Published using Google Docs
Wichita City - Metropolitan Area Planning Commission - Metropolitan Area Planning Commission - Wichita-Sedgwick County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting 05/08/2025
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

 

 

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

Documenter name: Susan Miner

Agency: Wichita City - Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Date: May 8, 2025

See more about this meeting at Documenters.org

 

Notes

Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Meeting

May 8, 2025, 1:30 pm, 271 W 3rd Street, 2nd floor

Members present: Chair Bryan Frye, Vice-Chair Bob Aldrich, Doug Hye, Jocelyn Clonts, Leon Moeder, John McKay, Bob Dool, Bill Johnson, Hugh Nicks, Chuck Warren, Joe Johnson, Cindy Miles, Tony Zimbelman, John Williams-Bey.

Staff present: Planning Director Scott Wadle, Planners Christina Rieth, Brad Eatherly, Moumita Kundu, and Philip Zevenbergen, Zoning Administrator JR Cox, Assistant City Attorney Abigail Burgess, Assistant County Counselor Samantha Seang.

Commission Chair Bryan Frye called the meeting to order at 1:30pm. Following recorded announcements, roll call, approval of the April 24, 2025 meeting minutes, and determination of the agenda items to be taken on consent, Frye recessed the MAPC meeting to a meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Board of Zoning Appeals meeting https://www.wichita.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=439

May 8, 2025, during MAPC meeting, 1:45 pm, 271 W 3rd Street, 2nd floor.

Following approval of the April 24, 2025 BZA meeting minutes, two variance requests were heard.

Item #2, BZA2025-00019 was a variance request to allow a roof sign on a multi-story building at the southwest corner of Broadway and Douglas (105 S Broadway) which is being converted to hotel use. Since the Wichita Sign Code prohibits roof signs in the Central Business District, where this building is located, a variance is required to allow the proposed sign. Furthermore, to be approved, a variance must meet all five criteria specified in the Wichita Sign Code. Staff finds that this request fails to meet criteria #3, which states that enforcing the sign code “would constitute an unnecessary hardship on the applicant,” since there are already four building signs on the north and east facades of the building.

Since the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the requested signage was reviewed by the Wichita Historic Preservation Board which approved the request. Other roof signs in the nearby downtown area were cited as examples of variances for signage. Maps, site photos, and renderings of the proposed roof sign accompanied the staff report on the request.

David W Branson, representing Dynamic Sign Solutions, spoke as agent for the applicant, explaining that this sign is needed for the hotel to be competitive with other hotels who have signage visible from Kellogg. This sign would face south and be visible from Kellogg, unlike the other signs currently in place on other facades of the building.

Following questions from the Commission verifying that the applicant agrees to the conditions recommended in the staff report, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to approve the variance based on new testimony from the agent.

Item #3, BZAA2025-00021, was a variance request to reduce the rear and side setbacks to six inches on a single-family residential lot at 3135 N Park Place where the owner constructed two sheds and a carport 10 years ago.

Staff analysis concluded that the request does not meet the five required criteria for a variance and noted that lack of knowledge of the code does not permit the applicant to fail to obey it. In addition, the buildings at the rear of the property overlap a utility easement. If the City would need access to the sewer main, the sheds would have to be removed. 

In addition to site maps and photos, a letter of opposition from a neighbor was included with the staff recommendation for denial of the request. The staff report stated that if the BZA should find that the five criteria are in fact met, recommended conditions for approval were: an approved site plan, a permit from Public Works and Utilities Department for keeping structures over the utility easement and building permits from MABCD for the carport and sheds.

Daniel Chamberland spoke as agent and translator for the applicant, Cesar Martinez. In response to questions from the Commission, he stated that when he built the sheds and carport, he did not know the setback requirements and did not have an engineer provide a structural report on the carport, which is not anchored to the house. He claimed that there was no damage from runoff from the sheds and carport being so close to the property line and that he needs the sheds to store his belongings and tools. If the variance is approved, he offered to pay permit fees to allow the buildings to remain, and he understood the utility easement situation.

During public comment, Faith Laudermilk, the neighbor directly north of the subject property, voiced her opposition to the variance, particularly the location of the carport so close to her property. She expressed numerous complaints over the owner’s behavior. In rebuttal, the owner denied the actions she cited.

A motion to accept the staff recommendation to deny the variance was made, seconded, and unanimously approved.

At that point, Frye adjourned the BZA meeting and resumed the MAPC meeting. The first order of business was Item 2.1 On consent: SUB2025-00018, A Subdivision Committee recommendation for approval of the final plat of Willow Springs 2nd Addition, was unanimously approved.

Item 3.1 On consent: VAC1015-00012, to vacate a pipeline easement at 9422 Woodspring Court, was unanimously approved and Item 3.2 On consent: VAC2025-00013, to vacate a drainage easement at 600 N Greenwich Road, was unanimously approved.

Other decisions include:

Item 4.5: PUD2025-00005 was the topic of some discussion. This PUD was an amendment to Planned Unit Development #78 to allow an LED sign 4’ by 50’ on the north side on the third floor of the residential building on N Fairmount Avenue, south of East 17th Street N. Staff presented their report stating that the sign exceeds the Sign Code height restrictions in a residential zone, does not conform to the Community Investments Plan, the Places for People Plan, or the intentions of the Northeast Central Plan. Site maps and photos were included in the staff report, which recommends denial of the amendment.

Kim Edgington, agent for the applicant, spoke of the need to improve visibility and wayfinding to the apartment building, which is on a residential street south of 17th Street. The owner has invested $20 million in buildings in the area over the past 20 years and $6 million in this particular building. The sign would provide improved visibility from 17th Street to attract renters and their visitors to make this building successful. Edgington offered photos of the considerable ambient light from neighboring parking lots at night, stating that the backlit letters of this sign will not significantly contribute to light pollution. In response to a question about how the lighted sign would affect the residential property directly north of the apartment building, she explained that it has been vacant for 20 years.

During public comment, Lonnie Barnes, who owns the building across Fairmount from the subject property, said he does not oppose the sign. The WSU 10-year plan includes developing commercial usage along this stretch of 17th, so those lots will be changing. A motion to approve the amendment request was made, seconded, and passed with one abstention.

Discussion also touched on Item 4.8: ZON2025-00014, a zone change to limited commercial for office use at 6811 W 53rd Street N. Staff presented the report finding the requested zone change was not in compliance with the 2035 Future Growth Map, which designates the area as new residential, discouraging commercial usage except along established commercial arterial streets. Staff recommendation for denial is also based on Factor #3 – that a zone change from residential to either light commercial or general office would be detrimental to adjacent properties. If the Commission finds otherwise and approves the zone change, it can include conditions in a protective overlay to restrict other future uses.

Derek Grandfield, the applicant, explained that the primary use of the parcel will be for an office for their property management company. They would also like to be able to use the building for events to offset some of the construction cost. There was discussion with staff of the difference between the requested limited commercial zoning and an alternative general office zone designation. Either would require a separate application for a conditional use permit to allow the event center. The Commission found that, upon this testimony, Factor #3 was adequately met and a motion to approve with a protective overlay was made, seconded, and approved by a vote of 11 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention, and 1 absence (Bill Johnson being absent from this item discussion).

Item 4.9: ZON2025-00015 pertained to a zone change from single family residential to general commercial to allow an outdoor auditorium at Holy Cross Evangelical Lutheran Church, 600 N Greenwich Road. The staff report explained the variety of potential uses that would be allowed in the general commercial zone being requested and recommended the addition of a protective overlay to restrict these. The compatibility standards for screening, sound beyond a 500-foot radius, and a separate conditional use application for ancillary parking were specified. Staff recommended approval with a protective overlay.

Brian Lindebak, of MKEC Engineering and a member of the church, spoke as agent for the project. Lindebak explained the current use of the outdoor space for events for church members and others and detailed plans for using the amphitheater for upcoming celebrations and concerts. In accommodating the nearby residences, they plan landscaping rather than fencing around the amphitheater and will be certain that sound will not travel more than the allowed 500-foot distance. However, they object to the recommended protective overlay since the church would not sell the property or wish to use it in any of the objectionable ways the zoning change would hypothetically allow. The protective overlay proposes to limit hours of use, prohibit dancing or alcohol, and require any applicable license and on-site parking approval for events conducted by others.

Frye questioned why he had not discussed these objections with staff when he received the staff report. Lindebak replied that he had tried to reach staff but had had no response. Planning Director Scott Wadle asked when he had tried to contact staff, and he indicated it had been numerous times. Philip Zevenbergen, Current Plans Division Manager, explained that once the staff report is finalized and sent to applicants, it is not possible to alter it. Therefore, to allow time for the applicant and staff to discuss the protective overlay, a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to defer this item to the June 12 MAPC meeting.

Frye then adjourned the meeting at 3:45.

 

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