METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 27, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, January 27, 2000, 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: Frank Garofalo, Chair; James Barfield; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson (late arrival); Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell; John W. McKay, Jr.; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Ray Warren; Harold Warner, Jr.; and Deanna Wheeler. Chris Carraher was not present. Staff members present were: Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Lisa Verts, Senior Planner, Barry Carroll, Associate Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Approval of MAPC minutes for November 29, 1999. GAROFALO “On Page 36, on the vacation case No. V-2190, I think the motion and the vote on it has been omitted.” KROUT “It does look like we are missing the motion on that.” MOTION: That the minutes be approved as amended. GAROFALO moved, PLATT seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson arrived at the meeting at 1:37 p.m. 2. Subdivision Committee items 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 2/4 were approved, subject to Subdivision Committee recommendations. MCKAY moved, WARREN seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on Items 2/1 through 2/4? Okay, we have a motion to approve.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor. There was no opposition. -------------------------------------------------------------- 2/1. S/D - 00-02 – One-Step Final Plat of CHEROKEE ACRES ADDITION, located, west of 231st St. West, on the north side of 47th St. South. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A restrictive covenant is required for the twin lagoon system. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. An off-site Floodway Reserve Easement Agreement is required to continue the drainage towards 231st St. West. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. Access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. Two access openings are permitted for the site. E. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. F. The dimension along the north line of the plat needs to correspond with the dimension denoted within the legal description. G. The County Surveyor has commented that the plat boundary does not close. G. 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.) H. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. I. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. J. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. K. The owner of the subdivision should 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. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. O. 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/2. S/D 00-03 – One-step final plat of STARWEST ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of 37th Street North and Ridge Road. A. The site is currently located outside of the Northwest Wichita Sanitary Sewer growth limits. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. City/County Engineering needs to indicate the need for any other guarantees or easements. City Engineering has requested a utility easement along the south line of the plat for sanitary sewer. The Applicant shall provide a restrictive covenant prohibiting development until the site can be serviced by sanitary sewer. 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. A guarantee is required. E. City Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along both Ridge Road and 37th St. North in accordance with the approved CUP. The CUP approval also required that the joint openings between Lots 3 and 4 and between Lots 4 and 5 be limited to right turns only, or a guarantee provided for future construction of a raised median if deemed necessary by Traffic Engineering. The dedication of access controls shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. E. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. F. The final plat tracing shall state in the plattor’s text the purposes of Reserve A as well as who is to own and maintain the reserve. G. The plattor’s text shall include the standard floodway language. H. The joint access openings shall be established by separate instrument. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant 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. K. A CUP Certificate shall be submitted to MAPD prior to City Council consideration, identifying the approved CUP (referenced as DP-250) and its special conditions for development on this property. L. The final tracing shall include a note that this plat is subject to the conditions of DP-250. M. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for traffic improvements. The CUP required a continuous right-turn decel lane and a left-turn storage lane from the intersection to the major entrance on 37th Street North and the major entrance on Ridge Road. The CUP also required the Applicant to guarantee 12.5% of the cost of signalization of the intersection of 37th St. North and Ridge Road. N. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for street improvements. The CUP required a guarantee for paving along the frontage of 37th Street North. O. In accordance with the CUP, a cross-lot circulation agreement shall be provided which provides at least two points of access from 37th Street North to the property north of the plat. P. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. Q. 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.) R. 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. S. 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. T. 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. U. 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. V. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. W. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. X. 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. Y. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/3. D-1783 – Dedication of Street Right-of-way from W.R. Kenney, for property generally located on the southeast corner of 21st street North and Waco. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Constance M. Kenney Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split (L/S-1030), City Engineering requested additional street right-of- way. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/4. D-1784 – Dedication of a Utility Easement from W.R. Kenney, for property generally located on the southeast corner of 21st Street North and Waco. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 20 feet of the west 160.60 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Constance M. Kenney Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, except the north 226.82 feet thereof; and the south 10 feet of the north 226.82 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Constance M. Kenney Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of a Lot Split (L/S-1030) and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 3. Case No. CU-561 – Dillon Stores, Intrust Bank National Assn. ETAL Trustees (owner); PEC, c/o Rob Hartman (agent) request a Conditional Use on 5.6 acres to permit a seasonal nursery and garden center, described as: Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Westforn Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the northeast corner of 13th Street North and West Street. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to add a seasonal nursery and garden center to the Dillons Store located at the northeast corner of 13th Street North and West Street. The property is currently zoned “LC” Limited Commercial. Nurseries and garden centers that do not meet the outdoor display and storage restrictions of the “LC” Limited Commercial district are permitted only as a “Conditional Use,” in conformance with requirements in Section III-D.6.z of the Unified Zoning Code. The nursery/garden center is proposed for location on the eastern side of the lot, situated between the Dillons Store and 13th Street. The remainder of the 5.6? acre tract is occupied by Dillons Super Store, parking, and a drive-up bank facility. The greenhouse is 21’ X 27’ in size, and is surrounded by a seasonal retail area for outdoor storage plants and landscape supplies. A fence encloses the outdoor display area. The overall size of the nursery/garden center is 3,216 square feet, less than 0.1 acres, and eliminates 10 parking spaces. After removal of 10 spaces, the amount of parking provided would still exceed required parking requirements, including requirements for the garden center. The requirements of Section III-D.6.z of the UZC stipulate that garden centers should be located on arterial streets or expressways, be screened when adjacent to residential zoning districts, and have display/storage areas within an enclosed building or screening fence (if required) or be adjacent to the building. Additionally, the display/storage areas should not be within 25 feet of the right-of-way or be located within required parking spaces. Other restrictions include: having lights shielded away from adjoining properties, prohibiting string lights, prohibiting sound projecting devices or loudspeakers that could be heard beyond the property boundaries, and prohibiting the outdoor repair or servicing of vehicles and equipment. A site plan is required that shows the location of structures, ingress/egress, off-street parking, loading, on-site circulation, and designates storage/display areas. One final aspect of this section is the provision that MAPC may establish other conditions it deems necessary for the protection of adjacent property, and including the maintenance of property. It can also require periodic reports of compliance to be prepared. The proposed site plan addresses requirements for this “Conditional Use.” There is no separate provision for loading/unloading at the garden center site, but would use the adjacent parking area. The site is located on a portion of Lot 1 of Westforn Addition, which also includes the Dillons Store and the drive-in bank facility on the western side of Dillons. Lot 2 of Westforn Addition is a triangular parcel on the northeast of Lot 1 that is zoned “B” Multi- Family and is used for parking, pursuant to a use exception for off-street parking on property zoned “B” (BZA 33-94). A seasonal garden center has been located at this Dillons Store in the past, but not for the last few years. Commercial uses are located on the four corners of the intersection, and to the east of the site. Sycamore Park is located to the northeast, and has a common boundary line for a short distance along Lot 2. CASE HISTORY: Westforn Addition was recorded June 5, 1957. As previously discussed, a use exception was granted for Lot 2 to be used for off-street parking on property zoned “B” Multi-Family on November 22, 1994. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC” Limited Commercial; KAKE SOUTH: ”LC” Limited Commercial Commercial uses EAST: “LC” Limited Commercial; Wichita Municipal Federal Credit Union; “B” Multi-Family; Sycamore Park WEST: “LC” Limited Commercial; Vacant restaurant building PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access to West Street, a four-lane arterial, and 13th Street North, a four-lane arterial, both with left-turn lanes. 1997 ADTs were 17,141 on 13th Street North and 11.750 on West Street. 13th Street is scheduled for widening to a five-lane standard, with a continuous two-way center left turn lane from West Street to St. Paul in 2008 in the City of Wichita 2000-2009 Capital Improvements Plan. Municipal water and sanitary sewer, services are available. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial use. The Plan recommends that commercial developments of this size should be located in “planned centers” versus extended strip developments. Such “centers” should be designed with shared internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, combined signage, similar landscaping and building materials, and combined ingress/egress locations. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends that the requested “Conditional Use” for nursery and garden center be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The seasonal nursery and greenhouse shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan, attached hereto and made a part of this application. 2. The seasonal nursery and garden center shall be located in a temporary structure and shall operate for no more than 120 days during a calendar year. 3. The nursery/garden center shall conform to all requirements of Section III-D.6.z of the Unified Zoning Code. No chain link fencing shall be permitted as part of the screening requirements. 4. Prior to the utilization of the outdoor garden area covered by this amendment, the applicant shall annually submit a report to the Zoning Enforcement Division of the Office of Central Inspection that demonstrates compliance with the approved site plan and conditions specified in this amendment. 5. Any violation of the conditions approved as a part of this request 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 area has commercial uses located on four corners of 13th Street North and West Street, and to the east of the site, although none of the other uses involve outdoor display/storage. The proposed seasonal nursery and garden center is located close to the Dillons building and away from 13th Street and West Street. A park is located to the northeast of the rear triangular portion of the site that is used as off-street parking. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: This portion of the Dillons site is currently used for parking, but has been used as a temporary seasonal nursery and garden center in previous years. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The nursery and garden center would be visible to traffic travelling along 13th Street North, but visibility would be lessened by its placement near the front of the grocery store rather than near the street and by existing screening on the east of the parking lot. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: Commercial development on this site conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The addition could potentially generate a small amount of additional traffic by increasing the number of retail functions operating on the site. However, most patrons would be expected to be shopping at Dillons for other retail items, rather than making a separate trip to the garden center. The existing arterial should be adequate for handling the modest traffic increase generated by the nursery and garden center. MCKAY “Mr. Chair, I will have to abstain on this item. I own a Quik-Trip location at 47th Street and Seneca, which the Dillon’s Corporation owns. I will step down because of conflict of interest.” GAROFALO “Okay.” GOLTRY “This case is very similar to the cases that we heard at a previous MAPC meeting about a month ago where we had five applications for seasonal nursery and garden centers for Dillons. The difference is that all five of those were associated with Community Unit Plans and this is a stand-alone which is associated with a Conditional Use because there is no Community Unit Plan in place for this smaller center. This is a very small site that they are proposing to use, located right off the corner of the end of the building. It is commercial along 13th Street, but beyond 13th, there are apartments. The proposed site plan addresses all of the requirements of seasonal nursery and garden centers with the exception that they don't have a specific place for off-street loading and parking, but they do have ample area right along the area to do so without it being an inconvenience. There are commercial uses on all four corners of the intersection as well as on all sides of this use, except for Sycamore Park. I should have pointed out that beyond the Dillons to the north is KAKE-TV, a fairly large facility. It conforms with the Comprehensive Plan with the recommendation for commercial on this corner. The conditions that we have attached to it are the same as the conditions that we heard in the previous cases for Dillons with the exception that I did include the seasonal use being 120 days in duration, which was added by the Commission at the previous hearings. In addition, we specified that no chain-link fencing could be used as any part of their screening, which is also the case in the others because chain-link is not an approved fencing material within CUPs. I will stand for questions.” GAROFALO “Donna, on the 120 days in the other cases, did we have anything about removal of the structure?” GOLTRY “No, we did not. What they have to do is comply with the seasonal temporary nature of the structure with OCI, who would make them take it up and then they would do follow-up inspections to remove it.” GAROFALO “You don’t think we need that in there?” GOLTRY “We could add it, but it is probably taken care of through OCI.” MICHAELIS “Donna, do I understand the 120 days to be a total of 120 days out of the year, whether it is broken up into spring, summer and fall, however it is broken up?” GOLTRY “Right. I would think that they would want to put it up and down only one time because they hit their season from the early spring through mid-summer, when they take them down.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, we will hear from the applicant.” ROB HARTMAN “I am here on behalf of the applicant. We are in agreement with the staff comments. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them for you now.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the applicant? No? Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this item? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we will take it back to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The area has commercial uses located on four corners of 13th Street North and West Street, and to the east of the site, although none of the other uses involve outdoor display/storage. The proposed seasonal nursery and garden center is located close to the Dillons building and away from 13th Street and West Street. A park is located to the northeast of the rear triangular portion of the site that is used as off-street parking. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: This portion of the Dillons site is currently used for parking, but has been used as a temporary seasonal nursery and garden center in previous years. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The nursery and garden center would be visible to traffic travelling along 13th Street North, but visibility would be lessened by its placement near the front of the grocery store rather than near the street and by existing screening on the east of the parking lot. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: Commercial development on this site conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The addition could potentially generate a small amount of additional traffic by increasing the number of retail functions operating on the site. However, most patrons would be expected to be shopping at Dillons for other retail items, rather than making a separate trip to the garden center. The existing arterial should be adequate for handling the modest traffic increase generated by the nursery and garden center.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The seasonal nursery and greenhouse shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan, attached hereto and made a part of this application. 2. The seasonal nursery and garden center shall be located in a temporary structure and shall operate for no more than 120 days during a calendar year. 3. The nursery/garden center shall conform to all requirements of Section III-D.6.z of the Unified Zoning Code. No chain link fencing shall be permitted as part of the screening requirements. 4. Prior to the utilization of the outdoor garden area covered by this amendment, the applicant shall annually submit a report to the Zoning Enforcement Division of the Office of Central Inspection that demonstrates compliance with the approved site plan and conditions specified in this amendment. 5. Any violation of the conditions approved as a part of this request shall render the “Conditional Use” null and void. LOPEZ moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried with 12 votes in favor. There was no opposition. McKay abstained. Carraher was not present. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Case No. CU 560 – Mahmoud Fazelipour (owner); Harvey and Linda Farha (Contract Purchasers); Mallard Real Estate, c/o Dennis Schmidt (Agent) request Conditional Use to allow a personal care service on property described as: Lot 3, except the East 62 feet thereof, Jim Fisher Addition, Wichita, Kansas, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located west of Woodlawn on the south side of Central (5921 E. Central). LISA VERTS, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use to allow a personal care service on 0.17 acres of platted property zoned “GO” General Office in the Jim Fisher Addition located west of Woodlawn on the south side of Central. The request is being made to allow the applicant (contract purchaser) to open a barber and beauty shop at this location. Currently, this site is a single-family residence, but will be converted to allow the intended use. The current owner previously constructed a paved parking area in the rear yard, south of the structure, in anticipation of using this site for other than residential uses. Personal care services are allowed as a permitted use in the “NR” Neighborhood Retail district, but require a Conditional Use permit in the “GO” district. The surrounding uses are mixed in nature. There are single-family homes to the south, east and west. However, many of the homes on the south side of Central between Brookside Parkway and Hillcrest Avenue have converted to office and personal care uses. Across Central Avenue is a variety of commercial, retail, and restaurant uses. The applicant submitted a site plan that shows the re-use of the existing home as the barber/beauty shop. The applicant proposes to accommodate parking to the rear of the existing structure, using the existing paved parking area. The square footage of the structure necessitates four parking spaces, one of which shall be handicap accessible; these requirements can be easily met given the paved area south of the structure. The driveway to this lot and rear parking area is temporary, until such time that the property to the east is re-developed. At this time, as per the plat and accepted access management practices, access would be relocated from the west side to the east side of the lot and shared between the two parcels of Lot 3, with parking and cross-lot access at the rear of all structures. CASE HISTORY: This history is intended to provide an idea of how the property owners and the Planning Commission planned for redevelopment on the south side of Central Avenue when the property was rezoned and replatted in 1987 and 1988, and a portion subsequently rezoned in 1996. The lots south of Central Avenue between Brookside Parkway and Hillcrest Avenue were rezoned to “GO” General Office on December 8, 1987. This rezone approval was subject to re-platting, with the direction that the plat should address the location of housing, existing and proposed driveway locations, proposed parking areas, setbacks, and the grouping of lots, with joint use of access and circulation to rear lots to be encouraged. The zone change was also subject to a restrictive covenant that prohibited any of these lots from being combined or utilized in any way with the residentially zoned property to the south and fronting on Oakwood Drive. The restriction was intended to prohibit any Conditional Use for off-street parking on any lots that front Oakwood Drive by owners of the lots along Central Avenue. The area was re-platted as Jim Fisher Addition on July 28, 1988. The plat combined several of the lots from the older plat (Oakwood Estates 2nd Addition) into a 5-lot plat, with each lot limited to one access opening to Central Avenue. This application is for a Conditional Use on a portion of one of those 5 lots. The consolidation of the existing access drives was to occur incrementally as the lots redeveloped. On January 9, 1996, the Wichita City Council approved rezoning for the west portion of Lot 5, Jim Fisher Addition to “NR” Neighborhood Retail for use as a beauty salon. This rezone was subject to a restrictive covenant being placed on the property that restricted the uses to those allowed in the “GO” General Office district and a hair stylist salon. Additionally, this restrictive covenant stated that when the remaining portions of Lot 5 were redeveloped, the subject property shall provide joint access from a paved rear parking area, south of the structure. At such time parking shall be removed from the front of the structure and replaced with landscaping. Item 3 of the restrictive covenant states that “the subject property shall provide access to Lot 4, Jim Fisher Addition, along the west property line for circulation between the rear parking areas.” In keeping with the intent of MAPC and the re-plat to the Jim Fisher Addition, conditions stipulated for other properties in this area should apply to this request. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC” – “Hometown Buffet” and other commercial, retail, and office uses SOUTH: “SF-6” – Single-Family Home EAST: “GO” – Single-Family Home WEST: “GO” – Single-Family Home PUBLIC SERVICES: Public services are available to this site. Access to this site is from Central Avenue, a designated arterial. Central Avenue has recorded 1997 traffic volumes of 23,000 average daily trips (ADTs) west of Woodlawn with projected ADTs of 29,000 by 2030. There are expansion plans for Central and Woodlawn Avenues to make them 5-lane arterials. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being appropriate for a mixture of office and medium-density residential uses. Although a barber and beauty shop is considered more retail in nature by the Unified Zoning Code, this use is permitted in the General Office zoning district as a Conditional Use where the location and circumstances are appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Based on information available prior to public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request for a Conditional Use be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits, including but not limited to: building, health, and zoning. 2. The applicant shall provide parking south of the existing structure in the paved rear yard with access to the parking area along the west property line. This access off of Central Avenue shall be temporary, until such time as the other property in Lot 3 (east), Jim Fisher Addition, is redeveloped for other than residential uses. At such time, the applicant shall provide joint access to the rear parking lot along the east property line with cross-lot access, remove the driveway along the west property line, and share in the construction of a standard two-lane driveway to the parking area. 3. The owner of the subject property shall provide access to Lot 2, Jim Fisher Addition, along the west property line for circulation between the rear parking areas, unless the city engineer determines that grading considerations make this impractical. 4. Any violation of these conditions shall render this Conditional Use permit null and void. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The south side of Central is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, home occupations, and office uses as permitted in the “GO” General Office district, with some specific use exceptions. The requested Condition Use for a personal care service would be consistent with the zoning surrounding the subject property in three directions. 2. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already been restricted: The subject property could be developed with uses as stipulated by the “GO” General Office District. The Unified Zoning Code allows for additional uses through the application of a Conditional Use permit, provided the applicant and site meet the review criteria as stipulated by said Code. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: This area is transitional in nature, with a general use shift from residential to office and service uses. With the provision of parking being located at the rear of the property and appropriate screening from the residential property, the approval of this Conditional Use permit should not have significant impact on the surrounding property owners or the safety of traffic along Central Avenue. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The zoning code anticipated this type of use and makes specific provision for it. Approval of this request will not be contrary to any Comprehensive Plan policies or guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None Identified, provided the parking area is placed at the rear of the subject property, south of the existing structure. VERTS “The applicant wishes to take the existing residential home and use it for a beauty salon/barber shop. This may sound familiar and this area may look familiar. You approved the same type of Conditional Use except it was for a tailor shop on property slightly east of this. As I mentioned, there is a residence on this lot that is being used as a single-family residence. At one point, the owner of that house had wanted to use this facility for something other than a single-family residence and had paved the entire back yard for parking, so it is set up for parking and there is ample parking space provided for this use. To the rear of this lot is still single-family residential zoning, and across the street is commercial development. The conditions staff recommends are very similar to the case you heard on December 16. Those conditions being that the existing driveway, as it goes to the rear yard, shall be a temporary driveway until such time that the property to the east is redeveloped for other than non-residential uses. This condition is because that whole side of Central that was rezoned to General Office was also replatted at the same time. Those individual residential lots were made into larger lots and given one point of access for each lot. So this lot here (indicating) is actually in conjunction with the house that is to the east, so once that redevelops into something other than a residential use, the driveway on this side of the lot would then move to the east side, and that would be a shared driveway back to parking lots at the rear of both of those structures. Also, at the time that the house to the west redevelops, we would like to see cross lot access between those two lots in the back as well. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.” MCKAY “In the past, do you have a layout of this driveway configuration?” VERTS “As it is right now?” MCKAY “No, no, as you proposed. I know that at one time we had a question, and here is another example. The drive is going to be on the west of the building until the one on the east develops. Do we have an overall plan somewhere that we can have as Commissioners so when this comes up again, we can have a reference?” VERTS “I haven’t seen one. I think it was a conceptual plan when that plat was submitted, but I haven’t seen anything on paper.” MCKAY “It is kind of confusing for some of the new people who haven’t been here what is really going on, so even if it was a conceptual layout where we could see it, it would help a lot.” VERTS “I understand.” WARREN “Did the plat itself show some restrictions there to egress/ingress?” VERTS “It just gave one point of access per lot.” WARREN “That being a new lot?” VERTS “Right, the new lots. You can imagine that all of these lots looked like this (indicating). They were individual residential lots. When they were replatted, this is one lot, this is one lot. Three of these were pushed into one lot, two here, three, three, and I can’t quite see that one down there.” WARREN “They have all agreed to this plat?” KROUT “Yes, they did. We will have them sign an agreement.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” MARNELL “I assume that the dedication they are going to make on the east side of their lot for the joint driveway would only be their portion of the driveway and part of it would be contributed from the other lot?” VERTS “Correct.” MARNELL “Okay, thank you.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, we will hear from the applicant.” HARVEY FARHA “I am the applicant for this property. I am going to put in a hair styling salon. The house is basically a two- bedroom house and we are going to use it for a 2 or 3 station hairstyling salon. Are there any questions?” GAROFALO “Are you in agreement with the conditions in the staff report?” FARHA “As far as the driveway and the parking?” GAROFALO “Yes.” FARHA “I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, it would be better for me if it was done that way because Central is so hard to get out on, so if there was more than one way to get in and out or maneuverability, it would be better for me.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? Okay then, 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 south side of Central is characterized by a mixture of residential uses, home occupations, and office uses as permitted in the “GO” General Office district, with some specific use exceptions. The requested Condition Use for a personal care service would be consistent with the zoning surrounding the subject property in three directions. Suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has already been restricted: The subject property could be developed with uses as stipulated by the “GO” General Office District. The Unified Zoning Code allows for additional uses through the application of a Conditional Use permit, provided the applicant and site meet the review criteria as stipulated by said Code. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: This area is transitional in nature, with a general use shift from residential to office and service uses. With the provision of parking being located at the rear of the property and appropriate screening from the residential property, the approval of this Conditional Use permit should not have significant impact on the surrounding property owners or the safety of traffic along Central Avenue. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The zoning code anticipated this type of use and makes specific provision for it. Approval of this request will not be contrary to any Comprehensive Plan policies or guidelines. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None Identified, provided the parking area is placed at the rear of the subject property, south of the existing structure.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits, including but not limited to: building, health, and zoning. 2. The applicant shall provide parking south of the existing structure in the paved rear yard with access to the parking area along the west property line. This access off of Central Avenue shall be temporary, until such time as the other property in Lot 3 (east), Jim Fisher Addition, is redeveloped for other than residential uses. At such time, the applicant shall provide joint access to the rear parking lot along the east property line with cross-lot access, remove the driveway along the west property line, and share in the construction of a standard two-lane driveway to the parking area. 3. At such time when the property to the west is redeveloped for other than residential uses, the owner of the subject property shall provide access to Lot 2, Jim Fisher Addition, along the west property line for circulation between the rear parking areas, unless the city engineer determines that grading considerations make this impractical. 5. Any violation of these conditions shall render this Conditional Use permit null and void. MICHAELIS moved, MARNELL seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Case No. Z-3351 – CAP Carpet, Inc., c/o Aaron Pirner (Owner); Greg Perkins (Agent) request zone change from “TF-3” Two-Family Residential to “LC” Limited Commercial on property described as: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Carriage House Plaza Addition, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located north of Kellogg and west of Woodchuck. LISA VERTS, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from the “TF-3” Two-Family Residential zoning district to the “LC” Limited Commercial zoning district for the 0.55-acre platted Lots 4 and 5, of the Carriage House Plaza Addition located west of Woodchuck and south of Hendryx Lane. The application area is to be used, along with the “LC” zoned property adjacent to the south, for the future home of the Stone Mountain Carpet Mill Store, which will be re-locating from their present location because of the reconstruction of the Kellogg-Tyler intersection. The two lots directly to the west were recently rezoned to “LC” Limited Commercial in conjunction with a Conditional Use to allow outdoor display for Ultra Modern Pool and Patio (different applicant). The MAPC approved a Protective Overlay (PO) on these two lots to provide additional buffering for the residents to the north. This PO required a masonry wall to be built along the 25-foot building setback line along Hendryx and additional landscaping within the 25-foot building setback and north of the masonry wall. For consistency with the property to the west and the commercial development in this area, a PO, which includes the restriction of access along Hendryx, should be attached to the subject property. The properties surrounding the application area are zoned “LC” Limited Commercial to the west, south, and east. The property to the west will be used for pool and patio sales and the property to the east is currently used for financial services. The property to the south is currently vacant, but will be used in conjunction with the subject lots for general retail sales. The lots to the north are zoned “SF-6” Single-family residential and used for residential uses. CASE HISTORY: The subject property was platted as the Carriage House Plaza Addition in 1971 and rezoned to “LC” Limited Commercial and “TF-3” Two-family Residential, subject to that plat. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” – Single-Family Residence SOUTH: “LC” – Vacant, future home of Stone Mountain Carpet Mill Store EAST: “LC” – Farm Credit Services WEST: “LC” – approved for Ultra Modern Pool and Patio PUBLIC SERVICES: Municipal water and sewer service is available to this site. The property has access to Kellogg Drive, a frontage road for Kellogg (US-54). Kellogg is shown as a divided four-lane freeway on the 2020 Transportation Plan with existing traffic volumes of approximately 40,000 average daily trips (ADT). The 2030 Transportation Plan projects traffic along Kellogg to increase to approximately 90,000 ADT for this segment. The latest edition of the Transportation Improvement Program shows Kellogg becoming a 6-lane freeway around 2001-2. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for commercial uses. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends that the request to extend “LC” zoning to Hendryx be APPROVED, subject to a Protective Overlay with the following provisions: A. A masonry wall shall be constructed along the 25-foot building setback line of Hendryx Street. B. Landscaping shall be planted on the north side of the wall at the rate of at least the equivalent of 1 shade tree or 2 ornamentals or 10 shrubs per 30 feet where across the street from “SF-6” zoning. C. There shall be no points of access along the Hendryx frontage. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The properties surrounding the application area are a mix of zoning districts and land uses. The lots to the north are zoned “SF-6” Single-family residential and used for residential uses. To the east of the subject property are lots zoned “LC” Limited Commercial that is used as a financial institution. The area to the south is the existing vacant “LC” zoned property and Kellogg Highway (US-54). South of the US-54 is “LI” Limited Industrial zoned land used for car sales. To the west is land that is zoned “LC” and the future home of Ultra Modern Pool and Patio. The restrictions applicable by the Unified Zoning Code and supplemented as stated above through the Protective Overlay have further made this request compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The application area is currently zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential. This site, which is adjacent to “LC” zoning on three sides, would be inappropriate for single- or two-family residences. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: With the provisions of the Unified Zoning Code and the Protective Overlay, detrimental impacts on the adjacent properties should be minimized. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed us in conformance with the Adopted Plan guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None identified. VERTS “Staff is in support of the rezoning with the Protective Overlay. We would also like to add, in addition to the masonry wall and the landscaping north of the masonry wall that there be no points of access on Hendryx, the unimproved street in the back. I would stand for questions at this time.” WARNER “Are there any requirements on the height of this wall? VERTS “There are not. Perhaps Dale can recall if there were any on the Ultra-Modern wall.” MILLER “The height was to be 6 to 8 feet.” VERTS “Okay.” GAROFALO “Should we include that?” VERTS “Yes, we can include that.” MARNELL “Should we require this wall to match up with the one that we are putting on the property next to it?” VERTS “Match in appearance? That is a fair question.” MARNELL “It seems like it should because you have the folks across the street facing that way. Similar material, etc.” WARREN “I think this is going to be common, then, with the lot to the south and this is going to join up and become one.” WHEELER “What is the height limitation on the building? Is it like 35 feet?” VERTS “I think in the ‘LC’ it is 35 feet.” KROUT “I think it could be taller than 35 feet. Dale, what is the base height in ‘LC’?” MILLER “But this is in the CUP, isn’t it?” VERTS “No.” MILLER “Okay, then yes, it can be taller in ‘LC’. I forget exactly what it is, but I will look it up for you.” WHEELER “The reason I asked if the Ultra Modern building was an existing building and is that an established height.” MILLER “It is 80 foot plus 2 foot of additional height for each foot of setback.” KROUT “We probably haven’t looked at the Zoning Code standards for a long time, but whether you are talking about General Office, Limited Commercial or General Commercial, we are very liberal about buildings, but the market here hasn’t ever learned that people are going to multi-story buildings. So unless there was a specific situation where there was a need to limit building heights, we have felt like the size of parcels like this in the market are pretty much limiting these to one and two story heights.” WARREN ”Well, even a two story building would be substantially less than 35 foot.” WHEELER “Yes, and 80 feet is a whole other story.” VERTS “But Marvin, we can only limit that to the back two lots, correct? We couldn’t say anything about the front lot that is not part of this application, right?” KROUT “No. Because they are going to be used together, and because it is in single ownership, we could possibly.” WARREN “Is there any kind of a site plan on this to see is he going to use that for parking or anything?” VERTS “No. There was no site plan submitted.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, then we will hear from the applicant or agent.” GREG PERKINS “I am with CAP Carpet, Inc. Stone Mountain carpet is a division of CAP Carpet, and we have no problem in adhering with the Protective Overlay provisions here and we will probably work real closely with Ultra Modern so that the wall will match. We might just do it at the same time they want to do their wall. As far as the building, it is really going to replace our building that we have at Tyler and Kellogg right now, so it is not going to be more than two stories.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of the applicant?” HENTZEN “Greg, I believe that we are insisting for you to bring that wall in 25 feet and then put some landscaping on the outside of it?” PERKINS “Right, on the north of the wall.” HENTZEN “are you accustomed to taking care of that part of your property if it is on the outside of the wall?” PERKINS “Yes, we know that we will need to do that. And there probably will be parking just on the south side of the wall, too.” HENTZEN “Okay.” WHEELER “Would you have a problem if we would limit the height restriction at least back so far to two stories, or whatever that would be equivalent to?” PERKINS “That would be fine.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we will take it back to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The properties surrounding the application area are a mix of zoning districts and land uses. The lots to the north are zoned “SF-6” Single-family residential and used for residential uses. To the east of the subject property are lots zoned “LC” Limited Commercial that is used as a financial institution. The area to the south is the existing vacant “LC” zoned property and Kellogg Highway (US-54). South of the US-54 is “LI” Limited Industrial zoned land used for car sales. To the west is land that is zoned “LC” and the future home of Ultra Modern Pool and Patio. The restrictions applicable by the Unified Zoning Code and supplemented as stated above through the Protective Overlay have further made this request compatible with the neighborhood. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The application area is currently zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential. This site, which is adjacent to “LC” zoning on three sides, would be inappropriate for single- or two-family residences. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: With the provisions of the Unified Zoning Code and the Protective Overlay, detrimental impacts on the adjacent properties should be minimized. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed us in conformance with the Adopted Plan guidelines. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: None identified.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the application be approved, subject to the following: 1. A 6- to 8-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the 25-foot building setback line of Hendryx Street. This wall shall be constructed of similar materials and have the same general appearance as the wall required for Lots 6 and 7, directly to the west. 2. All structures within the subject property shall be limited to a maximum height of 35 feet. 3. Landscaping shall be planted on the north side of the wall at the rate of at least the equivalent of 1 shade tree or 2 ornamentals or 10 shrubs per 30 feet where across the street from “SF-6” zoning. 4. There shall be no points of access along the Hendryx frontage. WHEELER moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion? Okay.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor and no opposition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6a. Case No. Z-3352 – Five Star Investors LLC c/o Doug Malone (Contract Purchaser), Chad M. Brehm, and R. A. King (Applicants) Baughman Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agent) request zone change from “GO” General Office and “B” Multi-Family Residential; and 6b. Case No. CU-563 – Five Star Investors LLC c/o Doug Malone (contract Purchaser), Chad M. Brehm, and R. A. King (Applicants) Baughman Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agent) request a Conditional Use to allow a car wash within 200 feet of a residential zoning district, on property described as: Lot 1, Andrew Boyd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; together with Lots 39-48, Block 13, East Highlands, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located on the northwest corner of Central and Old Manor. 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 applicant is requesting a zone change to “LC” Limited Commercial and a Conditional Use to allow a car wash to be located within 200 feet of a residential zoning district. The application area is a 1.1 acre platted tract located at the northwest corner of Central and Old Manor. The site is currently zoned “GO” General Office and “B” Multi-Family Residential. The site is currently developed with six fourplexes, four of which are vacant including one that partially burned in a fire. The site of the two occupied fourplexes is proposed for “LC” Limited Commercial zoning with no use specified other than redevelopment for commercial use. A car wash in “LC” Limited Commercial zoning is proposed for the site of the four vacant fourplexes. The attached site plan shows an eight-bay car wash with six self-service bays and two automatic bays without dryers. These wash bays are located 63 feet south of the north property line and 30 feet north of the street right-of-way for Central. The site plan depicts four vacuums located north of the wash bays and two vacuums located both east and west of the wash bays in the parking stalls. There are a total of 16 parking stalls to be used for drying or vacuuming, which are split evenly along the east and west property lines. Two vehicle queue spaces are depicted for the self-service bays, and six vehicle queue spaces are depicted for the automatic bays. The facility would have two access drives to Central. A landscaped buffer with trees every 20 feet is depicted along the north property line. A landscaped street yard with seven trees is depicted along Central and is located primarily in the street right-of-way. A six-foot high concrete wall is depicted along the north and west property lines. A sign is depicted at the southwest corner of the site. Property to the north of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. Property to the south is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with an auto repair shop and a commercial strip center containing a restaurant, a bookstore, and vacant storefronts. Property to the east is zoned “NR” Neighborhood Retail and is developed with fourplexes. Property to the west is zoned “GO” General Office and is developed with fourplexes that have been converted into offices. Key Unified Zoning Code car wash “supplementary use requirements” include: buildings to be located at least 35 feet from arterials and 20 feet from other street right-of-way; 60 feet from the lot line of any residentially zoned lot, unless the property is being used for a nonresidential use permitted by-right in the underlying district; fencing, a minimum of six feet in height shall be provided along the interior side and rear property line, when adjacent to a dwelling; all area utilized for washing or drying, including ingress and egress, shall be paved; lighting shall comply with lighting standards in the code; no string-type lighting shall be permitted; vehicle queue spaces for four vehicles for self-service bays and three vehicles per 20 lineal feet of wash bay for automatic bays shall be provided; and signage as per the sign code. As depicted in the attached site plan, the project fails to comply with several of the supplementary use requirements for car washes. Therefore, planning staff recommends that approval of the Conditional Use be subject to approval of a final site plan by the Director of Planning. CASE HISTORY: The site is platted as part of the East Highlands Addition, approved August 5, 1924, and the Andrew Boyd Addition, approved February 21, 1988. The western portion of this site was approved for a zone change to “BB” Office (now “GO” General Office) on April 28, 1987. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” Single Family SOUTH: “LC” Vehicle Repair, Limited; Retail, General; Restaurant EAST: “NR” Multi-Family WEST: “GO” Office, General PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has frontage to Central, a four-lane arterial. Central has traffic volumes of 24,500 vehicles per day. The 2030 Transportation Plan estimates the volume for Central will increase to 31,000 vehicles per day. Central is scheduled in the City’s 2000-2009 Capital Improvement Program to be widened to five lanes between Oliver and Woodlawn in 2003. Municipal services are currently provided to this site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year the following conditions: A. The site of the car wash shall be developed and maintained in compliance with all the requirements of Section III- D.6.f of the Unified Zoning Code. B. No dryers shall be associated with automatic car wash bays. C. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit, that meets the ordinance’s requirements and, additionally, provides for conifer trees planted every 15 feet along the north property line of the car wash as a year-round buffer to residential properties. D. The applicant shall submit a revised car wash site plan for approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a Conditional Use, that provides for an additional five feet of contingent street right-of-way for Central; provides a minimum 28 foot building setback from the contingent street right-of-way; locates the sign north of the contingent street right-of-way; locates all vacuums along the east and west property lines in the parking stalls no closer than 45 feet from the north property line; and indicates that the concrete screening wall and car wash façade shall be a dyed red brick pattern. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. E. The applicant shall apply for a Zoning Adjustment to reduce the car wash building setback from Central by a maximum of 20%. The Conditional Use shall be contingent upon approval of this Zoning Adjustment. F. 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 subject property is located along a stretch of Central that has been slowing converting from residential uses to commercial and office uses over the past several decades. Property to the north of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. Property to the south is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with an auto repair shop and a commercial strip center containing a restaurant, a bookstore, and vacant storefronts. Property to the east is zoned “NR” Neighborhood Retail and is developed with fourplexes. Property to the west is zoned “GO” General Office and is developed with fourplexes that have been converted into offices. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “GO” General Office, which accommodates office development, and “B” Multi-Family Residential, which accommodates very high density, multi-family residential development. The property is currently developed with multi-family residential uses; however, a majority of the units are vacant, have declined to a state of major housing code violations, and appear to not be viable for residential use without substantial reinvestment. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects should be minimized due to the various setbacks, screening, and landscaping requirements. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials. This site has frontage to Central, a four-lane arterial. The Commercial Locational Guidelines also recommend that commercial sites should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The various setbacks, screening, and landscaping requirements for car washes should minimize any adverse impacts on surrounding residential areas. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Central, especially after widened to five lanes, should have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by the car wash and other commercial development on the site. Other community facilities should not be adversely impacted. KNEBEL “The site is currently developed. There are six four-plexes on the site. Those are proposed to be re-developed into a car wash and to an undetermined commercial use on the corner of Old Manor and Central. The site plan did not mention this, but the applicant mentioned it to us in our pre-application meeting, that the concrete wall would be stamped brick pattern and red dye. I also mentioned that the walls of the car wash would be the same and they reminded me that they only committed to the brick stamp pattern on the wall and just the red dye on the wall of the car wash. I am fine with changing that condition to say that the wall would be dyed red brick pattern and the car wash façade would just be dyed red and not the brick pattern. I am available for questions.” MICHAELIS “On that contingent right-of-way, did I understand you right to say that that is going to go to 50 foot for the street?” KNEBEL “Yes, it would be a total of 50 feet with the additional 5 feet.” MICHAELIS “If that was exercised from the central line of Central Avenue, where is that going to be?” KNEBEL “Where would it go to? It would go to about right here on the site plan (indicating). This portion thereabouts is currently platted in that pattern, 45 feet of right-of-way and 5 foot contingent street right-of-way. We are just asking that when they replat that they continue that same dedication pattern across the entire property.” MICHAELIS “Would that have an affect if that did happen on that 30 foot that is between the curb now and the front of the car wash? Is that still a usable base? Or maybe I should ask the applicant that.” KNEBEL “As far as this space here? I would ask the applicant, but it is my understanding that they are okay with that.” OSBORNE-HOWES “On the top of Page 3, you said that the existing site plan failed to comply with several of the supplementary requirements. Are you saying that what you are recommending would then bring it into compliance?” KNEBEL “This, along with a zoning adjustment.” MCKAY “The architect for this applicant is my nephew who offices in my office, so I will abstain from voting on this item.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Seeing none, we will hear from the applicant or agent.” RUSS EWY “I am with the Baughman Company, I am the agent for the applicant. As Scott mentioned, there were several issues within the staff comments that we have addressed. If you would turn to the back page of the information that we just handed out to you, you will see a revised site plan. That site plan takes into account all of staff’s conditions except for one, and I will get to that here in a minute. To answer some questions that were raised of staff, by continuing the half-street right-of-way being 45 feet plus 5 feet of contingent street dedication, the relocation of the car wash north several feet, winding up with a worse-case scenario of having 28 feet between the right-of-way line and the front of the car wash, that will still work with site circulation and will not be an issue. Actually the site pretty much fits perfectly with Code requirements north to south, even with that contingent dedication. The only issue, as I said, that we have with staff comments is the location of the vacuum cleaner islands, if you see them interspersed in the second queue of cars to the north of the car wash, you will see that we have intended to place those vacuums in that second bay for several different reasons. First, and primarily is to maintain a distance separation between the car wash islands themselves and the structure itself, just to prevent any type of safety problems that could occur with people walking in between the vacuum island and the car wash. The second concern also has a rational basis, and that is that as the winds blow through the car wash, they tend to emit spray from people that are currently in the self-service bays washing. I don’t think anybody wants to be with their car doors open vacuuming out their car in the first queue line behind those self-service bays. So we thought it would be a good idea, a normal business practice to put those vacuum cleaners in that second queue. We have offered staff a condition that was imposed on a similar car wash at 32nd and Rock Road, which is to have a condition written in our Conditional Use comments that would read that if there was any type of noise complaint received on the property that the applicant will then have to retrofit those vacuum cleaners with a cut-off, we would say at 10 o’clock. That has worked out very well at the other car wash that the applicants operate on North Rock Road. There has yet to be any complaints, whether it is trash, noise, or any other type of site disturbance. So we felt that that has worked well in that location, which is very similar to this location. It is adjacent to residential. So, we would ask the Planning Commission to allow us those vacuum cleaners where they are shown on the site plan. Also, in your packet, we have two letters from surrounding business people basically expressing their support for the project, the re-investment of the area. We also received here before the meeting, a letter from a Lloyd Clements, who, also, quite frankly, it looks like he is also supporting the re-investment along Central as long as several of his concerns are met. I think between what we have applied for and what staff has conditioned, I think that goes a long way in meeting this gentleman’s concerns also. At this point I will be more than happy to answer any questions.” OSBORNE-HOWES “From the Clements letter, they are also talking about limiting the hours of operation of the car wash. Are you talking about that?” EWY “No. Similar to the car wash at 32nd and North Rock Road, there were several members of the CPO at the time, as well as several of the direct adjacent property owners to the west were concerned about hours of operation and there again, similar to the cut-offs for the vacuum cleaners, we agreed that if it becomes a problem, if noise or any of the other negative impacts of such development would occur, that we would then go along with setting the hours of operation, perhaps we could retrofit those with cut-offs. In this situation, we have not had any problems with previous car washes in similar situations, and we would ask that we would be allowed to operate 24 hours a day as we do on other sites.” OSBORNE-HOWES “But you have dryers on the east and west sides, both times, I mean, you still have those. And what you are saying is that you feel that you also need to have vacuums basically about 30 some feet south of the property line? It’s a lot closer than it was initially.” EWY “I probably misspoke myself. I showed these lines representing the various distances. I think what this would show would be that instead of 45 feet, we would be willing to go to 35 feet for the setback. I think that would meet our needs to move those further to the south by several feet.” HENTZEN “When you speak of dryer, you are speaking about the dryers drying the cars. When you speak of vacuums, it is when they are vacuuming the inside of the car?” EWY “Yes, sir.” HENTZEN “So these drying stalls on this plan, is that for drying the cars, or is it the vacuums?” EWY “That is simply where people pull off and either chamois off their cars after they have gone through the wash. Those are vacuum islands to the east and to the west as well as what is shown there to the north of the building. We have two automatic car wash bays. Obviously, most of those are fitted with some sort of drying mechanism at the end. We have agreed, as we did with previous sites to construct those without those drying units, so there will be no automatic or drying units per se. The only thing that will be generating noise that we are discussing here, I think are the vacuum cleaners.” KROUT “We didn’t ask you, Russ, for an elevation drawing to show what this would look like from the street on Central, but it is the College Hill/Crown Heights area and it does have a kind of character to it. Can you describe what this will look like from the street in terms of wall and materials? Anything you can commit to.” EWY “Yeah, I will try a shot at it first, and the applicant is here and they may have a better understanding of what actual construction materials will be employed. What you will see along the exterior of the building, we will be proposing a mansard standing seam metal roof. The red dye is going to be incorporated in the building structure itself. It is the same color that will be used in the masonry wall that is going to be screening the site. We have a preliminary rendering of that concept with some blue decorative tile features at these locations, in between the stall openings. So I think it is going to have a very good street appearance, quite frankly. And there again, I think this whole red dye concept came from a lot of the structures in the area versus the somewhat ordinary beige color that you see in a lot of the masonry walls around town. I think there was a lot of concern as far as the ability to give that as a condition. Doug, I am not sure if you have any desire to add to that.” BARFIELD “Has this been before the CPO?” KROUT “We don’t have a CPO and we don’t have a District Advisory Board (DAB). We did send notices to probably half a dozen to a dozen neighborhood associations that are on our list, and that probably includes the Crown Heights Association and the College Hill Association. We don’t have a formal group yet to bring these to, no.” HENTZEN “Was there an attempt? Did they talk to the owners on the back side?” EWY “Yes. The applicant’s have done that.” DOUG MALONE “My address is 150 North Market. Yes, we saw the neighbors to the north and showed them what we were going to be doing and offered the cut-offs in terms of the vacuums. To elaborate a little bit more on what Marvin was discussing and what Russ was discussing in terms of the elevations, what we are going to try to do is incorporate some colors, thus the red brick, to incorporate some colors that have somewhat of a polo feel. We will probably use some greens and reds, and we even talked about doing some decorative lighting on the front of this, no more than just from the standpoint of a good feel and a good look. But yes, to answer your questions specifically, we did visit with the neighbors.” GAROFALO “Did you meet with Mr. Clements?” MALONE “No, this is the first I have seen of his letter.” GAROFALO “What was the response from the neighbors?” MALONE “They see where the commercial is going to start occurring. The alternative to what is there right now has been a little bit unappealing to them and they just wanted to make sure that what we said we were going to do we were going to do, and we assured them of that.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in support of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we will bring this 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 subject property is located along a stretch of Central that has been slowing converting from residential uses to commercial and office uses over the past several decades. Property to the north of the site is zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential and is developed with single family residences. Property to the south is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with an auto repair shop and a commercial strip center containing a restaurant, a bookstore, and vacant storefronts. Property to the east is zoned “NR” Neighborhood Retail and is developed with fourplexes. Property to the west is zoned “GO” General Office and is developed with fourplexes that have been converted into offices. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “GO” General Office, which accommodates office development, and “B” Multi-Family Residential, which accommodates very high density, multi-family residential development. The property is currently developed with multi-family residential uses; however, a majority of the units are vacant, have declined to a state of major housing code violations, and appear to not be viable for residential use without substantial reinvestment. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects should be minimized due to the various setbacks, screening, and landscaping requirements. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” uses. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials. This site has frontage to Central, a four-lane arterial. The Commercial Locational Guidelines also recommend that commercial sites should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The various setbacks, screening, and landscaping requirements for car washes should minimize any adverse impacts on surrounding residential areas. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Central, especially after widened to five lanes, should have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by the car wash and other commercial development on the site. Other community facilities should not be adversely impacted.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to staff comments and the modification on the setback, and to the deletion of the requirement of moving those back vacuums and leave it as it appears on the site plan. WARREN moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “On the site plan, I think they showed 35 feet. You said 55 feet.” WARREN “Well, the last one I am looking at here…oh, okay, I see the 55 foot. Okay. Whatever it is, I don’t think the slight movement one way or the other will make a difference.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I have a question. Marvin, part of what you asked for was to bring them to compliance. Is 45 feet part of that?” KROUT “There is no standard on a car wash about how far a vacuum can be from the wall. We do have a noise ordinance. We have asked the Health Department to do a study, and I don’t think they have gotten to it, but to do some studies about car washes and the noise from various elements of the car washes, but we really don’t have that kind of information yet. They will be subject to the noise ordinance and that is forced on complaints, so if you don’t add in the condition about cutting it off at 10 o’clock, and if a neighbor and property-owner complains, then it still will be subject to the noise ordinance. I just don’t know how that would apply in the case of these kinds of uses.” MODIFIED MOTION: That the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The site of the car wash shall be developed and maintained in compliance with all the requirements of Section III- D.6.f of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. No dryers shall be associated with automatic car wash bays. 3. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit, that meets the ordinance’s requirements and, additionally, provides for conifer trees planted every 15 feet along the north property line of the car wash as a year-round buffer to residential properties. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised car wash site plan for approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a Conditional Use, that provides for an additional five feet of contingent street right-of-way for Central; provides a minimum 28 foot building setback from the contingent street right-of-way; locates the sign north of the contingent street right-of-way; locates all vacuums no closer than 35 feet from the north property line; and indicates that the concrete screening wall shall be a dyed red brick pattern, and the car wash façade shall be dyed red concrete. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. 5. The applicant shall apply for a Zoning Adjustment to reduce the car wash building setback from Central by a maximum of 20%. The Conditional Use shall be contingent upon approval of this Zoning Adjustment. 6. If complaints are received by the Office of Central Inspection from neighboring property owners regarding noise from the vacuums, all vacuums on the property shall be retrofitted to the cease operation between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 7. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall declare the Conditional Use null and void. WARREN moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion. OSBORNE-HOWES “I guess the only comment I have about that is that this still calls for a Conditional Use because it is really backed up close to single-family, and I hate to see us put car washes so close to single-family without some real hard and fast restrictions. I would like to know the rationale again from staff that says 45 feet is okay and 35 feet is not. So if I could have that.” KNEBEL “Actually, the applicant has offered to move them to 35 feet. They are shown at 30 feet on the site plan and the additional 15 feet was determined, based on the ability to get the eight vacuums in, four on each side within the space allowed in the parking stalls. If you made it more than 45 feet, they would have to eliminate the number of vacuums they had on their site plan to cut it back to six.” GAROFALO “So how many feet is it going to be? I am getting confused here.” KNEBEL “It is shown on the site plan currently at 30 feet from the property line, and they have offered 35 feet.” GAROFALO “And that is part of the motion?” WARREN “Well, if it isn’t, I would again modify it to accept their 35 foot offer.” WHEELER “And staff’s recommendation is 45?” KNEBEL “Right.” PLATT “I have been thinking a lot about car washes since our last meeting, and it seems to me that the whole bit about a Protective Overlay being required if it is 200 feet of a residential area is a very important element. I guess the position I am arriving at is that if there is neighborhood opposition to a car wash, I will support it only if there is a limit to the number of hours of operation. In this case, since there was no neighborhood opposition, I guess I will vote in favor of it.” GAROFALO “Commissioner Michaelis, did you approve of all of the amendments that he made?” MICHAELIS “I think so, yes. I think it was 35 feet, which is as per their revised site plan, and the hours, if it becomes a problem, will be cut off.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I have been thinking about this particular one. I forgot to mention it before, but I was contacted and we talked about this a little bit. It will not affect my decision on this. The problem I have is that it is still darn close to single-family, and I am afraid that if we say 35 feet on this one and it becomes a standard, and limiting it to 10 p.m., if there are calls of complaints seems fair, but that assumes that we all to go bed at 10 o’clock and we are up during the day and not everyone does that. So I don’t know that that would solve the problems if there are, in fact, complaints about the noise and people hear the noise. And I know that you can hear that vacuum further than 35 feet. I can turn on my little vacuum outside and I know I can hear the neighbor’s vacuum and they are further than 35 feet away. So I think this is a great idea and a great development, and I applaud the design and I think that is super. I think if they limited themselves in some other way, which might mean moving the vacuums as close as they could to the street, then I probably would say yes, but it doesn’t say that they are going to do that, so I will vote against the motion.” MICHAELIS “This may be a question a question for Marvin, where did the 5-foot additional contingent right-of-way come from? If it wasn’t for that, they couldn’t move them back up to 40 feet.” KROUT “I don’t think the contingent dedication has any effect on the site plan, does it?” MICHAELIS “It would. If we didn’t have that extra 5 feet, then it would be 40 feet.” KROUT “The reason we talked about it being contingent was so you could measure the minimum set back from the existing right-of-way and not from a future right-of-way. I don’t think they could move the move the building 5 feet further to the south, can you? The reason we call it a contingent is so that they can measure it from the existing property line.” MICHAELIS “Okay, but right now, it is 28 feet from there to the building. If we didn’t have that 5 foot, it could be 28 feet from the previous line, which would move the whole project.” KNEBEL “You are right. If you measured it from the 45 foot line instead of 50 foot, you could move the building 5 feet further to the south, and still get within the 20 per cent reduction.” MICHAELIS “So I guess I am asking which is more important, the contingent right-of-way or the extra 5 feet on the back end. Personally, I don’t think you are going to be able to tell if there is 5 more feet on the vacuum.” MARNELL “I guess to some extent I agree with Commissioner Osborne-Howes that there is no standard. In that sense I would hate to see us establish one now. If it just starts to be arbitrary and we will move it 5 foot, and move it 5 foot without any kind of science attached to it. Noise can be measured in decibels, and if we don’t have some type of standard that it has some kind of scientific basis, then it is just arbitrary and I can’t support that. I am in favor of having it moved.” KROUT “We do have a noise ordinance. The noise ordinance does indicate that you can increase the decibels of background noise by more than 5 as measured over a certain period of time and there is a different standard for daytime and nighttime. What we don’t have is the data on whether or not typically a car wash vacuum at a certain distance does or does not exceed that noise ordinance. So it is possible that whether or not someone complains, because usually we only enforce the ordinance when someone complains, so if it violates the noise ordinance in the daytime when it is operating and someone complains, they will have to shut off or move that vacuum cleaner because of the violation of the noise ordinance. I wish we had some data. We are hoping that the Health Department will do some studies so that you will have a better idea and we can have a better idea for applicants in what makes sense in terms of a site plan to protect people.” MARNELL “The very nature of that is such that it is the amount of noise generated by whatever particular vacuum happens to be installed, and those could all be different. So therefore, it isn’t distance sensitive, it is noise sensitive and we already have an ordinance that covers that, so I can’t see the additional restrictions.” KROUT “I guess I would just say that when the data comes in, I think it will be interesting to see what it says. There are a lot of noises that occur in the city today that probably don’t violate the noise ordinance but are considered disturbing to people. We just need more data.” WHEELER “Could staff refresh my memory on previous ones? What are the distances that we have approved previously on vacuums from residential?” KNEBEL “The ones that we had at the last meeting we had a proposal for vacuums to be 5 feet from the property line. The motion that was passed was that they would be no closer than one-third of the distance from the property line where the residential was bordering it. I was thinking that that lot was about 200 feet deep. So that would be 60 to 70 feet from the property line.” WHEELER “I guess my question is have we ever put them within 35 feet of residential?” KNEBEL “I don’t have the history to be able to answer that question.” WHEELER “Well, I mean in the last few that you have done.” KROUT “I think in the case involving Rock Road, and if you want to ask the applicant that question, it would probably be appropriate. In the case of the Rock Road and the 37th Street case, I think that was probably closer than 70 feet. I think generally when we have the depth of the lot, what we try to do is encourage the vacuums to be on the other side of the wash structures from residential property. But this is a pretty shallow lot, and they have constraints compared to a lot of car wash sites, so that is their problem in this case, otherwise they might have been able to do that.” WHEELER “Their other option, as I understand it, would be to move the vacuums to the side bays, to the side parking stalls, which would limit them from 8 to 6.” KNEBEL “Well, you would be able to get 8 in if you limited the distance to 45 feet. If it was greater than that, they would have to reduce it to 6.” MICHAELIS “I think something to keep in mind here though, too is that this one has a lot more trees on it than most of them do, and they are offering to put them closer together. The trees are going to make a huge difference in the sound buffering. It has more impact than distance.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion? Okay, we have a motion to approve with the outlined conditions.” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 10 votes in favor (Lopez, Johnson, Michaelis, Warren, Marnell, Barfield, Warner, Garofalo, Platt and Hentzen) and 2 in opposition (Wheeler and Osborne-Howes). McKay abstained and Carraher was not present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Case No. Z-3353 – Bencor/Waco 13 c/o Ben Horton (Contract Purchaser); Simon and Albertina Esparaza, Glen L. and Earlene Miracle, J. Fred Hambright, Helen L. Luinstra Living Trust, Lee Greiving, and Kenneth R. and Bonnie J. Holmes (Applicants); Baughman Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agent) request zone change from “B” Multi-Family Residential to “LC” Limited Commercial on property described as: Lots 1229 through 1233 odd inclusive on Waco Street together with Lots 1226 through 1246 even inclusive on Wichita Street (now Fairview Street) all in Lewellen’s Addition, Wichita, Kansas. Generally located South of 13th Street North and east of Wichita. 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 applicant requests a zone change from “B” Multi-Family Residential to “LC” Limited Commercial on a 1.62 acre platted tract located south of 13th Street North and east of Waco. The applicant proposes to incorporate the existing commercial corner (developed with a rent-to-own center) with additional properties for redevelopment of the site as a new retail business. The site proposed for redevelopment is currently developed with several single-family residences, a temporary water line construction storage yard, and several vacant parcels. The surrounding area is an urban neighborhood located approximately one mile north of downtown that is characterized by a mixture of pedestrian-oriented residential and commercial uses. Property west and north of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a rent-to-own center, a jewelry store, a liquor store, a grocery store, a furniture store, and vehicle repair shops. Property south and east of the site is zoned “B” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single family residences interspersed with multi-family residential units. The applicant submitted a preliminary site plan indicating a suburban style of vehicle-oriented commercial development with the parking located in the front and the building located toward the back of the site. The preliminary site plan also indicated a dual drive thru window on the south side of the building with one access drive to both 13th Street North and Waco. The applicant is also proposing to vacate the alley located on the site and dedicate a connecting alley running east to Fairview as a part of the platting process. Due to the urban character and the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood and the site’s close proximity to two historic districts and the downtown, planning staff is recommending that the zone change be approved subject to a Protective Overlay that provides for the Planning Director’s review and approval of a site plan and building elevations. The purpose of this design review is to develop the site in an urban, pedestrian-oriented style with the building located as close as practicable to the street right-of-way and with parking in back of the building to promote pedestrian access to the building. In combination with the Protective Overlay, the regulations of the Unified Zoning Code, Landscape Ordinance, and Sign Code should sufficiently limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. CASE HISTORY: The site is in the Lewellen’s Addition, which was platted July 5, 1887. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LC” Retail, General; Vehicle Repair, Limited SOUTH: “B” Single Family, Multi-Family EAST: “B” Single Family, Multi-Family WEST: “LC” Retail, General PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has frontage to 13th Street North, a four-lane arterial with a left turn lane at Waco, and Waco, a four-lane arterial with a left turn lane at 13th Street North. Current traffic volumes are 18,000 vehicles per day on 13th Street North and 9,000 vehicles per day on Waco. The 2030 Transportation Plan estimates the volumes will increase to 22,000 vehicles per day on 13th Street North and 10,000 vehicles per day on Waco. Municipal services are currently provided to this site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and the following conditions of a Protective Overlay: A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan and building elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The site plan shall locate the building no further than 10 feet from the street right-of-way lines of 13th Street North and Waco after required dedications. The architectural design of the building elevations shall include a “street” entrance and large display windows and shall utilize brick and other materials and details that are consistent with the era and styles of the neighborhood. B. No portable or off-site signs shall be permitted on the zoning lot. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is an urban neighborhood located approximately one mile north of downtown that is characterized by a mixture of pedestrian-oriented residential and commercial uses. Property west and north of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a rent-to-own center, a jewelry store, a liquor store, a grocery store, a furniture store, and vehicle repair shops. Property south and east of the site is zoned “B” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single family residences interspersed with multi-family residential units. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “B” Multi-Family Residential which accommodates very high-density residential development and complementary land uses. The site is currently developed with several single-family residences, a temporary water line construction storage yard, and several vacant parcels. Two of the existing single family residences are in a declining state and exhibit housing code violations. The temporary construction storage yard and the vacant parcels were the site of four additional single family residences several decades ago, which have been demolished and not replaced, indicating that residential development may not be viable at this location. The site is also located near the arterial intersection of 13th Street North and Waco, which could make this site less desirable for residential use in the future. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Detrimental affects should be minimized by the conditions of a Protective Overlay which would help ensure compatibility with the urban, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood in which the site is located. In combination with the Protective Overlay, the existing regulations of the Unified Zoning Code, Landscape Ordinance, and Sign Code should sufficiently 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 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “Commercial” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Waco and 13th Street North should have sufficient capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by commercial development on the site. Other community facilities should not be adversely impacted. KNEBEL “I am available for questions.” GAROFALO “Do you know what is planned for here?” KNEBEL “It is a Walgreens.” GAROFALO “It is? I read all of this and I didn’t get the impression that a Walgreens was certainly going to go in there.” KROUT “It could be some other use.” KNEBEL “Right. The elevations and the indications on those are of a Walgreens.” GAROFALO “I was curious as to the drive-through window.” WARREN “I will ask this of Marvin. Can we not condition the approval of this zoning onto that site plan and that use?” KROUT “I think, whatever you do, you want to provide a reasonable range of uses.” WARREN “Oh, I understand.” KROUT “And don’t forget that that corner is already zoned Limited Commercial.” WARREN “Right. I have a real problem, Mr. Chair, with this requirement. Walgreens is a big outfit. They obviously have planners who put these sites together and they have rationale behind that. It looks like they are going to make a tremendous investment here, and for us to decide that that building ought to be within 10 foot of the street, when in fact, that may be a strong deterrent to their economic value of that thing. We are looking at aesthetics and those guys are in there trying to figure out how they can make a profit out of this.” GAROFALO “Ray, why don’t we hold up until we hear the thing and then have a discussion?” WARREN “Well, we are talking about a requirement and I guess I am questioning that requirement.” MCKAY “I was going to question the setback, but I will wait until we get to the discussion.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I need to say that I have been contacted by the agent.” Most of the Commissioners said they had been contacted here. HENTZEN “What difference does that make?” MCKAY “You just have to divulge it.” HENTZEN “Who says?” MCKAY “The rules and regulations of the Planning Commission.” HENTZEN “I would like to see that.” GAROFALO “Okay, are there any other questions?” OSBORNE-HOWES “I was going to say something else on that, too. There was an attachment, but I did not get that site plan that you have shown.” KNEBEL “The site plan was not attached to your staff report.” OSBORNE-HOWES (Holding up papers) “But I did get this. Did everyone else get that?” KNEBEL “Yes.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I guess part of me thought at first that that was part of what the applicant turned in.” KROUT “That is just an excerpt from a publication that we sent to you to help try to sensitize the Planning Commission as to why we think this idea of how to build commercial differently in some areas is worth looking at.” JOHNSON “Mr. Chair, I am presently working with an individual with a piece of property right across the street, even though I have no conflict of interest with this, I am going to step down from voting on this as it may appear that I do.” BARFIELD “Do I understand correctly that we are saying that this site might or might now be a Walgreen’s?” KROUT “I think you can let the applicant answer that question. Any time you are zoning property, there is a potential for anyone who has announced plans to back out, or they may build it as a Walgreens and a year from now it may be something else. You are always looking at property that can change use some day.” BARFIELD “I think you could perhaps be setting yourself up for deception. This is being presented as if we are going to approve this for the construction of a Walgreens, and if that is not the case, then I would have a little bit of a problem with that, myself.” KNEBEL “And that is why the staff report doesn’t tie itself to any particular business, but refers to the architectural style of the building.” WARREN “But even then, we have been talking for 15 hours about infill. I think that building, whether it is a Walgreens or something else, looks to me like a good use of that land in terms of remodeling.” BARFIELD “If it was going to be a Walgreens, I would agree, but…” GAROFALO “Let’s hold up the discussion until after the hearing. We will hear from the applicant.” PHIL MEYER “I am with the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. With me here today also is Doug Malone, who is also agent and realtor on this property. The contract purchaser, due to weather conditions, was unable to join us. They had planned to be here today and couldn’t make it in. On the handout you have that shows the building elevations, do you have the site plan attached to the back?” Planning Commissioners answered yes here. DOUG MALONE “My address is 150 North Market. I am going to let Phil do this, but in defense of Marvin, I asked him not to divulge who this was going to be, but it is going to be Walgreens.” BARFIELD “Thank you.” MEYER “As we start here, I would like to have everybody flip to the second page, which is actually the site plan. I just passed those around. I wasn’t sure if you had them or not. That is why I didn’t send them around earlier. As Doug has said, we are proposing to construct a Walgreens at this location. The site plan I am passing around to you is a site plan that has been approved by the Walgreens Corporation. These things are developed in a manner to where Bencor is the developer. They purchase, and put the deal together and they actually build the Walgreens and then they turn it over to Walgreens after the building is constructed and completed. I bring that up because we go through a long process of getting Bencor’s approval and then going through Corporate Walgreens and getting their approval on site plans, and it is hard to make modifications and adjustments once we finally get something approved. It is not like we can just agree to switch a lot of things around today. If you look at this specific site plan you will see that along 13th Street we are going to dedicate 10 foot of right-of-way when we plat this property. That forces us to push the building back a little bit. I am going to go through a series of items that are affecting this property and how we are trying to develop it. The second issue that popped up was an existing alley. There is a 16-foot alley that runs north and south right now that extends all the way up to 13th Street. We need to vacate that alley to do this development. To vacate that, we have to relocate what we call a ‘T’ alley out to the east. And in that ‘T’ alley, we have to make a radius, and you will see that it is a little bit wider at the west side and narrower at the east side. We need to make a radius there that will allow trash trucks and other vehicles to have turning movement to do that. That is just a City engineering requirement that if I vacate the north part of this alley and turn it into a ‘T’, I have to allow that turning movement. Even if they aren’t using that alley for trash or other items today, I don’t know that I can get out of that requirement. We would love to vacate this entire alley. We first looked at it and looked at all of the numbers of properties and made the decision that we weren’t going to try to vacate that alley. There are people that park their cars back there now. There are really no garages or anything, but there are houses that use that parking in the back. We just thought it was going to be difficult. We assume that a lot of them are probably leases, some of them are owned. There is a mixture of both, so we probably aren’t going to get that alley vacated. So instead, we went and purchased an additional residential property right here to allow us to do the ‘T’ alley. I think there are several people here to talk about this today, and we are more than willing to try to vacate that alley. I don’t know that we can get that done, because to vacate it, we have to have every landowner agree to vacate it. It takes us about a 60-day process. Ourselves, we would love to get it vacated, so we are not opposed to trying to do that. Walgreens really requires this development at this location. They understand that there are locations and there are Walgreens in other cities where they have development where the building sits right up on the right-of-way line. Here in Wichita, they can’t get approval to do that urban scale Walgreens here through corporate office. They are standing on this site, looking across the street, seeing the Dillons. It is not an urban style or scale development. There are other developments in Mid-Town, Quik-Trip and others that are developed with this style of development. We feel, and this is our biased opinion, that 85% to 90% of the people that come to this Walgreens are going to drive up to it. As you listen to some of the neighbors who may be in opposition to this, if we do this in urban scale, we are going to put the parking lot behind the building, which creates more noise, really more encumbrance on them than to back the building up to property line and do our parking street side. We can allow, and we have allowed a walkway through the parking lot, so if somebody is on the street, we will stripe a path to get them over to the building, through the parking lot and designate it as a walking area. So, what we would like to do is to amend Item A in the staff report. We cannot get this thing developed with the building being more than 10-foot to the property line. We do have permission to offer you, and while we pass this elevation around to you, what we call a neighborhood designed Walgreens. With this Walgreens, you see all four building elevations. It is all brick material. It has some of the architectural character on the outside of the building. It is more residential in character. We can offer this to you today. You will have to ask Marvin if you can make it a condition, and you can probably select some of the materials and get close, but what we are offering you is this neighborhood approach or this neighborhood looking Walgreens with all brick material, pitched roofs over the entrances. There is some stone character on the south side. We are in agreement with staff comments on Item B. We would like to get this site developed at this location. Walgreens has looked extensively in the Mid-Town area. Maybe Doug can elaborate on that more, but this was one of the few sites they could put together and put the land together to make it happen. With that, I am going to open it up to any questions you might have unless Doug has something he would like to add.” HENTZEN “Does your application include that big two or three story house to the south? Can you go back to the aerial?” KNEBEL “Are you talking about on Waco?” HENTZEN “Yeah. I believe that house is boarded up now. I was up there the other day and I couldn’t imagine anybody living in it.” MEYER “I am 90 per cent sure that the house you are talking about is in application.” HENTZEN “Yeah. Something needs to be done about that.” MEYER “There are a couple of houses that are in our area that are kind of dilapidated and we will be cleaning them up.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” MEYER “I met with one person to the south that is opposed to this. There are several conditions we have offered them to help ease their concern. I want to let you know that now. I will explain those to you in the rebuttal, when we look at the site, or if you want to know now, I can go over it." OSBORNE-HOWES “On the Fairview side, on the east side, I guess maybe I should have gone back to the zoning map. Is there any kind of fencing that would have to be done there?” MEYER “The Landscape Ordinance would go into effect there. There is no fencing required. We would really rather not fence that. I don’t think that is going to be appealing to the neighborhood.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Or any landscaping because it looks like right across the street it is residential.” MEYER “Yeah, landscaping would be required with the Landscape Ordinance, and we would be willing to do landscaping.” OSBORNE-HOWES “I just don’t see any landscaping. If we are going to approve a site plan, I would like to approve something that shows landscaping.” MEYER “Okay. Or, we can take the ordinance and the requirements. This site plan I am showing to you is the site plan that was approved by Corporate Walgreens and that is why I passed that out. We, to date, have not done the landscape plan. There will be a landscape plan done.” GAROFALO “If there are people here to speak in opposition, I think we will hear them first and you can, in rebuttal, refer to whatever they speak about. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this application?” KEN HOLMES “We have a four-plex right in the middle of this property, and I really came here today just to observe, but I decided to speak because I was surprised to hear that somebody might be in opposition. We do not have quality businesses come to Mid-Town often enough and ask to be a part of our community. Wow. I wish we could have more people come and want to be a part of this solid community. The four-plex we have is an old building. It was probably built around the turn of the Century; was originally a house and was probably converted to apartment in World War II. Right now, my neighbor on every side is a vacant lot. To the north, to the south, and to the rear. The vacant lots are used for what people use vacant lots for. They are used to grow grass, high. Our neighbors really try to mow their lawns. I must give credit and not complain too much, but it is not like it is mowed twice a week, in the summertime. High grass will catch everything that blows. Another thing that vacant lots are used for is to drive across. If you drive across them enough, you create a path where there is no grass. If you look at these vacant lots, you will find that at least one of them has quite a path for driving. Another thing you can use vacant lots for is to store things. The vacant lot behind us perhaps is not a vacant lot at the moment because it is really being used. It has been chained up and a construction company in the neighborhood is storing their stuff. I have been to meetings where we have been talking about bringing people into the city and bringing them back to join Mid- Town, to join the community and a construction company with all of their rocks, Caterpillars and sand piles are not really the inviting site, and I presume that if a program like this doesn’t go through, that the opportunity to store things will continue for quite a little while. One thing the grass does is catch things that blow in. Our neighbors try to keep it clean, but we have a Rent-A-Center to the north where they sell things and put their boxes in the waste can, but it blows. If you have a vacant lot as a neighbor everywhere, nothing gets hidden in the back yard. You can see the back yard everywhere. At my house, if my back yard is messy, you can’t see it because the neighbor’s house blocks your view. So, this is an ideal place, I think, for development. I guess I would just close by saying that the meetings I have recently attended have talked about a trend scenario and a conservation plan. I think that Mid-Town is fortunate to have someone come to us and lay in our lap an idea that really fits the conservation plan. We have other properties in the neighborhood. I would tell you that the four-plex that we have is never empty. It is right across the street from Dillons, and people love to live there because they can just walk across, get their groceries and a lot of other stuff and come back. But I believe that for a solid community, we need other reasons to have quality people come to our neighborhood and stay there, build homes there and improve the area. I think this idea would do it. Thank you very much.” PLATT “Could we get the aerial back up there. I would like to find out where he lives. Could you show us where you live?” HOLMES “I am a landlord. I live at 2246 Columbine and we have the four-plex that has been in the picture several times. Run the slides. It is 1344 North Waco. It is our four-plex. A cream colored building with a green roof.” MARNELL “If this type of facility was developed at this location, since you mentioned the infill in the area, do you think this would encourage landlords similar to yourself who have land in this area to develop additional rental property in that area?” HOLMES “We have other rental property in the area, not adjacent, but at 21st and Arkansas and 11th and Waco, and other places. I think this type of thing has to happen. It is like a domino effect. One good thing happens and it causes more. For instance, I am always glad when one of our tenants leaves to buy a house because I know good things are happening to him, and if good things are happening to him, more good things will follow. So, I view this as a good thing and if it happens, chances are that more good things will follow.” LOPEZ “Does your rental property front Waco?” HOLMES “Yes, my rental property fronts Waco. It is a Waco address.” LOPEZ “Look at the aerial there. At the corner of 13th and Waco is the Rent-A-Center. See on the aerial?” HOLMES “That’s right. The Rent-A-Center is right at the corner.” LOPEZ “Are you the first property south of that?” HOLMES “We are the first property south, and actually, we are the only property south.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in support? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition?” CHERYL TURNER HAND “I know some of you here in the room. Normally I don’t have a lot of trouble speaking, for those of you who know me. Today is a little harder because this is very personal and hits me in my home. Mr. Holmes talked about a good thing happening. Well, he doesn’t live there. And they are not buying his home to where he has to move his home. He has an investment and he is going to reap a reward in his investment, so I think we have very different perspectives about this development. To give you some perspective differing from where his property is and where I am, I am not purchased; I am just going to live next to it. That is a very different perspective than he has. I have a number of concerns about the site plan as it is presented. If you will look at your drawing, on the very bottom of it, where it says ‘relocated alley’, that little dotted line there. That is actually my property line. So we are talking about an alleyway not only being at the back of my property, but right outside my kitchen window. And then beyond the alley they are proposing will be some type of fencing, whatever that would be. This doesn’t seem appealing to me at all. I am not sure how that is going to help me, and I don’t see that it is necessarily a good thing from where I am sitting and every day will be looking outside of my windows. Also the proposal has the drive-through window, if you will look at your drawing, right across the fence from my house, which will have idling cars there with fumes going up to my bedroom window. I have a two-story building. It is going to be a little hard in any near future to build trees that are going to give us much privacy in our upstairs windows from this entire development. I am not sure that I could conceive of that happening any time soon. It takes a while for mature trees to develop. I have a number of suggestions or proposals. If this is something, like I said, I am not against new businesses, I certainly think that our inner city is going to have to have businesses as well as homes to thrive and continue. I have been there over 25 years, I believe in gentrification. We have spent a lot of money on rehabbing the house. It needs some more rehabbing, and before I go to the bank to talk about looking about getting a loan to have the Mennonites to redo my porch, I am definitely going to see where this goes first and whether I am going to stay there or whether I will try to move out of the area. This is not enticing me to stay there, and we have been there a long time. I work at the downtown YMCA, and it is within walking distance. My husband walks to work every day. He is a Lieutenant at the Sedgwick County jail. Our children go to neighborhood schools. We are invested in this area. My life is invested, not just not my money. I have a number of suggestions. I did speak with Doug Malone and they made a couple of suggestions. First of all, I would rather that it didn’t go in there, but let’s say you all, in the wisdom that this body would maybe summon, would decide that that is a good location for a Walgreens. Some of the things that would make it more livable for my particular home, and like I said, I want to make you know that I am looking at it from my perspective, and not necessarily the good of the community. It is a little hard to do that when I am so close to this. It would be lovely if that alley was totally vacated. If it cannot be vacated, I would love for it to go the other way, instead of onto Fairview, on to Waco. That wouldn’t affect me as much. I would also love for the drive-through to be positioned on Waco or 13th Street. That also would lessen the impact on my living arrangements. Those are just a couple of things that would help. Additional screening, maybe a masonry wall, which was suggested; trees, those types of things. Those are some concerns. It is just extremely close. My house will soon be 100 years old. The lots are not that big. My house takes up most of the lot. From the actual building of my home to my property line, which is that dotted line, we are talking just a little bit more than a single driveway width. That gives you an idea of how close we are talking that I will be to the edge of this development and how closely it will impact my living. We also have an above ground swimming pool and a elevated deck, so it is hard for me to envision how we would have much privacy in our back yard with an alley going clear around. I am just trying tell you how my life style can change, based on this. We talk about the noise and all of those things, and being in an urban area, I have learned to live with a number of things.” GAROFALO “Your five minutes is up. Are you about finished?” TURNER HAND “I was just going to share with you that I am used to a lot of noise. In our multi-cultural neighborhood, there is a lot of noise. We have the Dillons and we used to have a Quik-Trip across the street, those types of things. I think we are fairly tolerant. It is not like I am totally intolerant to a lot of things. That is what I was trying to share.” GAROFALO “Thank you. Are there any questions of the speaker?” BARFIELD “Ma’am, are you saying that you don’t want any development or are you opposed to the site plan?” TURNER HAND “I am saying that it is hard for me to look at this, at this point as a community project. I have a degree in public administration, and I know that there are community goods and right now, the area right there is not perfect. There have been a lot of houses that have burned and are no longer there. They have not been infilled. Part of the reason is that some of the prices that people have asked because they have been anticipating a change to ‘LC’, so the lots have been expensive and it is unreasonable to put a infill home in there, based on the price of the lot. Because I have tried purchasing them myself to extend my area. I would like to have a garage, maybe a garden. Those types of things. So we have looked into purchasing those lots when they became available. It is not that I am against any kind of development, but I do not like the idea of ‘LC’ encroaching into my neighborhood even more. Right now, it is on 13th and in the time I have lived there, rezoning has come up before. We were told, at that time, that ‘LC’ would be limited to 13th and Waco and that it would