Metropolitan Area Planning Commission - Wichita-Sedgwick County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting

Documenter name: Nathaniel Eichenhorn

Agency: Wichita City - Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Date: July 11, 2024

See more about this meeting at Documenters.org

The meeting began with a presentation recognizing former members of the MAPC. Mike Greene was presented with a certificate of recognition. Debra Foster, who was also being honored, was unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts.

Vacation Items

With no current subdivision or Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) cases, the board next moved on to vacation items. When a vacation is approved, it ends the public’s right to a street, highway or public service easement and gives control back to the property owner. The first two items involved requests in the City to vacate Reserve A on property zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential. The property is located one-quarter mile east of North 135th Street West and just south of West 21st Street North (13425 West 21st Street North) and the vacation was passed on consent. The following item involved a vacation request in the City for a 5-foot wall and 10-foot utility easement; generally located west of North Ridge Road and approximately 800 feet south of West 37th Street North (3611 North Ridge Road). was passed on consent.

Public Hearings

This item concerned a restaurant, The Hill Bar and Grill on the southwest corner of the Crown Heights neighborhood, that wants to put outdoor speakers by their patio and expand the building, necessarily reducing parking. The business had previously been forbidden to expand the seating on the patio and further forbidden to put speakers outside. A member of the public spoke, and said that the business owner had already placed speakers intermittently and that they have caused a noise disturbance in the neighborhood. He went on to describe large crowds in the parking lot, and wondered aloud how, if the owner was willing to overstep his permitted actions, the board could trust that he would not simply use this new allowance to be even bolder in his disregard of his neighbors. He contended, contrary to the applicant’s view, that the business and the proposed expansion and speakers did not abide by the city's Golden Rules.

The motion to amend a conditional use to permit the speakers was approved on a 7-4 vote. Bob Dool, John McKay, Bryan Frye, Bill Johnson, Joshua Blick, Hugh Nicks and Jocelyn Clonts voted in favor. Chuck Warren, Bob Aldrich, John Williams-Bey and Cindy Miles opposed. Leon Moeder abstained.

An additional item had been deferred due to some questions regarding the applicant’s appointed agent. The matter having been resolved to the staff’s satisfaction, the application was considered.

The applicant was seeking a rezoning of the property to a limited commercial zoning designation. A resident who lives near the applicant's property made an argument that allowing limited commercial zoning on this property will quickly lead to more commercial property rezoning in the area.

The business owner said that the plan for the property is to be a homestead for himself and his family. As he also runs a large business, he has been using the property as a sort of satellite facility for his business, but that is not the main purpose of the property. He further argued that given the changes already happening to the area, locking down this property as homestead and business would slow the industrialization of the area, as opposed to selling to a purely commercial concern.

The board then moved on to considering rezoning a commercial property to a planned unit development or PUD, “a special purpose zoning district that is intended to encourage innovative land planning and design and avoid monotony sometimes associated with large developments.” This change would require screening the property from view by means of a wall, raised earthworks or trees. The motion was passed on consent.

The final item involved an applicant who had been running a lumber yard, contrary to the property’s current zoning. Neighbors had raised concerns about the open burning of debris taking place on the property, and the increased traffic, especially truck traffic, on their small, rural roads.

The applicant has been in significant non-compliance with zoning regulations by using the property for his lumber concern. Specific violations include open burning of debris, lack of proper screening, signage issues, building height concerns, inadequate parking, and an unplatted property. While the applicant seems to be a reputable business contributing to the community, their operations require substantial adjustments to meet zoning requirements.

The applicant argued that he has done significant good for the community, by doing business in Wichita and contracting with local companies. He pointed out that other businesses operate in similar conditions, and that he has plans to address the outstanding issues on his property, including agreeing to curtail or totally stop the burning of debris.

The board heard public comment on the matter, and decided that the matter required further review and deferred the issue until the planned meeting on Aug. 8.

The board finished by hearing a presentation by Assistant City Attorney Jeff VanZandt about conflicts of interest and ex parte communications. Mr. VanZandt spoke about the importance of avoiding ex parte communications especially as it applies to the Kansas Open Meetings Act. In essence, his presentation boiled down to advice to err on the side of caution, and try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and advised the board members to trust their gut if they feel that there might be a conflict of interest or ex parte issue. He also emphasized the importance of keeping an eye on gatherings of several board members, as it may constitute a meeting under the Open Meetings Act.

Summary

Summarize the 3 most important outcomes or takeaways from your notes....

• A restaurant owner was granted permission to expand their building and install outdoor speakers despite objections from a neighbor regarding noise and disregard for previous regulations.
• A lumberyard operating in violation of zoning regulations, including open burning and lack of proper screening, was granted a deferment to address the issues. The board will revisit the case in the meeting on Aug. 8.
• The board seems to be occupied with a lot of zoning changes having to do with the conversion of formerly rural land into more industrial or commercial purposes.

Follow-Up Questions

What are you left wondering? Ask up to 3 of your own follow-up questions...

• How will the Board address the concerns raised by the neighbor regarding potential noise disturbances from the expanded patio and outdoor speakers? Will there be limitations on volume or hours of operation for the speakers? How would those limitations be enforced?
• Following the presentation by Assistant City Attorney Jeff VanZandt, will the Board be implementing any additional training procedures to ensure members are aware of and avoid conflicts of interest and ex parte communication?

If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at documenters@citybureau.org with "Correction Request" in the subject line.