connect with a t-shaped street extending south from Tipperary located between Lots 5 and 
6, Block 3, Balthrop 4th Addition, in lieu of the stubbed street further to the east (Woodridge).  Drainage and utility 
easements that are 15 feet in width shall be dedicated along each side of the right-of-way.  Those portions of the 
easements not required for drainage purposes may be used for site-related landscaping and parking purposes so 
long as it does not interfere with the other utility easement requirements. 

2.	Access openings shall be limited to the following:

a)	A major opening shall be located between Parcel 8 and Parcel 9 on Central as shown on the proposed 
C.U.P.

b)	Parcel 2 shall be allowed one opening on Central located on the eastern 100 feet of the parcel.

c)	Parcel 10 shall be allowed one opening on Central located across from Garnett Avenue.

d)	Parcel 11 shall be allowed one opening on Central located across from the major opening on DP-247 127th 
Retail Center.  A notation shall be made on the C.U.P. that this opening may be subject to construction of 
a medial along Central at some point in the future if warranted by traffic conditions.  This would cause the 
opening to become a right-in/right-out only point of access.

e)	An opening on Parcel 7 located between Parcel 11 and Parcel 12 on 12th Street East shall be located as 
shown on the proposed C.U.P.  A notation shall be made on the C.U.P. that this opening may be subject to 
construction of a medial along Central at some point in the future if warranted by traffic conditions.  This 
would cause the opening to become a right-in/right-out only point of access.

3.	Transportation improvements shall include a center left-turn lane along Central for those segments where it is not 
already constructed and a right-turn decel lane to serve all openings.  

4.	Gross floor area shall be reduced to 25 % for Parcels 1-4 and 6, and 30 % for Parcels 5 and 7-14.

5.	Maximum building heights shall be reduced to 40 feet for all parcels except 12-14 that shall be permitted a 
maximum height of 75 feet.

6.	General Provisions #4 and #5 shall be revised to state that building setbacks shall be 35 feet along exterior 
property lines per Article III, Sec. III-C.2.b(2)(a) of the Unified Zoning Code.

7.	General Provision #7 shall be revised to add that the buildings shall be predominately earth-tone colors, with vivid 
colors limited to incidental accent.  The parcels with residential style architecture shall employ materials and 
design features similar to residential uses, including use of brick, masonry, wood or composite siding; and a 
double-pitched roof with hipped or gabled ends with a minimum vertical rise of 4 inches for every twelve inches.  
Parking lots shall share similar or consistent lighting elements.

8.	General Provision #6 shall be revised to restrict signs to monument style and a maximum of 20 feet in height, 
except one sign on Central that shall be permitted to be 30 feet in height and one sign on 127th that shall be 
permitted to be 30 feet in height.

9.	General Provision #9 shall be revised to require a buffer at 1 and ½ times the rate specified in the Landscape 
Ordinance for the northern property line of Parcel 7 only.

10.	Parking shall be in accordance with Article IV of the Unified Zoning Code.

11.	A six (6) to eight (8) screening wall of brick, masonry, architectural tile or similar materials (not including wood or 
woven wire wall shall be constructed along property lines of the C.U.P. in conformance with the provisions of 
Article III, Sec. III-C.2.b(2)(d) of the Unified Zoning Code.  This solid masonry wall shall be constructed of a pattern 
and color that is consistent with the building walls.

12.	The parcel descriptions shall be clarified to indicate that Conditional Uses shall be allowed only if specifically 
reviewed and approved by amendment to the C.U.P.

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

14.	The transfer of title of all or any portion of the land included within the Community Unit Plan does not constitute a 
termination of the plan or any portion thereof, but said plan shall run with the land for commercial development 
and be binding upon the present owners, their successors and assigns, unless amended.

15.	All property included within this C.U.P. and zone case shall be platted within one year after approval of this C.U.P. 
by the Governing Body, or the cases shall be considered denied and closed.  The resolution establishing the zone 
change shall not be published until the plat has been recorded with the Register of Deeds.

16.	Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the 
Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-255) includes special conditions for development on 
this property.

17.	The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 
days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed.

MCKAY moved, PLATT seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0).

	----------------------------------------------------------
	
5.	Case No. CON2001-00009 – David Allen (Owner/applicant); Sandy Roberts (agent) request a Conditional Use 
to allow a car wash described as:

Lot 2, Block A. Lofland Addition, generally located on the southwest corner of the Lark and Harry Drive 
intersection on property.

BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  He 
reviewed the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The applicant, David Allen, is requesting consideration and recommendation for a Conditional Use to 
allow a car wash on property zoned "GC" General Commercial.  The property (1.04 acres) is described as Lot 2, Block A, 
Lofland Addition, located southwest of the Lark – US Highway 54 (Kellogg) intersection.  Harry Drive fronts the north side 
of the property and separates it from US 54.  The Burlington Northern – Santa Fe RR ROW (BN-SF RR ROW) borders 
the property on the south and separates it from residential (zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential) development.   The 
Unified Zoning Code permits car washes in zoning districts "LC" Limited Commercial, "GC" General Commercial, "CBD" 
Central Business District, "IP" Industrial Park, "LI" Limited Industrial, & "GI" General Industrial, but requires a Conditional 
Use when the car wash is located within 200-foot of residential zoning.

David Allen is requesting consideration of the car wash to be used by his car lot (adjacent to the west on Lot 1, Block A, 
Lofland Addition) and the surrounding area.  The proposed car wash will have 6 self-service wash bays (16-foot wide x 
30-foot long), 4 vacuum cleaner units and 10 drying stalls along the front of the property and another 3 drying stalls on the 
east side.  The self-service wash bays are shown to be 101-foot behind the property line. The applicant proposes to use 
masonry blocks for the walls of the car wash with metal trim around the top of it. 

Currently the proposed site, Lot 2, is partially occupied by David Allen's car sales on the west side.  This business also 
entirely occupies Lot 1, Blk A, Lofland Add., There is an outdoor storage area on north side of the proposed site, that has 
car parts on it.  The section of the site that has the car lot on it has an asphalt surface. The eastern section and the 
northern section of the proposed site have no all weather surface on them. The northern section, with outdoor storage, 
has a 6-foot chain link fence around it on the south and east sides, with a 6-foot stockade fence on its north side.  This 
section also has a double gate facing east onto Lark, with an unimproved ingress - egress.  There is no curb and gutter 
along the northern and eastern edge of Lots 2 & 1.  A ditch runs along the northern section of proposed site (Lot 2), where 
the outdoor storage area currently is located.  The property from the northern end of the outdoor storage area to the Lark 
– Harry Drive Intersection is level with those roads.  Lots 2 & 1, where adjacent to Harry Drive (their north border), are 
level with the road.  There is a ditch between Harry Drive and US 54.  There is no existing access onto the proposed site 
from Harry Drive.  Harry Drive is confined to the area between Horton's Furniture (abutting David Allen's car lot; Lot 1 on 
the west side) to Lark.  The applicant proposes to do a Lot Split of Lot 2, contingent upon recommendation of the 
Conditional Use.

The neighborhood to the west is zoned "GC" General Commercial and contains David Allen's (applicant's) car lot and next 
to it Horton's Furniture.  The neighborhood to the northwest (across US 54) is zoned GC General Commercial and 
contains several car sales lots (Auto Worth & and Dodge Dealership) and the neighborhood to the northwest is zoned 
"SF-6" and developed single family residential on the northeast side.  Properties on the east side (across Lark) it is zoned 
"GC" General Commercial and contains a Coastal Convenience store and a film processing shop.  To the south it is 
zoned "SF-6" Single Family Residential and is developed residentially.      

CASE HISTORY:  There was a street name change from Harry Drive to Kellogg Drive on June 12, 1984.  The change is 
not reflected on the current maps or the street sign at the location, thus the continued reference to Harry Drive.  The City 
is negotiating with the applicant in acquiring ROW for the future redesign and reconstruction of US 54.  The City needs to 
acquire a 25-ft x 25-ft triangle of land on the northeast corner of the proposed site, this would be a landscape area, as 
shown on the current site plan.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"GC" General Commercial &" SF-6" Single Family Residential: Several car sales lots & developed 
single family residential.

SOUTH:  	"SF-6" Single Family Residential: Developed single family residential.      

EAST:	"GC" General Commercial: Convenience store and photo development business 	

WEST:	"GC" General Commercial: Auto sales lot and a furniture sales store.

PUBLIC SERVICES:  The Lark – US 54 intersection lies approximately half way between two nearest intersections that 
have traffic counts.  To the west is the 119th – US 54 intersection that has 21,027 average trips daily (ADT) on the east 
side of the intersection.  To the east is the Maize – US 54 intersection that has 27,041 ADTs on the west side of the 
intersection.  Traffic is increasing as it heads towards the Lark – US 54 intersection.  Lark will not have access to US 54 
after the redesign and reconstruction of US 54.  There is no storm drainage in place at the applicant's site and the 
applicant will have to satisfy the Public Works Department in the manner that this is managed.  The applicant proposes to 
use a well on the property for water; this must be reviewed by Public Works.       

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide of the 1999 update to the Wichita – Sedgwick 
County Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as industrial.  The current zoning of the site is "GC" General 
Commercial.  The Unified Zoning Code permits car washes in zoning districts "LC" Limited Commercial, "GC" General 
Commercial, "CBD" Central Business District, "IP" Industrial Park, "LI" Limited Industrial, & "GI" General Industrial, but 
requires a Conditional Use when the car wash is located within 200-foot of residential zoning. 

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

A.  The applicant shall submit a revised site plan giving dimension control of proposed building, wash stalls, vehicle 
circulation, solid screening, ingress and egress, parking areas, queuing areas, dumpsters, landscaping, signs, 
lighting and showing all easements and set backs for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the 
issuance of a building permit, per City Standards.  In order to meet the landscaping code requirements the depth of 
the carwash will probably need to be increased

B. 	The site of the car wash shall be developed and maintained in compliance with the adopted site plan, and Section 
III-D.6.f of the Unified Zoning Code.  The permit plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public works 
Department in regards to drainage.

C. The applicant has one year from the time of approval to begin construction on the project.

D. 	Any violation of the conditions of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void.

 This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood.  The area around the Lark – US 54 intersection is zoned 
"GC" General Commercial when adjacent to US 54 and the development reflects this.  However, behind this 
commercial development on both the north and south sides of US 54 there is some recent single-family 
residential development, as reflected in the zoning.  The RR ROW to the south of the applicant's proposed site 
lies between the residential development and the applicant's proposed site.    

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted.  The applicant's proposal for a 
car wash, to be used by his car lot and drive in business is appropriate, if the applicant can meet Staff 
recommendations.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  Staff could find only one 
other car wash in the area, that being a single enclosed bay located at a Phillips 66 convenience store on the 
northeast corner of the Tyler – US 54 intersection.  The proposed car wash could be used by the surrounding 
residential neighborhoods.  In particular would be the ability of the applicant to meet the requirements of the 
review by the Public works Department in regards to drainage and street access   

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The plan indicates 
this site is appropriate for "industrial" uses.  Given the land uses, zoning and roadways adjoining this site, the 
request is in conformance with adopted location guidelines for commercial uses.

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities:  Traffic generated by the proposed car wash and 
the site's proximity to the Lark – US 54 intersection must be reviewed by Public Works.  Drainage is also a 
concern that must be addressed by the applicant according to comments from Public Works.  

LONGNECKER "This is a request for a Conditional Use to allow a car wash that is on property that is located within 200 
feet of a residential development.  The property in question is Lot 2 here (indicating), just off of Lark Street and Harry 
Drive.  The applicant's business is next door to the proposed car wash, and is a car lot.  There is an automobile 
dealership directly across Kellogg from this.  If you go further to the west, there is a Dodge Dealership.  On the east side 
of Lark Street there is a Coastal Convenience store and gas station, and a photo processing business there. Also, to the 
northeast across Kellogg, there is a field which separates some single-family residential from Kellogg.  

Setting on this property now is also a storage area for the applicant's business, the car sales lot next door.  The applicant 
is proposing to do a lot split, contingent up upon recommendation of the car sales request.  If that is the case, the 
applicant is proposing moving this stockade-type fence further back into this area here, re-establishing a smaller area for 
the outside storage area, and would also address the possible issue of getting enough land area here to develop the car 
lot to meet the requirements for landscaping, queuing and parking.

The residential properties are right behind Lot 2.  There is a railroad track running between the proposed lot and the 
residential area.  Harry Drive basically runs from Horton Furniture, which is right next to Mr. Allen's car lot, and there is 
access off of Kellogg there and then it comes to Lark and then goes to the Coastal and the photo area to the east and 
then it stops.  Harry Drive was actually changed to Kellogg Drive; however it is not being reflected in the maps with the 
City, so we have to alert the folks in charge of changing the street signs that it still says Harry Drive. 

Looking at Lark itself, there is going to be a redesign on US54 and that will cut off access from Lark and Kellogg at this 
point.  This access road will extend on east of there.  I am not quite sure what is going to happen there on that access, but 
Lark itself, when the re-design and reconstruction of US54 happens, will not have direct access onto Kellogg.  

Looking at the applicant's request and how it conforms to plans and policies, currently, this is zoned 'GC'.  The future land 
use plan shows recommended zoning to be Industrial.  The staff feels that this is an appropriate use for this location, if the 
applicant can meet staff's recommendations.  One of staff's recommendations is that we have a revised site plan.  We 
have had two site plans given to us, but we need more dimension control, proposed buildings, wash stalls, vehicle 
circulation, solid screening, and ingress/egress.  Right now, the only ingress there is is proposed for Kellogg; there is none 
shown.  The applicant has an existing one onto his car lot right here (indicating).  There is also an unimproved 
ingress/egress right here onto the salvage.  Any ingress/egress would have to be approved by Traffic, the Public Works 
Engineers, to make sure that it conforms to our policies.  

We also have drainage issues that Public Works would have to approve of how that was going to be handled.  On 
landscaping, again, there is some question as to whether we have enough room to actually have this happen.  The 
applicant has proposed moving this fence, which you can see right there, back to where this existing metal building is.  
Until we get some more dimensional control, we are not sure whether they can actually meet the landscaping 
requirements.  So we just need some more dimensional control on this.

If the applicant can meet the requirements with the revised site plan, and also look at developing and maintaining it in 
compliance with the adopted site plan and meet the Public Works approval in regards to drainage, we feel like this is a 
site that the applicant can use.  He is proposing to use it for his car lot here and also for the surrounding area. 

We drove up and down Highway 54, and the nearest car wash we could find was on Tyler and Highway 54 at a Phillips 
station.  It is an enclosed car wash.  So as it stands, staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use, based on the four 
items that we have outlined, which are again the revised site plan, the car wash being developed and maintained in 
compliance with the adopted site plan, the permit plan being reviewed and approved by Public Works with regard to 
drainage, and the applicant has one year from the time of approval to begin construction on the project.  Any violation of 
these violations of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void.  Are there any questions?"

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?"

HENTZEN "The City is condemning some land along West Highway 54 for the Kellogg Highway.  Most of it is on the north 
side until it gets to the Cowskin, but from Lark Street to 119th Street on the south side, I understand they are condemning 
some land for that highway improvement.  What I am asking is, are they going to take any of this applicant's land for that 
highway?"

LONGNECKER "I am glad you brought that up, sir.  The applicant, at the time of this being written up, is in negotiation 
with the City.  The City needs to acquire a 25 x 25 triangle right here on the northeast corner of this property (indicating).  I 
don't know what stage the negotiations are at this point, but after talking with Traffic, they were saying that what they 
needed to require off of this piece of property is a 25 x 25 triangle, and again, that would be located right off the northeast 
corner of the property. 

With the site plan we have now, that would also basically wipe out a lot of the applicant's landscaping.  So, yes, there are 
negotiations for a 25 x 25 triangle of the applicant's property."

MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of staff?  Thank you, Mr. Longnecker.  Can we hear from the applicant, 
please?"

DAVE ALLEN "As far as the corner, that deal has already been done with the City.  They have already bought it and they 
said we could use it for landscaping.  They are just using it so people can see in order to turn off of the frontage road that 
they are going to take from 119th Street all the way to the airport.  They just needed that so that people could see 
whenever they turned off of that frontage road onto Lark.  That sale has already been completed.

The car wash we are wanting to put up front (indicating) right in this area.  The actual structure is over 200 feet away from 
the property line of the residents, but the property line is not over 200 feet away.  If you have any questions, I would be 
glad to answer them."

GAROFALO "As it is shown there, is that the closest residence, just to the south?"

ALLEN "Yes.  Right here (Indicating). There are railroad tracks and then there are houses back in there.

GAROFALO "Oh, there are houses there?"

ALLEN "Right here.  Right now.  From their houses to the structure it is 205 feet, but from their property line to our 
property line it is not.  That is why we are needing to get a Conditional Use."

GAROFALO "Then that aerial is kind of old, then."

ALLEN "Yes.  This (indicating) is plumb full of houses now, just in 3 years.  They were quite busy.  Then, like he said, 
there is a Coastal here with semis coming in and out of it and it is open 24 hours a day.  There is a stoplight here 
(indicating), which is Maize Road with jack brakes and all of that.  We are not putting an automatic in, it is just a 6-bay, 
self-serve, facing Kellogg.  So there are no blowers or anything like that, to make a lot of noise."

JOHNSON "How long have you had your car lot there at that location?"

ALLEN "We have been here for 6 years."

JOHNSON "Were there any of the homes to the south there at that time?"

ALLEN "No, sir."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of Mr. Allen.  Thank you, Mr. Allen.  Is there anyone else in the audience 
wishing to speak in favor of this application?  Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this application?  Please 
come forward, sir."

BRIAN SCHAWE "I live at 1611 South Lark Court, which is in the houses to the south of Mr. Allen's car lot.  I have been 
chosen by that first block to come and speak in opposition.  The main concerns of the neighborhood is the noise due to 
vacuums and cars coming in and after the kids get done washing their cars, then turning their stereos up while they are 
chamoising their vehicles off.

Traffic is a concern.  I am not sure when Lark is supposed to be shut down as far as direct access to Kellogg.  Right now, 
turning off of Kellogg onto to Lark Lane can sometimes be very cumbersome, especially on weekends.  I was talking to 
Mr. Allen before and his ingress and egress is going to have to be off of Lark, due to the Kellogg expansion, which we feel 
would cause traffic tie-ups until which time Lark's direct access to Kellogg is shut down.  

Eleven out of the 19 homes on Block 1, Lark 5th Addition; have signed a petition against the car wash.  I do have some 
photos of the property in question.  In talking with Mr. Allen, he did state something about putting up an 8-foot privacy 
fence at the back of the property, right there (Indicating).  Our homes are all along through here.  They were all built in 
1998."

MICHAELIS "If you want to enter your photos, we will have to retain them."

SCHAWE "That's fine.  At this time, I don't have anything else.  Thank you for your time."

MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of Mr. Schawe?"

HENTZEN "Was that car lot there when you built your house?"

SCHAWE "Yes, sir, it was."

HENTZEN "I have been driving that road for about 40 years now, and most of those businesses north of you have been 
there almost all of that 40 years."

SCHAWE "Right.  And that is not in question. When we purchased our land, we knew that Mr. Allen had the car lot; we 
knew that the train tracks were there, and the Coastal and all of that. We don't have any problem with all of that.  It was 
the car wash that was in question."

HENTZEN "Did I understand you right that you thought that the vacuuming of the cars was going to make too much 
noise?"

SCHAWE "I am here to speak for house numbers 1116 through 1119.  That was the thing."

HENTZEN "Was there anything else other than the noise of the vacuums?"

SCHAWE "The vacuuming and the music from the cars being chamoised off after they get done."

MICHAELIS "Thank you, sir.  Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this?  Seeing none, we will bring it 
back to the Commission."

MOTION:	Having considered the factors as contained in Policy statement No. 10; 
taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the 
neighborhood.  The area around the Lark – US 54 intersection is zoned "GC" 
General Commercial when adjacent to US 54 and the development reflects this.  
However, behind this commercial development on both the north and south sides 
of US 54 there is some recent single-family residential development, as reflected 
in the zoning.  The RR ROW to the south of the applicant's proposed site lies 
between the residential development and the applicant's proposed site. The 
suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted.  The 
applicant's proposal for a car wash, to be used by his car lot and drive in 
business is appropriate, if the applicant can meet Staff recommendations.  Extent 
to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  Staff 
could find only one other car wash in the area that being a single enclosed bay 
located at a Phillips 66 convenience store on the northeast corner of the Tyler – 
US 54 intersection.  The proposed car wash could be used by the surrounding 
residential neighborhoods. In particular would be the ability of the applicant to 
meet the requirements of the review by the Public works Department in regards 
to drainage and street access.  Conformance of the requested change to the 
adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The plan indicates this site is 
appropriate for "industrial" uses.  Given the land uses, zoning and roadways 
adjoining this site, the request is in conformance with adopted location guidelines 
for commercial uses. Impact of the proposed development on community 
facilities:  Traffic generated by the proposed car wash and the site's proximity to 
the Lark – US 54 intersection must be reviewed by Public Works.  Drainage is 
also a concern that must be addressed by the applicant according to comments 
from Public Works.)  I move that we recommend to the governing body that the 
request be approved, subject to the following:

A. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan giving dimension control of proposed building, wash stalls, vehicle 
circulation, solid screening, ingress and egress, parking areas, queuing areas, dumpsters, landscaping, signs, 
lighting and showing all easements and set backs for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the 
issuance of a building permit, per City Standards.  In order to meet the landscaping code requirements the depth of 
the carwash will probably need to be increased.

B. The site of the car wash shall be developed and maintained in compliance with the adopted site plan, and Section III-
D.6.f of the Unified Zoning Code.  The permit plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public works Department 
in regards to drainage.

C. The applicant has one year from the time of approval to begin construction on the project.

D. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void.  

HENTZEN moved MARNELL seconded the motion.

KROUT "In the past, we have had car washes that were much closer to residential neighborhoods.  In fact, we had one 
with an automatic washer and dryer that was right on top of lots.  This is a little bit of a different situation.  It is more 
removed than some.  But what we have found is the noisiest part of an operation is an automatic washer and dryer stall.  
Since the applicant has indicated that he is not planning to install that, I would suggest that you add that to a condition of 
approval."

LOPEZ "For clarification on the Conditional Use for the solid screening.  In this particular case, is that requirement for a 
masonry solid screening?"

KROUT "No. Masonry is only required on CUPs that are over 6 acres.  It would have to be a solid wood fence.  You have 
occasionally required more screening or different screening material, but that is on a case-by-case basis."

HENTZEN "I checked last week with the Traffic Engineer at the City, regarding the improvements on Kellogg.  I believe, in 
going over the Maize intersection, it is going to be a fly-over and the frontage road on the north, going west is going to be 
going west.  The frontage road on the south is going to be going east.  All I am saying is that I think that expansion is 
going to help us on getting the streets to feed in to Highway 54.  So, it is not going to be a two-way street on each side of 
the highway.  One of them is going to be going west and one of them is going to be going north."

GAROFALO "I would like to ask the applicant a question."

MICHAELIS "Mr. Allen, would you come back, please?"

GAROFALO "Are you planning to have this open 24 hours a day, seven days a week?"

ALLEN "Yes."

BARFIELD "Sir, would you tell me again, how far is the distance between the residential area and the car wash?"

ALLEN "It is 205 feet from the property line of the first house to the structure of the car wash."  

BARFIELD "Would the screening then be where you pointed to where the structure is?  Whatever the screening is going 
to be?"

ALLEN "No.  Twenty feet back from the structure will be a fence."

WARNER "How much traffic, if any, is there on the railroad tracks?"

ALLEN "It is going to be abandoned, but I hear one or two a day. I don't live back there so I don't know how many comes 
through at night."

HENTZEN "I also talked to the City Engineer about when that railroad bridge be taken out that is over the Cowskin.  They 
actually have it scheduled for 2002 to be removed and not replaced."

ALLEN "As far as the vacuums, they will be the farthest away from the houses.  They will be closer to Kellogg; not behind 
the car wash."

GAROFALO "Would you consider reducing your hours of operation to, say 10 p.m. or something, with residents being as 
close as they are?"

ALLEN "Well, I would rather not.  These are not cheap to build, and with the Coastal being open 24 hours a day, with cars 
and semis going through it, that is why I thought it would work quite well there."

MOTION:	That the question be called.

HENTZEN moved, MARNELL seconded the motion.

MICHAELIS "Before we take a vote on this, I would like to ask anybody on the Commission, and on any other cases that 
come up today, if you have had any ex-parte contacts if you would please disclose them as the cases come up.  Has 
there been on this particular case?  Okay."

JOHNSON "Was there any discussion on the automatic?"

PLATT "Now, wait a minute.  The question has been called."

MICHAELIS "Yes.  We need to vote on the motion."

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried with 10 votes in favor (Lopez, 
Johnson, Michaelis, Warren, Marnell, Barfield, Coulter, Warner, McKay and 
Hentzen) and 2 in opposition (Garofalo and Platt).  Osborne-Howes was not 
present.

MILLER "Did that include the prohibition on the automatic?"

PLATT "No.  It was subject to staff comments."

JOHNSON "That is what I was just asking."

KROUT "Let me just say, for the record, that unless the Planning Commission wishes to reconsider, I think that that is an 
issue that is significant enough to bring to the City Council's attention, so I plan to appeal this if there isn't anyone in the 
notice area who is standing to appeal it.  Maybe you could amend the motion and include it in the revised motion.  You 
can change your recommendations today, but you can't after today."

JOHNSON "I guess that since that was being discussed, I thought that that was part of the motion.  I don't know why we 
can't ask, once the motion has been re-read just to get a clarification."

HENTZEN "Let me tell you.  The staff investigated this, recommended approval with conditions, and we come up here 
and approve it, and then the Planning Director wants to appeal it to the City Council.  Now, what the hell are we doing up 
here, just practicing?"

MARNELL "If the maker of the motion would be agreeable to an amendment on the automatics, I would have no objection 
to making that change, as the second.  I don't believe the applicant plans on putting an automatic in anyway."

HENTZEN "I could live with that, yeah."

AMENDED MOTION:	I move that we recommend to the governing body 
that the request be approved, subject to the following:

A. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan giving dimension control of proposed building, wash stalls, vehicle 
circulation, solid screening, ingress and egress, parking areas, queuing areas, dumpsters, landscaping, signs, 
lighting and showing all easements and set backs for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the 
issuance of a building permit, per City Standards.  In order to meet the landscaping code requirements the depth of 
the carwash will probably need to be increased.

B.	No automatic car washes allowed.

C. The site of the car wash shall be developed and maintained in compliance with the adopted site plan, and Section III-
D.6.f of the Unified Zoning Code.  The permit plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public works Department 
in regards to drainage.

D. The applicant has one year from the time of approval to begin construction on the project.

E. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void.  

MARNELL moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.  
(12-0).	

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


6.	Case No. CON2001-00004 – Paul W. Weigand (Owner/Applicant) request a Conditional Use to allow used car 
sales on property described as:

Lot 10, and Lot 11, Block E, Graber Addition, generally located on the northwest corner of Hydraulic and 
Wassall.

BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  He 
reviewed the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The applicant, Paul Weigand, is requesting consideration and recommendation for a Conditional Use to 
allow used car sales on property zoned "LC" Limited Commercial.  The property (14,782.88 square feet) is described as 
Lots 10 & 11, Block E, Graber Addition, located on the northwest corner of the Wassall - Hydraulic intersection.  Wassall 
fronts the south side of the property and Hydraulic fronts its east side.  Single- family residential development abuts it on 
its north and west sides.  The Unified Zoning Code requires a Conditional Use for vehicle and equipment sales, outside in 
"LC" Limited Commercial zoning.

The applicant is requesting consideration of used car sales on this property, which contains a vacant 1,500 sq.-ft building 
to be used as office space and a concrete parking area where he proposes to display the used cars and provide parking 
for prospective buyers.  The site has 4 existing entrances/exits (entrances); 2 on Wassall and 2 on Hydraulic.  The 
applicant has stated that he will close off the 2 entrances that are closest to the Wassall – Hydraulic intersection, leaving 
the two farthest from the intersection open.  This would leave the site with an entrance on Hydraulic and another on 
Wassall.  The remaining entrances would line up with existing entrances of the businesses that are across from it on 
Wassall and Hydraulic; Louie's Liquor on the Hydraulic side and Quick Trip on the Wassall side.   The site has two old 
light poles (without light fixtures attached) on it, one located on the southwest side of the site and the other on the 
northeast side of the site.  The one on the northeast side of the site is damaged and will need repair or possibly removal.  
There is grass along the west and north sides of the site.  

The neighborhood to the north is zoned SF-6 and has developed residential.  There is a 6-ft stockade fence between the 
proposed used car lot and the residence abutting it on the north side.  The neighborhood to the west is zoned TF-3 and is 
developed single family residential.  There is a 6-ft. stockade fence that runs the width of the southwest lot abutting to the 
proposed site, the next lot north of this lot has no screening between it and the proposed site.  On the east side (across 
Hydraulic) there is Louie's Liquor at the intersection, then north of it Shooter's, a billiards hall.  North of these two 
businesses on the west side there are single family and multifamily residence.  Development on the south includes a 
restaurant on the southeast side of the intersection and a Quick Trip on the southwest side of the intersection.  Adjacent 
to these businesses are two small strip centers containing barber - beauty shops, sandwich shops, insurance businesses, 
a bingo hall, bars, and restaurants.  Beyond these businesses to the Hydraulic – I 135 Loop, there are residence (both 
single family and 4-plex) and a warehouse – distribution developments    

CASE HISTORY: The Graber Addition was entered on transfer record November 13, 1950.  The BZA denied an 
application for a car sales lot on this site at their 07-24-84 meeting, recommending that this was not an appropriate site for 
the "LC" Limited Commercial zoning and the surrounding neighborhood.   


ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"SF-6" Single Family Residential		Residential 		 
EAST:	"LC" Limited Commercial			Liquor store, billiards hall  		
SOUTH:	"LC" Limited Commercial			Strip shopping centers
WEST:	"SF-6" Single Family Residential		Residential	

PUBLIC SERVICES: Hydraulic is a four-lane arterial street. The estimated traffic volume of (ADT) trips per day at the 
Hydraulic - Wassall intersection is 4413 ADTs on the west side, 9458 ADTs on the north side, 356 ADTs on the east side 
and 10042 ADTs on the south side. Water/sewer and other municipal services are provided to the site.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Wichita Land Use Guide of the 1999 update to the Wichita – Sedgwick 
County Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Low Density Residential.  The current zoning of the site is "LC" 
Limited Commercial.  The Unified Zoning Code requires a Conditional Use for vehicle and equipment sales, outside in 
"LC" Limited Commercial zoning.  The Wichita – Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3, directs the location of 
auto related uses to appropriate areas: such as the CBD fringe, segments of Kellogg, established areas of similar 
development and areas where traffic patterns, surrounding land uses and utilities can support such development.

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, MAPD staff recommends the 
application be DENIED. The Comprehensive Plan does not indicate that a used car lot would be appropriate for this area, 
there are not any other vehicle sales lots existing or allowed by zoning in the general vicinity. The commercial uses along 
this portion of Hydraulic are neighborhood serving and do not involve the outdoor display storage associated with vehicle 
sales.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The application area is zoned "LC," Limited Commercial.  
The "LC" district does not permit auto sales without a Conditional Use permit.  The existing businesses in the 
neighborhood are local retail in character.  A used car sales business would be out of character with these 
businesses.  There are established residential developments adjacent to the site on the north and west sides.  
The proposed car lot would not compliment this residence.  A location further south that would be in the 
warehouse – distribution center area would be more appropriate.   

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: A permitted use for "LC" 
Limited Commercial development would be more appropriate for this site.  Because of the location of the site on 
an intersection, it is doubtful if it will ever develop low density residential, as recommended by the Wichita Land 
Use Guide of the 1999 update to the Wichita – Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan  

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Outdoor storage and display 
of vehicles is not consistent with the type of development existing at this intersection.  Approval of this request 
will most likely open other sites nearby for additional vehicle sales lots and other  "heavier" commercial uses.  
This site was an active gas station until the Quick Trip was developed.
  
4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized
   	Comprehensive Plan and Policies:  The Unified Zoning Code requires a Conditional    Use for vehicle and 
equipment sales, outside in "LC" Limited Commercial zoning.  The Wichita Land Use Guide of the 1999 update 
to the Wichita – Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as Low Density Residential. The 
current zoning of the site is "LC" Limited Commercial. The Wichita                  Sedgwick County Comprehensive 
Plan, Section 3, directs the location of auto        related uses to appropriate areas: such as the CBD fringe, 
segments of Kellogg, established areas of similar development and areas where traffic patterns, surrounding 
land uses and utilities can support such development.  The proposed car sales lot does meet these   criteria.  
The nearest car sales lot is located on the Douglas Hydraulic Intersection.  

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Municipal 
	services are available to serve this site, and the proposed use should not generate any more traffic than other 
permitted uses.

If, however, the Planning Commission believes this is an appropriate use, staff recommends approval be subject to the 
following conditions:

1.	In addition to uses permitted in the "LC" Limited Commercial district, the site shall be limited to the sales of used 
cars.  The vehicle sales lot shall not be conducted in conjunction with any use not directly related to such a 
business.  Any automotive service or repair work conducted on the site shall be entirely within a building.  No 
body or fender work shall be permitted without first obtaining "GC" General Commercial zoning.

2.	The applicant shall submit a revised site plan giving dimension control of display areas, vehicle circulation, solid 
screening, ingress and egress, parking areas, queuing areas, dumpsters, landscaping, signs, lighting and 
showing all easements and set backs for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of 
a building permit, per City Standards

3.	The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping in accordance with the landscape plan submitted with this 
application.  This will require the removal of paving along the sidewalks next to Hydraulic and Wassall. 

4.	Parking barriers shall be installed along all perimeter boundaries adjacent to streets, except at driveway 
entrances or where fences are erected, to ensure that parked vehicles so not encroach onto public right-of-way.

5.	No temporary display signs are permitted, including the use of commercial flags, banners, portable signs, 
pennants, streamers, pinwheels, string lights, search lights, bunting and balloons.

6.	There shall be no use of elevated platforms for the display of vehicles.   

7.	No amplification system shall be permitted.

8.	No outside storage of salvaged vehicles or parts shall be permitted in association with this use.

9.	The lighting standards of Section IV-B.4 of the Unified Zoning Code shall be complied with.  No string-type 
lighting shall be permitted.
10.	The applicant shall erect and maintain a solid six-foot screening along the northern and western property lines 
that are adjacent to residential zoning and the existing residential development.
11.	Any violation of the conditions approved, as a part of this request, shall render the Conditional Use null and 
void.

LONGNECKER "This is a request for a Conditional Use to allow a vehicle and equipment sales outdoors in Limited 
Commercial zoning.  This type of use requires a Conditional Use consideration.

The property that has been proposed for this use is located on the northwest corner of Wassall and Hydraulic.  The zoning 
across Hydraulic is also Limited Commercial.  Both sides of Hydraulic, south of Wassall is Limited Commercial, and the 
property to the west and north is all Single-Family Residential zoning.  The site has two existing curb cuts; one close to 
the Hydraulic/Wassall intersection and a further one.  It also has two more curb cuts over on Wassall. One, again, close to 
the Hydraulic/Wassall intersection, and the other one lines up with the Quik Trip right across the road from it.  That curb 
cut lines up with the business across the street, which is a liquor store.

Staff is recommending denial of this Conditional Use.  We are looking at what is going on in this neighborhood and most 
of it is local retail in nature.  We don't feel that the auto sales falls into character with what is going on in the 
neighborhood.  We also found that there was a previous application for a car lot sales on these two lots back in July of 
1984 that the BZA denied, recommending that it was not an appropriate site for that type of use, and also for the 
surrounding neighborhood.

The future Land Use Plan shows this property to become some type of residential zoning.  Staff doesn't really feel like it 
will ever develop residential because of its location on the Wassall/Hydraulic intersection.  We feel a more appropriate use 
would be something more in line with the character of the neighborhood, which, again, is primarily local retail.  We have 
beauty shops, barber shops, restaurants, sandwich shops and a bingo parlor.  Further down the road on Hydraulic, as you 
are heading towards I-235, there is a distribution warehouse on the east side that we feel like that zoning and that usage 
in that area would be more appropriate for the location of a car lot.  Based on these considerations, staff is recommending 
that this application be denied because of the inappropriateness of the use and in consideration of what is going on in the 
neighborhood.  Also, the fact is that staff drove from I-235 up to Douglas and the only other car lot we could find in the 
area is on the intersection of Douglas and Hydraulic.  Going east and west on Wassall, we didn't find any other car lots 
either.  In looking at the Wichita/Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, it directs the location of auto related uses to 
appropriate areas, such as the CBD fringe, segments of Kellogg, established areas of similar development.  Again, we 
didn't see any similar development in this area.  Areas where traffic patterns and surround land uses and utilities can 
support such development.  Staff did not feel like the Conditional Use request for outside sales for this particular site met 
those criteria.  Are there any questions?"

BARFIELD "Is that site presently vacant?"

LONGNECKER "Yes, sir."

BARFIELD "Do you know how long it has been vacant?"

LONGNECKER "No, sir."

WARREN "A long time."

GAROFALO "There is a sentence in the Findings No. 4 on Page 4 that I think need modified.  The next to last sentence 
'the proposed car sales lot does meet these criteria'.  I think you meant does not meet these criteria."

LONGNECKER "That is a typo.  I'm sorry."

BARFIELD "Are there any other questions of staff?"

BARFIELD "I have one other question.  You mention here that the nearest car lot is located at Douglas and Hydraulic.  
Did you go to the south of this location?"

LONGNECKER "I drove down Hydraulic to I-235.  There were no car lots located between the Hydraulic/Wassall 
intersection and I-235."

BARFIELD "I am thinking about MacArthur."

LONGNECKER "I did not go that far south, no, sir."

HENTZEN "You mentioned that a car lot was turned down in 1984.  Do you know if that lot has been used for anything 
since then?"

LONGNECKER "At one point it was a gas station.  I did not find out when the gas station went out of business, but just by 
talking to folks familiar with that area, when the Quik Trip came in across the street, it was vacant by that time.  That is 
what I gathered."

HENTZEN "What I am getting at is if they haven't found something to do with it by now, what do they do with it now if we 
turn it down again?"

LONGNECKER "I think the applicant has another use that he was thinking about combining with the car lot.  He was 
talking to me today, which was the first I had heard about that.  I don't think he was considering separating the two uses.  I 
will let the applicant present that to you."

MARNELL "Just north of this location is Pawnee?"

LONGNECKER "Yes, sir."

MARNELL "Are there not car sales right along Pawnee?"

LONGNECKER "Just north of this?   No, sir, there is not.  There are car repair and car parts businesses there, but on that 
intersection there were not car sales."

MARNELL "Not at the intersection, but along Pawnee."

LONGNECKER "I did not drive Pawnee east or west."

GAROFALO "That particular site has been used over the years since the service station went away with different little 
businesses that obviously didn't make it.  I know one fellow had a telephone repair business for a while and there was 
some ceramic-type business in there once.  I am pretty familiar with the neighborhood since I live to the south of it.

This gentleman said there was a car lot at Pawnee and Washington.  A sales lot.  I am not familiar with a sales lot at 
Pawnee and Washington, but we can discuss that later.  That is what I wanted to mention."

BARFIELD "Did I understand you to say that if this were located across the street to the southeast it would be 
appropriate?"

LONGNECKER "To the southeast, there is a distribution warehouse complex—one of them being the 7-up distribution 
warehouse area.  The zoning and use going on there, I consider to be more appropriate for a car lot.  Now, it still does not 
meet the other criteria as far as being located in areas of similar use.  Again, I don't quite know what kind of definition we 
are looking at as area.  

Pawnee and Washington seems to be quite a ways off to me.  I am not quite sure how you are defining the area there, but 
the only one I found—and again, I was going north and south, was Douglas and Hydraulic."

BARFIELD "Did you say that staff feels that this would be appropriate for residential, but you don't see the possibility of 
any residential development taking place there?"

LONGNECKER "The Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be residentially zoned; however, I don't find it 
appropriate for residential.  The intersection of Hydraulic and Wassall and the way it is developed, I think it is more 
appropriate for some type of commercial use, a local retail or something similar to what is going on right now on the other 
three sides of the intersection."

KROUT "If I could just supplement that.  The Comprehensive Plan is a generalized map—a map of very small scale, so 
when you get down to one lot intersections of a mile on a major street, we are not going to show all of the commercial 
areas that area along there.  If we had done a larger map, I am sure that we would have shown this as a commercial, so I 
think that Bill is giving you the literal interpretation that there is not a spot of red (commercial zoning) on the map, but I am 
sure that this meets other criteria for a commercial intersection.  I don't think the plan is meant to be interpreted that they 
really think this is suitable for residential use."

MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of staff?"

LONGNECKER "I would like to add one more item.  In the event that the member of the Commission find that this is an 
appropriate site for a car sales lot, staff has prepared the items that we would be looking to address so see that that would 
be developed in a way that it would be of a benefit to the neighborhood, and also the type of development that has been 
used in the past for car lots."

MICHAELIS "Thank you, Mr. Longnecker.  Can we hear from the applicant, please?"

PAUL WEIGAND "I am the one who wants to put the car lot in there.  If I may, what I have is copies of the letters that I 
sent to all of the people that this affected.  Would it be permissible to pass these out?"

MICHAELIS "Yes.  Just start them down at the end and we will pass them around."

WEIGAND "I have been in that south city area doing business right across the street for 12 years.  I can still answer most 
of the questions that you asked before, and if anybody wants to ask any other questions.

I have the Shooters' Club across the street and I own the property where the liquor store is.  I have always thought that 
this corner was ideal for a car lot.  I have had a dealer's license for about 20 years.  It has always appealed to me and I 
tried to buy that corner for 7 to 8 years.  About a year ago, the lady decided that she wanted to sell it.  I live about 6 blocks 
from there so I am pretty conscientious about my neighborhood.  I want it to look good.  I think a car lot is absolutely the 
ideal thing for this corner.  There has been like 10 or 12 businesses in there.  McGill Accosta was the person you were 
trying to think of.  In fact, he was very instrumental in my being able to open Shooters.  I needed the parking at that time.  
He allowed me to use that.

I want to make this look good.  If you are familiar with the Shooters area, I take care of that.  We are right on the border of 
a heavy industrial area, so I just don't feel like the disturbance that this car lot would make would be much at all.  Right 
down the street at the corner of Pawnee and Hydraulic, we have a large parts store, and there is an automotive repair 
place and across the street from that, there is an oil change, or that is what it used to be.  I think that is still what it is going 
to be.

At Washington and Pawnee, right in between Hydraulic and Washington is a car lot and several automotive repair places.  
I believe that at the car lot at the corner of Washington and Pawnee that there is a service shop there called Basics and 
Beyond.  I believe that they have a dealer's license.  I am not positive, but I think they do.  There is a lot of activity in that 
area.  There are a lot of people in the south city area that think of it as a little city.  That is why they call it the south city.  I 
think a little city ought to have a car lot.  

Oh, the only response I got from the letter I sent out was from the people that were directly to the west.  (Indicating) the 
people that live right here next to the fence that separates the property were the only ones that responded to my letter.  I 
talked to this lady for 20 to 30 minutes and she was just all gung ho.  She thought that would be good because she 
thought that would do the area good.  She has seen me out picking up trash in the morning."

BARFIELD "On the application, it says 'vehicle and equipment sales, outdoors'.  Staff mentioned that you had something 
else in mind."

WEIGAND "Oh, yes, yes, yes.  I have had Shooters for years and I have been a pool player for years.  I spend a lot of 
time at Shooters and I am all of the time getting people having people ask me about giving lessons.  I am what is 
considered a recognized billiard instructor. Not quite to the certified level because that takes a lot of paper work.  But I 
have been playing pool all of my life and I want to put the Billiard Academy of Wichita in the same building.  The building 
is large enough for a couple of offices to sell cars and an area to have a pool table set up and the video cameras.  I want 
to do that right.  There isn't anything like that in Wichita and I think Wichita has a market for an 'official pool school', you 
might say.  The college of pool knowledge."

BARFIELD "Well, you know that staff has recommended that if this is approved, it would only be for the sale of used 
cars."

WEIGAND "Yes, and I don't understand why something that would have been okay before wouldn't still be okay.  That is 
what I am getting at.  I don't know why they put that in there because first of all, I never talked to Bill about my idea.  I had 
always had that plan.  When I am talking about the pool school, there is not going to be any alcohol.  So many people 
request that, but I just don't have the time, but I have people that I know….I have a professional pool player that works for 
me a Shooters a couple of nights a week, and I think it could work well.  If you are sitting on a car lot and there is not 
much going on, it would be nice to have a pool table right there."

BARFIELD "When you say equipment sales, what do you mean?"

WEIGAND "I have no idea.  I didn't request that.  That was just put in there."

MICHAELIS "Mr. Miller, would you like to clarify this?"

MILLER "Yes.  I just want to clarify that where it says 'in addition to uses permitted in the LC district, so a pool school 
would be permitted."

BARFIELD "Can you clarify why equipment sales is in there?"

MILLER "It is vehicle and equipment sales.  That is a technical term."

WEIGAND "I can see the possibility of having a trailer or something, maybe, to sell."

LONGNECKER "That is simply the way it is listed in the usage.  And you look at how that usage is broken down, and auto 
sales is one of those uses in equipment sales outdoors.  So I just used the generic language right out of the zoning 
ordinance.

Now, as far as this extra use, the first that we talked about this was 15 minutes before the meeting.  That is why the pool 
academy wasn't included in the staff report.  That is where we are on that.  This was something that Paul brought for me 
as a little different tweak to what he was doing."

WEIGAND "I never thought of it as being a problem."

LONGNECKER "With the parking considerations with that, and we have mixed uses with the car lot, so that is a whole 
different animal."

BARFIELD "Now, we show, at the present time, four openings.  Are we talking about approving this with four openings?"

LONGNECKER "Right now, no.  If this is approved, one of the things that Paul has spoken about and agreed to do is to 
shut off—put barriers up on the two curb cuts that are the closest to the intersection.  So instead of the four that you have 
now, you would have the two that are the farthest away from the intersection, which would leave access to Hydraulic over 
on the west side and then Wassall down on the south."

MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of the speaker?"

GAROFALO "On this letter, where did you distribute this letter?"

WEIGAND "To whom?"

GAROFALO "Yeah."

WEIGAND "I had to get a list from a certified real estate office of all of the property holders within 200 feet.  I got a copy of 
that list and I mailed this letter to everybody that was on the list."

MICHAELIS "That would have been the notification area?"

KROUT "Yeah."

WEIGAND "Then I found out recently that that list needed to be revised because they did the research on just one lot and 
it should have been two and that extends it a little bit, so there were about 4 people that didn't get that letter."

GAROFALO "And what kind of response did you get?"

WEIGAND "Zero response except for the lady that lived right directly to the west of the property that I was most 
concerned about, actually.  She called and we talked for a while and she said she was all for me.  She hoped I would do 
well.  I can't remember her name right now."

BARFIELD "Do you intend to do any repair work at this location?"

WEIGAND "Very minor."

BARFIELD "Do you understand that any repair work has to be done inside if this is approved?"

WEIGAND "I won't be changing starters or anything like that.  Maybe putting bulbs in…very minimal stuff that I wouldn't 
need a mechanic to do."

MICHAELIS "Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application?  Is there anyone wishing to 
speak in opposition to this application?  Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commission."

MOTION:	I move that we recommend to the governing body that the application 
be approved, subject to the following:

1.	In addition to uses permitted in the "LC" Limited Commercial district, the site shall be limited to the sales of used 
cars.  The vehicle sales lot shall not be conducted in conjunction with any use not directly related to such a 
business.  Any automotive service or repair work conducted on the site shall be entirely within a building.  No body 
or fender work shall be permitted without first obtaining "GC" General Commercial zoning.

2.	The applicant shall submit a revised site plan giving dimension control of display areas, vehicle circulation, solid 
screening, ingress and egress, parking areas, queuing areas, dumpsters, landscaping, signs, lighting and showing 
all easements and set backs for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a building 
permit, per City Standards

3.	The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping in accordance with the landscape plan submitted with this 
application.  This will require the removal of paving along the sidewalks next to Hydraulic and Wassall. 

4.	Parking barriers shall be installed along all perimeter boundaries adjacent to streets, except at driveway entrances 
or where fences are erected, to ensure that parked vehicles so not encroach onto public right-of-way.

5.	No temporary display signs are permitted, including the use of commercial flags, banners, portable signs, 
pennants, streamers, pinwheels, string lights, search lights, bunting and balloons.

6.	There shall be no use of elevated platforms for the display of vehicles.   

7.	No amplification system shall be permitted.

8.	No outside storage of salvaged vehicles or parts shall be permitted in association with this use.

9.	The lighting standards of Section IV-B.4 of the Unified Zoning Code shall be complied with.  No string-type lighting 
shall be permitted.
10.	The applicant shall erect and maintain a solid six-foot screening along the northern and western property lines that 
are adjacent to residential zoning and the existing residential development.
11.	The applicant shall continue the existing curb along Wassall and Hydraulic onto the two existing ingress – egress 
that are nearest to the Wassall – Hydraulic intersection.  These curbs shall be per City Standards. 
12.	Any violation of the conditions approved, as a part of this request, shall render the Conditional Use null and void.

WARREN moved, MARNELL seconded the motion.

PLATT  "It seems like recently we have been getting in, on a regular basis, requests for used car lots that are wrapped up 
in some kind of a new package.  That reminds me of the statement 'a rose is a rose is a rose'; and a used car lot is a used 
car lot.  It seems to me that used car lots have to be treated for exactly what they are, and that is something that does not 
belong in a residential area.  It is the easiest way I know of to start running a place down.

Just because the person proposing it is well liked in the neighborhood is no guarantee, of course, that that person will be 
here next week.  Or that somebody else won't be running it.  The impact of used car lots on neighborhoods is well 
established and what they look like is well established.  I certainly can't support this."

BARFIELD "We are talking about approving this, and one of the things that has not been brought up is screening.  In 
particular, screening on the north side of where we have a residential area.  That is something that should be discussed."

GAROFALO "I have a question of staff.  Did the DAB III meet last night or the night before and take this up?"

LONGNECKER "No, sir, they did not."

GAROFALO "They didn't?"

LONGNECKER "No.  On Mr. Barfield's screening, one of the requirements that staff did put in the conditions if this was 
approved was that there be erected and maintained a 6-foot solid screen along the northern and western property lines, 
which is where the residential areas are.  So we do address screening along the residential sides."

WARREN "A couple of things.  One is on the screening.  If you went over there and looked at the first house north, I don't 
know which you would be screening against—against the house or the car lot.  It looks pretty bad.

Another thing, in response to Commissioner Platt's concerns, I think this board has taken a view that the small, well-run 
car lot is a very viable commercial interest, and instead of thinking of the old car lots like we used to have, we have put 
some restrictions on these car lots that makes them very desirable for neighborhood type businesses.  They are 
neighborhood type businesses.  So I don't go along at all with his perception, his vision, his mind's eye view of what a car 
lot is because obviously it is not what I have of the small neighborhood type car lots."

GAROFALO "I have lived in the neighborhood for almost 40 years now, south of that intersection and I know the 
neighborhood very well.  I think a car lot at that location is completely out of character with the neighborhood.  The 
intersection is retail as the staff pointed out.  It is retail, small businesses, a couple of restaurants.  There is an insurance 
office there, there is a barbershop—all little local retail things, and Mr. Shooter over there that runs Shooters, apparently 
runs a pretty good little business there.  Quite frankly, I haven't been in it.  But it is just out of character.  It is all of the 
things that the staff pointed out for the neighborhood.  

It is all completely single-family residential, to the north, to the south except for on the corner where the South City 
shopping center is, to the west.  Everything to the west of Hydraulic is totally single-family residential.  There is multi-
family east on Wassall.  To the northeast is all single-family residential.  I think it would tend to add to a deterioration of 
the neighborhood.  It is an old neighborhood, which has its problems anyway.  I think some sort of other small local type of 
retail that is similar to the other retail at the intersection there would be much more appropriate for that location than a 
used car lot."

MICHAELIS "This may be a little inappropriate, I don't know, but I am going to ask the maker of the motion something, 
because I have been informed that we probably didn't notify the DAB of this issue.  That is the reason why they didn't 
have any recommendation on it.  So in consideration of that, would you want to consider withdrawing your motion and 
deferring this to 2 or 3 weeks to have them have a chance to look at it?"

WARREN "I was out and inspected this site.  The sign has been on it as a zoning change.  We have notified the people 
within 200 feet, as I understand it and he has notified the people in that general area there.  We have nobody here 
protesting this, so no; I think the opportunity has been there for protesting if we were going to have it.  I think we would 
have had it now.  So I am going to leave my motion stand as it is."

MARNELL "I guess I continue to be baffled by this attitude toward small car lots.  How they are not retail businesses is 
just amazing to me.  Kitty-cornered across from this proposed site is a little strip center in which the owners of the strip 
center have no control over what that parking lot looks like and the kind of vehicles that are on there and what order they 
are even parked in.  That must make Frank just feel terrible when he drives by there to see that with all of those vehicles 
outdoors, compared to what a neat business would be on the opposite corner.  I don't understand that.  So I am certainly 
going to vote in favor of this motion.  But this bias against small car lots is a real strange one and I would suspect that 
everybody at this table drives a car, maybe not."

PLATT  "I just want to respond to the comment that with the restrictions that we put on used car lots now days that they 
are different than they used to be.  I look out my living room window at one and it was approved to have three cars on it as 
part of an operation.  I went by there this morning and there were 14 cars there for sale—on the sidewalk—parked every 
which way.  There was a transmission pulled out sitting there in the driveway.  You can't police all of them, and a used car 
lot is a used car lot.  They don't look good."

MICHAELIS "Mr. Warren, for clarification, is your motion intended to include all of the staff's recommendations for 
approval if we approve this?"

WARREN "Obviously not the denial."

MICHAELIS "I know, but the conditions that were set for it."

WARREN "Yes, items 1 through 11, and then also to include permanent closure of those two exterior driveways, closest 
to the intersection."

VOTE ON THE MOTION:	The motion carried with 10 votes in favor and 2 in 
opposition (Platt and Garofalo).

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

7.	Case No. ZON2001-00003 – Jarold E. Lewis requests zone change from "LC" Limited Commercial to "GC" 
General Commercial on property located on the northeast corner of Pawnee and Hillside.

DALE MILLER "The applicant would like to defer this case for 90 days to get some more estimates."

KROUT "That would be to May 10."

MICHAELIS "So, for him, you are asking for a 90 day referral.  Is there anyone in the audience here to speak in favor of 
this item?  Is there anyone here to speak against the item?  Okay, what is the pleasure of the Commission?"

MOTION:	That the item be deferred for 90 days.

JOHNSON moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously 
(12-0).

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


8.	Case No. CUP2001-00008 (DP-19 Amendment #2) – Mike Khoury (owner); Horizon Telecommunications and 
Cricket Communications (Applicants); Ferris Consulting c/o Greg Ferris (Agent) request a CUP amendment for 
a wireless communication facility on property described as:

Lot 1, Block A, West Center Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas
and
Lots 1 and 2, Hattrup Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas
and
Lot 1, First Place West Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas
and
Lot 1, Higgins-Andeel Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Located on the southeast corner of 
Central and Tyler.

SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area.  He reviewed 
the following staff report:

BACKGROUND:  The owner is seeking an amendment to the West Center CUP (DP-19) to permit the construction of a 
165-foot high monopole tower (see attached "Typical Equipment Layout") by Horizon Telecommunications for use by 
Cricket Communications.  The proposed site is zoned "LC" Limited Commercial.  The Unified Zoning Code requires a 
Conditional Use for Wireless Communication Facilities over 85 feet in height in the "LC" Limited Commercial zoning 
district.  Conditional uses for properties located within a CUP are considered by a request to amend the CUP.

The proposed tower would be sited on a 3,825 square foot area located near the southeast corner of Central and Tyler on 
a grassy area behind Spangles and between Legacy Bank and Intrust Bank (see attached "Tyler Tower Site").  The 
proposed tower would be located in a 45-foot by 85-foot compound with the tower and associated antennas located in the 
center of the compound and the ground-level communication equipment located in the northern portion of the compound.  
The compound would be screened by a 6-foot high wood fence.  Access to the compound would be provided through the 
CUPs cross-lot circulation agreement. 

The character of the surrounding area is commercial.  The properties surrounding the site in all directions are zoned "LC" 
Limited Commercial and are developed with numerous commercial businesses located on all four corners of the Central 
and Tyler Intersection.  The nearest property developed with residential uses is an apartment complex located 
approximately 400 feet to the east.  The nearest properties developed with single-family residences are located along 
Tyler approximately 500 feet to the southwest.

The subject property is located in the vicinity of Mid-Continent Airport; therefore, planning staff contacted airport staff to 
receive their input on the proposed tower.  Airport staff indicated that the site could possibly lie within a clearance corridor 
for the Runway 14 VOR approach; however, the airport staff will not be certain of any negative impacts on the operations 
of Mid-Continent until the FAA has reviewed the location of the requested monopole.  Therefore, the airport staff 
requested to review the FAA's decision regarding this monopole prior to the issuance of a building permit so that the 
airport staff may ask the FAA modify their decision if the airport staff feels the FAA has reached their decision in error.

The applicant indicates that the proposed wireless communication facility is part of a planned initial build-out of a wireless 
phone system by Cricket Communications, Inc.  The applicant's justification for the request (attached) indicates that this 
site is necessary for Cricket Communications, Inc. to provide wireless phone coverage in west Wichita and along west 
Kellogg and to provide handoffs from existing or approved sites located near 29th and Maize; Kellogg and Maize; 9th and 
Hoover; and Harry and Hoover.

The application also indicates that an existing monopole tower at Bishop Carroll School would require reconstruction and 
does not provide adequate coverage to residential areas in west Wichita or along Maize Road or 21st Street North.  The 
application does not include any cost information to compare the cost of reconstruction of the Bishop Carroll tower with 
the cost the proposed new tower.  Additionally, the application does not address the feasibility of co-locating on the 
existing monopole at Bishop Carroll at an available height of approximately 110 feet.

CASE HISTORY:  The subject property is platted as part of the Hattrup Addition, which was recorded on July 1, 1986.  
The subject property is also within the West Center CUP (DP-19), which as approved on October 4, 1966 and amended 
July 10, 1984.

ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:

NORTH:	"LC"	Legacy Bank
SOUTH:	"LC"	Strip retail/office center
EAST:	"LC"	Intrust Bank
WEST:	"LC"	Spangles restaurant

PUBLIC SERVICES:  No municipally-supplied utility services are required.  Access to the site will be provided through the 
CUPs cross-lot circulation agreement.

CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES:  The Wireless Communication Master Plan is an element of the 
Comprehensive Plan that outlines the guidelines for locating wireless communication facilities.  The Location Guidelines 
of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should be located:   1) on multi-story buildings or 
other structures; 2) on existing poles in street rights-of-way, parking lots, or athletic fields; 3) on existing towers for 
personal wireless services, AM/FM radio, television, school district microwave antennas, and private dispatch systems; 4) 
in wooded areas; 5) on identified city and county properties; or 6) on highway light standards, sign structures, and 
electrical support structures.  The Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new 
facilities should:  1) preserve the pre-existing character of the area; 2) minimize the height, mass, or proportion; 3) 
minimize the silhouette; 4) use colors, textures, and materials that blend in with the existing environment; 5) be concealed 
or disguised as a flagpole, clock tower, or church steeple; 6) be placed in areas where trees and/or buildings obscure 
some or all of the facility; 7) be placed on walls or roofs of buildings; 8) be screened through landscaping, walls, and/or 
fencing; and 9) not use strobe lighting.  The Unified Zoning Code requires wireless communication facilities to comply with 
a compatibility height standard of one foot of setback for each foot of structure height from adjoining properties zoned "TF-
3" or more restrictive.  This compatibility height standard can be reduced or waived through a CUP Amendment or a 
Zoning Adjustment.

RECOMMENDATION:  Planning staff finds that the proposed wireless communication facility does not conform to the 
guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan.  The proposed facility does not utilize existing towers in the area.  
The existing tower at Bishop Carroll could be reconstructed.  Additionally, space is available to co-locate on the existing 
tower at Bishop Carroll at a lower height.  Since the applicant has indicated that a new facility will be required in far west 
Wichita in the next phase of coverage, a co-location site at Bishop Carroll could be used in conjunction with a new facility 
located further to the west.  Planning staff finds that a new facility at the proposed location and a new facility located 
further to the west is an unnecessary proliferation of towers.  Based upon these factors and the information available prior 
to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be DENIED; however, if the MAPC finds the request 
appropriate,  Planning staff recommends that the MAPC make appropriate findings and that approval be subject to the 
following conditions:

A.	All requirements of Section III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met.
B.	The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the wireless communication facility, and the wireless 
communication facility shall be erected within one year of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing 
body, as applicable.
C.	The support structure shall be a "monopole" design that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte 
finish to minimize glare.
D.	The monopole shall not exceed 165 feet in height and shall be designed and constructed to accommodate 
communication equipment for at least four wireless service providers.
E.	The compound shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot high solid screening fence.
F.	The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plans and elevation drawings. All 
improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational.
G.	The applicant shall obtain FAA approval of the proposed wireless communication facility and shall comply with all 
conditions of FAA approval.  The applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval to the MAPD, Office of Central 
Inspection, and Director of Airport Engineering for the City of Wichita prior to the issuance of a building permit.
H.	The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
I.	Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void.

This recommendation is based on the following findings:

1.	The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The character of the surrounding area is commercial.  The 
properties surrounding the site in all directions are zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and are developed with 
numerous commercial businesses located on all four corners of the Central and Tyler Intersection.  The nearest 
property developed with residential uses is an apartment complex located approximately 400 feet to the east.  
The nearest properties developed with single-family residences are located along Tyler approximately 500 feet 
to the southwest.

2.	The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted:  The site is zoned "LC" 
General Commercial, and could be developed with uses permitted by the West Center CUP.  Wireless 
communication facilities in excess of 85 feet in height in the "LC" district may be permitted as a Conditional Use, 
but typically should conform to the guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan.

3.	Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property:  Approving a second facility 
in the vicinity of Central and Tyler when the applicant has not demonstrated that the existing facility cannot be 
used would have a negative visual impact on nearby residential properties.

4.	Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan:  The proposed 
wireless communication facility does not conform to the guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan.  
The proposed facility does not utilize existing towers in the area.  The existing tower at Bishop Carroll could be 
reconstructed.  Additionally, space is available to co-locate on the existing tower at Bishop Carroll at a lower 
height.  Since the applicant has indicated that a new facility will be required in far west Wichita in the next phase 
of coverage, a co-location site at Bishop Carroll could be used in conjunction with a new facility located further 
to the west.  Planning staff finds that a new facility at the proposed location and a new facility located further to 
the west is an unnecessary proliferation of towers.

5.	Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Access to the site will be provided through the 
CUPs cross-lot circulation agreement, so no negative impacts on community facilities are anticipated.

PLATT "As an owner of a building and President of the Board of Directors that rents out roof-top space for antenna users, 
I will step down on this item."

MICHAELIS "Okay.  Let the record show that Dr. Platt is stepping down from this case."

KNEBEL "This item is a request to amend the West Center Community Unit Plan to permit the construction of a 165-foot 
high monopole tower.  The property is located at the southeast corner of Central and Tyler and is zoned Limited 
Commercial.  A Limited Commercial district permits towers up to 85 feet in height with administrative approval.  Since the 
tower exceeds that height, the request for the Community Unit Plan amendment was submitted.  The staff report indicates 
that the site is on a grassy area behind Spangles.  I have since discussed it with the applicant and he does indicate that it 
is actually on an asphalt area, which is just immediately adjacent to the grassy area.  It is still right behind Spangles and in 
between two bank buildings on the south side of Central.

Immediately surrounding the area is very commercial.  There is a shopping center to the south and restaurants and more 
shopping to the west.  To the northwest, and to the northeast are banks.  The nearest residential uses are located 
approximately 400 feet to the east and are developed with an apartment complex.  The applicant submitted a plot that 
shows the area with two alternative sites that the applicant considered.  

The company in question who would be utilizing this tower at the time of application, the applicant indicated that it would 
be Cricket Communications.  Since the time the staff report was prepared, they have also provided documentation from 
another company, Nextel Communications that also intends to utilize the site.  Staff has recommended that this request 
be denied, primarily based on the location of an existing monopole tower in this location (indicating).  This is the requested 
location (indicating).