2026-10-22 - Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

00:34So, do you still want to go over that?

00:39>> It's October 8th.

00:40>> I know you're getting as bad as I am.

00:42You're getting You're getting as bad as

00:43I am.

01:10Scott, you ready?

01:19Yeah, I I like that hammer.

01:21Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to

01:23October 22nd, Metropolitan Planning

01:25Commission.

01:26Uh may

01:28before we get have our announcement

01:30Yeah, those of you with cell phones,

01:32would you please put them on manner mode

01:34or shut them off, please?

01:36Uh may we have our announcement, please?

01:54>> Before we begin the agenda, the Wichita

01:57Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area

01:59Planning Commission and the Wichita

02:01Sedgwick County Board of Zoning Appeals

02:04would like to take this opportunity to

02:06welcome everyone to this public hearing.

02:09For those in attendance, copies of the

02:11agenda for today's meeting, the public

02:13hearing procedure, and planning

02:15department staff reports on all agenda

02:17items are available in the lobby.

02:20The Planning Commissions and the BZA's

02:23bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning,

02:26subdivision, or variance application and

02:29his or her representatives to a total of

02:3210 minutes of speaking time at the start

02:34of the hearing on that item, plus up to

02:372 minutes at the conclusion of that

02:39hearing. All other persons wishing to

02:41speak on agenda items are limited to 3

02:44minutes per person. However, if they

02:47feel that it is needed and justified,

02:49the chairman may extend these times by

02:52up to 2 minutes. All speakers are

02:55requested to state his or her name and

02:57address for the record when beginning to

03:00speak. When you are finished speaking,

03:02please share your name, address, and the

03:05case number on the sheet provided in the

03:07room.

03:08This will enable staff to notify you if

03:11there are any additional proceedings

03:12concerning that item.

03:14All speakers at the podium, please

03:17remove your face mask before speaking

03:19into the microphone. Please note that

03:22all written and visual materials you

03:24present to the commission and the board

03:27will be retained by the secretary as

03:29part of the official record. If you are

03:32not speaking, but you wish to be

03:34notified about future proceedings on a

03:36particular case, please provide your

03:38contact information to the planning

03:40department. The Planning Commission and

03:43the Board are interested in hearing the

03:45views of all persons who wish to express

03:48themselves on all the agenda items.

03:51However, we ask that all speakers please

03:54be as courteous and concise as possible

03:56and avoid long repetitions of facts or

03:59opinions which have already been stated.

04:02For your information, the Wichita City

04:04Council has adopted a policy for all

04:07city zoning items. A copy of this policy

04:10is available from the planning staff.

04:13The City Council relies on a written

04:15record of the Planning Commission

04:16hearings and does not conduct its own

04:19additional public hearings on these

04:21items.

04:23The decision of the BZA is final.

04:26Any appeal of a decision of the BZA is

04:29to the District Court.

04:32>> Director Roido, could you do our roll

04:33call, please?

04:35>> Yes, sir.

04:36Aldrich.

04:37>> Here.

04:38>> Zimmerman.

04:39>> Here.

04:40>> Fry.

04:41>> Present.

04:42>> Mader.

04:42>> Here.

04:43>> McKay.

04:44>> Here.

04:45>> Duel.

04:45>> Here.

04:46>> Bill Johnson.

04:47>> Here.

04:48>> Hi.

04:50Klaus.

04:51Warren.

04:52>> Yes.

04:53>> Johnson.

04:54>> Here.

04:56>> Austin.

04:57>> Here.

04:58>> Williamsbay.

04:59>> Here.

05:00>> Theissen.

05:02Sir, I show all members are present, 14.

05:05>> Thank you, sir.

05:06Uh next we will uh look at the approval

05:10of the prior

05:11uh MABC meeting minute me

05:14meeting minutes

05:16uh for October 8th. I show Commissioner

05:18Austin and Commissioner Williamsbay uh

05:21were absent.

05:25Any corrections, updates on the minutes?

05:30We have both We have a motion to approve

05:32by uh Commissioner McKay and a second by

05:36I'm sorry, who who made the second? Oh,

05:38uh Commissioner Duel. All in favor

05:40signify by saying I.

05:41>> I.

05:42>> All opposed, same sign.

05:44Motion [clears throat] passed 12-0-2.

05:50We do not have a BZA meeting today.

05:53Now we will go through the uh

05:57consent items and see which items that

05:59can can be taken on consent.

06:01Uh the first would be the subdivision

06:03recommendations uh 2.1,

06:06which is subdivision 2026-000484A,

06:12uh final plan on Iron One Addition. Uh

06:15the

06:16uh subdivision recommended 6-0. Uh is

06:19there

06:22Excuse me.

06:26Is there anyone on the

06:28commission that would like to hear this

06:29case?

06:31Seeing none, is there anyone in the

06:33audience that would like to hear this

06:34case?

06:37Seeing none, we can move 2.1 to consent.

06:41Next agenda item is 2.2, subdivision

06:432026-00056,

06:47one-step final plat, Seneca Club Car

06:50Wash Addition.

06:52Uh the subdivision

06:54uh recommended uh 6-0 with no waivers.

06:58Is there anyone on the commission that

07:00would like to hear this case?

07:03Seeing none, is there anyone in from the

07:04audience that would like to hear this

07:06case?

07:08I see none. We can move

07:10uh 2.2

07:13uh to the uh consent agenda items.

07:16>> Move for Move for approval for 2.1, 2.2.

07:20>> We have a motion by Commissioner Joe

07:22Johnson for approval. We have a second

07:24by Commissioner I. Uh all in favor

07:26signify by saying I.

07:27>> I.

07:28>> All opposed, same sign.

07:30Motion passed 14-0.

07:33Next we will move into the vacation

07:34items.

07:36First item on the agenda is 3.1,

07:38vacation 2026-00034.

07:45is a vacation request in the city for

07:47utility easement.

07:48Subdivision approved 6 to 0.

07:50Uh is there anyone on the commission

07:52that would like to hear this case?

07:55Seeing none, is there anyone from the

07:57audience that would like to hear this

07:58case?

08:00Seeing none, we can move 3.1 to consent.

08:04Next agenda item 3.2 vacation 2026

08:09-00035.

08:12Uh this is a vacation request in the

08:13city

08:15uh for a drainage and utility utility

08:17easement. The commission subdivision

08:20approved 6 to 0. Is there anyone on the

08:23commission that would like to hear this

08:25case?

08:28Anyone from the audience would like to

08:29hear this case?

08:31Seeing none, we can move vacation item

08:342026-00035

08:37to consent.

08:39>> [clears throat]

08:41>> Move to approve items 3.1 and 3.2.

08:44>> I have a motion by Commissioner

08:46Zimbelman uh for approval of 3.1 and

08:483.2, seconded by Commissioner McKay. All

08:52in favor signify by saying aye.

08:53>> Aye.

08:54>> Opposed, same sign.

08:56Motion has passed 14 to nothing.

08:59>> [clears throat]

09:00>> Now we will check on the public hearing

09:03items to see which could be taken by

09:05consent.

09:06The first agenda item that we have is

09:08zone case 2025

09:11-00045

09:13uh with a CUP 2026

09:16-00038.

09:19Staff is recommending denial, so we will

09:21be hearing 4.1.

09:23Asian or applicant available?

09:26Okay, thank you.

09:27Next agenda item is conditional use

09:302026-00133.

09:35Conditional use in the county for single

09:37family use RV uh campground.

09:40Uh

09:41Is there anyone on the commission that

09:43would like to hear this case?

09:46Seeing none, is there anyone from the

09:48audience that would like to hear the

09:49case?

09:51I see none. We can move 4.2

09:54to consent.

09:57>> [clears throat]

09:58>> Next agenda item 4.3 zone case 2026

10:03-00048

10:05zone change request in the city from

10:08single family residential to

10:09multi-family residential. Uh approximate

10:12location on this is West 29th Street and

10:16North Hood. Is there anyone from the

10:18commission would like to hear this case?

10:21Seeing none, is there anyone from the

10:23audience would like to hear this case?

10:26Okay, we will be hearing 4.3.

10:31Next agenda item 4.4 zone case 2026.

10:37What am I talking about? Yeah,

10:382026-00049.

10:42Uh zone change request in the city from

10:44a two-family residential to general

10:47office. Approximate location East 21st

10:49Street North and Maplewood Drive. Is

10:52there anyone on the planning commission

10:54that would like to hear this case?

10:56Seeing none, is there anyone from the

10:58audience that would like to hear this

10:59case?

11:01Seeing none, we can move 4.4 to consent.

11:06Next agenda item 4.5 is a zone case 2026

11:11-00050.

11:13Uh staff is recommending denial, so we

11:16will be hearing 4.5. Is the agent or

11:19applicant available?

11:20>> Yes.

11:21>> Okay, thank you, sir.

11:33Okay, is there a Do we have a motion to

11:36approve

11:38What is it 4 4 4

11:414 2 and 4 4

11:43>> So moved.

11:44>> Second.

11:45>> We have motion approved by Commissioner

11:47Bill Johnson and seconded by

11:49Commissioner Williams Bay. All in favor

11:52signify and say "Aye".

11:53>> Aye.

11:54>> All opposed same sign. That motion has

11:57passed

11:5814 to 0.

12:00Uh non-public hunting items

12:03No

12:04I I think

12:06I I got on my mind I'm hungry. Uh

12:08hearing items uh would be the calendar

12:11and that'd be 5.1. We will be hearing

12:13that.

12:14Uh Phillip

12:20>> [clears throat]

12:25>> Apologies for that. Phillip's

12:26Ziemenberger with planning staff here to

12:27present zone 2645 and CUP 2638. This

12:31application was initially heard on

12:33October 8th, 2026 and the uh planning

12:36commission recommended deferral

12:38of it to today's date to uh incorporate

12:41some additional information that was

12:42brought up during the discussion,

12:44primarily from the agent regarding uses

12:46permitted on several of the parcels as

12:48well as uh possibility of different

12:50options for uh

12:52solid screening.

12:53I'm not going to go through the entire

12:54staff report. I'm just going to go over

12:56the new information in your staff report

12:58on the first order pages, everything in

13:00red that's either new or struck through.

13:03That indicates what uh the new

13:05information is that is different from

13:07what was presented uh 2 weeks ago. So,

13:10as a reminder, it's a zone change

13:11request in the county from SF-20 to LC

13:13Limited Commercial uh in addition to a

13:16CUP in order to establish the Blotch

13:19Addition

13:20Community Unit Plan. This is located on

13:22the south side of West 21st Street North

13:25and the west side of North 135th Street

13:27West. Uh if you want to stay on the CUP

13:30drawing, that will be helpful for our

13:31discussion.

13:33Uh going through the

13:36items that are new information, uh

13:392 weeks ago the uh agent was up here and

13:41indicated that they had mistakenly

13:44submitted text for the community unit

13:46plan that restricted parcels 1, 2, and 3

13:49to uses permitted within the

13:51neighborhood retail district. They

13:53indicated that they actually intended to

13:55have those uses be permitted per the

13:57limited commercial zoning district,

13:59which is the base zoning that they're

14:00asking for.

14:01So, that's one

14:03uh

14:03thing that is new, and you'll note those

14:05changes on the table that are on page

14:07two.

14:09Uh the other information that is new,

14:11one, they moved the setback here on the

14:14west side. Originally, it was 10 ft. Uh

14:16staff recommended that it should at

14:18least be 15 ft. They were okay with

14:20that, so that setback is now proposed to

14:22be 15 ft, uh which now comes into

14:25compliance with a minimum compatibility

14:27setback. Um that's indicated on page

14:30three.

14:31The bulk of the change uh is related to

14:33possible screening and landscaping. Uh

14:37primarily on parcel three,

14:40they are okay with doing a screening

14:42wall on the south side of parcel three.

14:45Um and then what we're going to be

14:47talking about most here is what's going

14:50to happen with the west and the south

14:52side of parcel four.

14:54The applicant is their their new request

14:57is to allow for the back of the

15:00buildings

15:01of the proposed warehouse self-storage

15:03to act as part of the screening element.

15:06They propose that they could use either

15:09a wrought iron fence or other screening

15:11material that matches the buildings in

15:14addition to evergreen planting along the

15:17side. So, you'd have the buildings, you

15:18would have some type of a fence, could

15:20be see-through, could be solid. Um in

15:23addition to landscaping.

15:27I'm going to flip to the community unit

15:30plan text in the staff report.

15:35First, I'll say our staff's overall

15:37recommendation has not changed from 2

15:39weeks ago, and that is recommendation

15:41for denial of both requests. This is

15:43primarily predicated on the land use

15:46guideline in the comprehensive plan that

15:48discourages zone changes that would

15:51allow for municipal level development

15:53prior to annexation into the city. So,

15:56that's the base level recommendation.

15:58However, when it comes to our

16:01alternative, if the board were to

16:03consider recommending approval of the

16:05requests today,

16:07uh we'll start with the screening since

16:09we're on on that.

16:11We have two alternatives on page 17 and

16:1418 of your staff report under item 13,

16:17which is the general provision regarding

16:19screening.

16:20We have alternative one and alternative

16:22two for you to consider.

16:24The first alternative, which is what our

16:26followed what our recommendation was 2

16:28weeks ago, that if the planning

16:30commission were to recommend approval,

16:32we recommend that a

16:356-8 foot wall be required along the

16:37south and west sides of parcel four.

16:40This is in compliance with the minimum

16:43standard for a non-residential CUP when

16:45it abuts residential zoning, which this

16:48does on the west and the south sides.

16:50So, that's alternative one is to be

16:52consistent with the zoning code for

16:53non-residential CUPs. It requires 6-8

16:56foot masonry wall along the entire

16:59perimeter of the CUP where it abuts

17:00residential zoning.

17:03That being said, if you go to page 18,

17:05um and alternative number two

17:07starts to extrapolate a little bit more

17:09on the applicant's request.

17:12It would allow the rear of the buildings

17:15to act as screening.

17:17Staff's recommended text, if you were to

17:19choose this alternative, would be that

17:21the space in between require a solid

17:25screening fence. The applicant's request

17:27would either allow a wrought iron, which

17:29you can see through, so it doesn't

17:30screen anything, or it has a vague

17:33language that talks about a screening

17:35material that matches the buildings.

17:37Well, that could be metal, that could be

17:39a number of things, and a screening

17:40fence [snorts] has very

17:42specific materials uh that the zoning

17:44code outlines as to appropriate for

17:46screening. Um metal is not one of them.

17:49And so, to more or less extrapolate and

17:52be more specific as to what that is,

17:55staff is recommending that it be a

17:56screening fence, which then has to

17:58follow the material regulations in the

18:00zoning code of wood or masonry or

18:03something like that. We also indicated

18:05that it should be 6 to 8 ft tall because

18:07their language did not include a height

18:10in there. So, it essentially would be a

18:11screening fence at a minimum that would

18:13have to be opaque,

18:15made of wood.

18:17In addition, staff added

18:20specifics regarding the planting of

18:22evergreen trees. They indicated a very

18:24nondescript evergreen screen.

18:27Um staff put in language that a

18:29evergreen tree would be required one per

18:31every 30 linear feet. That way there's

18:33actually an enforcement measure of how

18:35many trees and how thick that um

18:37landscaping would have to be.

18:41Furthermore, staff went a step farther.

18:43During the discussion

18:452 weeks ago, the applicant was stating

18:47that this is kind of a secondary

18:50property of just north of an existing

18:53property that the applicant has

18:54developed into warehouse self-storage

18:55near 135th and 13th Street. They

18:58indicated that that one uses the back of

19:00the buildings in addition to this

19:02evergreen screen screen that they're

19:03proposing.

19:05Looking at that property, those exterior

19:07buildings along the perimeter of the

19:09property [snorts]

19:11required an architectural design to them

19:14that has a masonry or brick wainscoting

19:16and hipped gable roofs. So, that when

19:18you're actually looking at the building,

19:19they look residential in character.

19:22So, staff added that language as well

19:24that if they want to use the back of the

19:25buildings, screen in between the

19:27buildings and have landscaping between

19:28the buildings and the property line,

19:30that those buildings would have to be

19:32treated the same way as a property about

19:34a mile south requiring a brick or

19:36masonry wainscoting

19:38in addition to a hipped gable roofs on

19:40the exterior buildings only. So, these

19:43any interior buildings to the warehouse

19:44self storage would not have to follow

19:46that. It would only be on those visible

19:48from the exterior property lines on the

19:51perimeter of the warehouse self storage.

19:55So, again, you have two alternatives

19:57uh for screening to consider if you look

19:59to recommend approval of the entire

20:02application today.

20:04I'm going to back up a step back to the

20:06parcels and the uses that are permitted.

20:08As a reminder, the applicant is

20:10requesting that parcels 1, 2, and 3 be

20:12allowed to have uses permitted in the

20:14limited commercial district. One thing

20:16that staff really indicated when we had

20:18an internal discussion this last week uh

20:20regarding this is we really appreciated

20:22at least that parcels 2 and 3 previously

20:25were restricted to neighborhood retail

20:27because that would not allow a

20:28drive-thru restaurant. Uh considering

20:31there are two residential houses here

20:33and there's a residential property south

20:35of parcel 3, essentially especially

20:38these two are almost becoming islands of

20:40residential that are stuck between the

20:42arterial right-of-way and what would be

20:45commercial development. With that in

20:46mind, staff is recommending that again,

20:48if you recommend approval of this today,

20:51that parcel 1 would be allowed to have

20:53limited commercial uses. It is separated

20:55from the residential uses to the east

20:59and more interior to site. However, that

21:01parcels 2 and 3 would be restricted to

21:04neighborhood retail. It still allows for

21:06a restaurant. It still allows for retail

21:08uses, but there's further restrictions

21:10on those uses and does not necessarily

21:13allow for the full extent of what

21:15limited commercial could do, which staff

21:17feels could have detrimental impacts to

21:19the residential properties that are

21:20along 135th.

21:25Again, overall, our official staff

21:27recommendation is denial. I wanted to

21:29jump into the details of those

21:30alternatives so that as you're

21:32delivering today, if there is a motion

21:34for approval, you have those for

21:35consideration. And with that, I can

21:37stand for questions.

21:39>> Uh Commissioner Mater.

21:43Yes, Philip, [clears throat] in regards

21:44to the recommendation for neighborhood

21:46retail,

21:48it's because the two properties that are

21:51there today are residential.

21:53>> That is correct.

21:55>> If and when or when they become

21:59uh a commercial property,

22:03would they have to come in for rezone if

22:05they wanted to go up or could that be

22:06written in somehow today in what we're

22:08doing that if those

22:11re-came zoned

22:13uh some type of commercial usage, it

22:14could be changed?

22:16>> Yeah, that's a really good question. So,

22:17the base zoning of the CUP, if approved,

22:20would be limited commercial. The CUP

22:22text would be the only restricting

22:23factor. So, that's one thing, so they

22:25wouldn't have to come for a zone change.

22:28They would have to handle the text of

22:30the uh community unit plan.

22:33In the zoning code, there are a couple

22:34options. Number one, possibly, there

22:37could be the form of an administrative

22:38adjustment. This uh zoning code does

22:40allow for an administrative adjustment

22:42to a community unit plan to allow a use

22:44that is not more intensive than what's

22:47already permitted elsewhere in the CUP.

22:49So, for example, if they were approved

22:51for neighborhood retail, these two

22:53residential properties become commercial

22:55properties in the future, it could be a

22:57possibility for them to administratively

22:59say, "Well, we now want a drive-thru

23:01restaurant because that's already

23:02permitted on parcel one. And we want

23:04that for parcel two now. It's not more

23:06intense than what was initially

23:07originally

23:08uh

23:09approved. And so that would be the

23:11determination of the director and the

23:13zoning administrator to see if that was

23:15appropriate to do administratively.

23:17The fallback would be a minor amendment

23:19to come in through a public hearing

23:21process and amend parcel two to allow

23:24for limited commercial uses. Um but

23:26either way there would be a mechanism to

23:28possibly change those in the future.

23:31>> Thank you.

23:32Any additional questions for staff?

23:34Uh

23:35Phil, do you know that anywhere else

23:37that it's been allowed that you can use

23:40the uh rock fencing in lieu of a solid

23:44wall when it comes to

23:46uh any existing uh storage uh units?

23:50>> The one we mentioned uh

23:52at 135th and 13th is in a community unit

23:55plan and would technically required a

23:57wall. Um it was approved to have the

24:00rear of the buildings with fencing in

24:01between in addition to landscaping.

24:04>> Do

24:05Do you have a Commissioner uh

24:07Joel Johnson?

24:08>> Do we have a picture of that, by any

24:09chance?

24:10>> I do not. I apologize.

24:14>> Any additional? Seeing none, agent or

24:17applicant, please.

24:22And I also would like to make a comment

24:23that back um

24:26on the 8th, I believe it was, of this

24:28month, that this was deferred for the

24:31purpose of having uh the agent and

24:34applicant and staff working things out.

24:36So,

24:37uh we'll see whether that was done or

24:39not.

24:41>> Phil Meyer with Bachmann Company, agent

24:43for the applicant, 315 South Ellis.

24:47Um

24:51I'm try I'm going to try not to go back

24:53and hash through everything that we did

24:56um

24:57at the last meeting. So,

24:59but one of the main questions is I got a

25:01recommendation for denial

25:04because I have not annexed this property

25:07into the city before I filed the

25:09application.

25:10I have got a landowner that owns the

25:12property that does not want it annexed

25:15if it's not sold.

25:17Um, I got a contract purchaser that's

25:20willing to annex it if he can get the

25:22zoning he needs.

25:23So, we have no issue and will tell you

25:26now we are willing to annex during the

25:28platting process if this gets approved.

25:31I don't think it's fair to the landowner

25:34because our comprehensive plan

25:36recommends

25:38that it be annexed first. It's not fair

25:39to the landowner that may not be selling

25:42this to ask him to annex it and have it

25:44in the city and then I get the zoning he

25:46wants.

25:47So, that's the crux of the whole thing

25:49and I have a recommendation for denial.

25:52I think the question is if I had annexed

25:55it, would I have a recommendation for

25:56denial from staff for this land use that

25:59we're proposing?

26:02Um,

26:04second, we think the LC zoning is

26:06appropriate on parcels two and three.

26:10We know these are still single family

26:12today, these two lots. We do not feel

26:14those will stay single family long-term.

26:18We have commercial property, a vacant

26:20commercial corner across the street. We

26:22have a fire station. We have a

26:24sewer lift station behind that. So,

26:27we have

26:29uses across the street from these two

26:32single family homes that it's just a

26:34matter of time before these properties

26:36will be asked to be commercial. It's not

26:39the right location for residential

26:42anymore, but we've got two landowners

26:44that are there, both elderly and they

26:46want to finish their time in that house

26:49and I fully understand that, but

26:51I think our zoning request is reasonable

26:54when you look at the perimeter of

26:56everything that's out there.

26:59The biggest probably issue is the

27:00screening requirement.

27:03And I passed out to you

27:05this is the Security Max store that is

27:09uh not a half a mile, not even a half a

27:11mile to the south on the east side of

27:13135th.

27:16In that one, uh we were required by the

27:18planning commission and staff to do the

27:20wainscoting on the south, the brick

27:22wainscoting on the bottom part of the

27:24building

27:26and do the evergreens.

27:28Our point is

27:30we have no problems with the evergreens.

27:31We want to do the evergreens, and if the

27:33evergreens do their job, you're not

27:35going to see the brick wainscoting on

27:37the bottom. So, you go out there and

27:39look at it, it doesn't serve much

27:41purpose.

27:42Uh we would like you to approve it as we

27:46submitted it. We can discuss location.

27:48So, I submitted it with the request that

27:57Can I hit that?

28:01Nope. There we go. I need that to

28:04So,

28:06Do you want to wait for that to go away,

28:07Phillip?

28:15Okay.

28:16So, I have residential So, we filed this

28:20saying when adjacent to residential use,

28:23not zoning, residential use. So, I have

28:26a house here.

28:27So, we would do the evergreen screens

28:29here.

28:30I have a house here where the gentleman

28:32showed up last week and is going to

28:35build his new house, and it comes to

28:37about here. That's why I was wanting to

28:39show you.

28:40We would do the screening here.

28:43But when we get over here, this is

28:45church property. This is church

28:47property.

28:48Um

28:51if I could have you guys

28:54take me to page 21, please.

29:00of the staff report.

29:07Now, I was looking for the aerial.

29:17So, I can talk off of this.

29:19This is This residential Here we go.

29:23This is the residential use right here

29:25that we would be doing screening

29:27against.

29:28This is the church property. It's zoned

29:31SF5,

29:32but it's the church facility. And I

29:36we're missing what value there is in

29:40doing the landscaping at this location

29:42and at this location. This is the

29:44parking lot for church. There's a lot of

29:46buffer here. This is a storage building

29:48for them. So, I'd like you to prove it

29:50today where we agreed to do the

29:52screening adjacent to residential uses,

29:55not residential zoning.

29:58We would like you to approve it with

30:01alternative two, which is what we

30:03recommended.

30:05Our plan is to use the same material

30:07that's on the back of the building in

30:09the gaps between the buildings.

30:12So, it's a it's a metal panel, 6 8 ft.

30:15Good either way

30:17on that height.

30:18And we just want to use that same

30:19material for our screening. The only

30:22location where that won't happen,

30:25I don't know that we'll be allowed to do

30:27that. That'll be a AEP decision. We have

30:29a

30:30overhead transmission line going through

30:32the site here. So, we'll we're we wrote

30:34it in the CUP that

30:36we would screen it per the easement

30:40ability. What we can do with the

30:41easement is there.

30:45With that,

30:46I'm going to stop and answer any

30:47questions that you may have.

30:49>> Um

30:50commission,

30:51>> [clears throat]

30:51>> excuse me, Commissioner Fry.

30:53>> Thank you.

30:54Phil, I don't believe I heard you talk

30:56about the recommendation by staff on

30:59NR for parcels two and three.

31:02Can you clarify your position on it cuz

31:04staff is recommending

31:06>> No, we would like the LC and I I meant

31:08to say I mean I'm hoping I'm saying

31:10that, but we think there's

31:12we foresee these two parcels being LC

31:15down the road and would just as soon do

31:17it now.

31:18>> Could you have a

31:19>> back and amend or rezone it later.

31:21>> the suggestion was to have an an

31:23administrative allowance

31:26as part of a motion that could

31:28what what what you talked about earlier.

31:30>> It's already built into the zoning code

31:32that they could possibly do it by

31:33administrative adjustment in the future.

31:35Wouldn't have to build it in

31:37to the code today.

31:38>> And then just to be clear,

31:40>> [clears throat]

31:40>> you're okay with the staff screening

31:43alternative recommendation number two.

31:45Is that what I'm hearing?

31:47>> We do not

31:49Well, we'd like it as we filed it, but

31:51we do not want it to say residential use

31:56residential zoning. We want it to say

31:58residential use.

32:00And we do not want to do the brick

32:04mason wainscoting on the back of the

32:07buildings if we do the evergreens. We

32:09don't see the reason to do both.

32:11>> But that wasn't on

32:13>> That is on C. That is 13C

32:16in the red text.

32:18>> Alternative two?

32:20>> Yes.

32:21>> It just says It just says solid

32:23screening fence.

32:24>> It says perimeter buildings on the south

32:27and west property line shall have brick

32:29and mason wainscoting three before feet.

32:32>> Hm? Okay. I need to read faster.

32:35>> Um so, I'll go back to

32:39and follow up on asking you your wording

32:41again but the possibility to do

32:45administrative adjustment. I'd like to

32:46know that we can do if if planning

32:49commission's going to prove it with NR

32:52I just want to know we can do it through

32:54an administrative adjustment.

32:56The word possibility

32:59I may be an amendment in it or I may be

33:01rezoning it. So

33:03Yeah.

33:06>> If it's limited commercial zoning that's

33:09restricted to NR uses, there is the

33:11possibility

33:12to do an administrative adjustment to

33:14allow for uses already allowed in the

33:17CUP somewhere else.

33:20That's not more intensive than what's

33:21already allowed in the CUP somewhere

33:22else.

33:23>> Cuz he's hold

33:25hiccuping on the word possibility.

33:27He's looking for some certainty.

33:29>> There's there's discretion. [laughter]

33:31Yeah, there's discretion in that process

33:33and uh

33:35there's some there's some standards in

33:37the zoning code that you we need to make

33:38sure that it doesn't violate any of

33:41those but then the other issue is that

33:43we there's typically a public notice

33:45process through a sign and we look to

33:47see if it's controversial because what

33:48we don't want to have happen is we at

33:50least I as a planning director don't

33:52want to have happen is

33:54have us administratively approve

33:55something that's controversial. If it's

33:57controversial, I want it to come in

33:58front of the MABC.

34:04>> Commissioner Fry, you're good.

34:06>> Okay.

34:07>> Uh Commissioner Mater.

34:08>> Um I'm

34:09wanting to get some clarification so

34:11that we don't end up with a problem in

34:13the future.

34:14>> Yes, sir.

34:14>> Your discussion with you were talking

34:17about screening when adjacent to

34:20residential usage.

34:23Okay, end period end of sentence.

34:25>> Yep.

34:25>> And then you're talking about using the

34:30uh screening in lieu of

34:34wainscoting or brick. So, where we have

34:38the remainder of the perimeter,

34:41are you going to put brick cuz you're

34:42not doing screening? Do you mean to say

34:44that or do you mean to say there you

34:46don't mean to do either? You don't mean

34:48to do wainscoting or

34:50uh, screening.

34:51>> Our preference Our preference is not to

34:54do either.

34:55>> I just want to make sure that we're

34:56clear if if we decide to adapt that if

34:58that we don't approve

35:00>> If the planning commission has heartburn

35:02with that, then we would rather do

35:04evergreen screening than we would do

35:07brick wainscoting.

35:13>> Be any additional?

35:17Okay. Uh, go ahead and stand stand by.

35:20Is there anyone from the audience that'd

35:22like to speak on this?

35:25Is there anyone from the audience that'd

35:26like to speak on this? This is someone

35:28that now's the time to come up.

35:29>> And for clarification, Commissioner of

35:31the County Council, I think this would

35:33be people who didn't speak up at the

35:34last meeting

35:36as well since this is one ongoing item.

35:38>> Okay.

35:39Is there anyone who has not spoke yet

35:43that would like to speak on this matter?

35:46Um,

35:48I don't see any. Okay.

35:51So, I guess what we can do there's no

35:54rebuttal.

35:56Uh,

35:56so we can bring it back to

35:59the commission for any further

36:01discussion.

36:02Um,

36:04Commissioner Rawson, as you have Oh, I'm

36:06sorry.

36:08Is there anyone like to

36:10make any comments on this?

36:12Um, Commissioner Johnson.

36:15Joe Johnson or Bill Johnson, excuse me.

36:18>> Uh, basically I can remember the case

36:21down the street from this one.

36:24Very controversial when that came in

36:26front of us,

36:27uh

36:29the owner and the applicant agent worked

36:32closely with all the neighborhoods

36:34and come up with a very good plan that

36:36worked.

36:37And to this day it looks very neat and

36:40it's rented.

36:41So, as far as the landscape and some of

36:44that, I think it just needs to be the

36:45building walls

36:47and a metal panel in between it so don't

36:49break it out.

36:53So, Commissioner, would you like to make

36:54a motion?

37:00>> Um Commissioner Fry?

37:01>> I'll happy to. Um

37:02first off, because of alternate findings

37:05that the purchasers willing

37:06[clears throat] to annex, which is the

37:08grounds for the denial, um that if it

37:12doesn't get purchased, it stays

37:13unannexed. So, the willingness to do

37:15that and then also that this is an

37:17arterial corner

37:18that development potential is certainly

37:21in the future. So, for those findings, I

37:24make a motion that we approve according

37:27to staff's alternative uh

37:31recommendation

37:32listed on page eight with

37:35um

37:37screening alternative two

37:41and then in item C of alternative two,

37:45replace brick or masonry wainscot with a

37:496-ft evergreen

37:51in height.

37:52Evergreens

37:54in height. I think that satisfies

37:57the request by the applicant.

37:59>> Second.

38:01>> Okay, we have a motion

38:02uh based on the comments just made by

38:04Commissioner Fry and a second by

38:06Commissioner Joe Johnson. Uh

38:08Commissioner Austin, do you have any

38:10comments?

38:12>> Just a just a quick clarification. Was

38:15it maybe a went by me the 13A where it

38:18talks about screening

38:20also has language where adjacent to

38:22residential zoning as opposed to a

38:24residential use and

38:27I'm just wondering if it should say use

38:28just to be consistent with the language

38:30in

38:32with 13A and 13C.

38:41>> So it's it's a residential use.

38:44>> And I'm okay with that.

38:45>> I thought I included that. I apologize.

38:47Thanks for the catch.

38:49>> minor amendments. Um both motion makers

38:52supported. Yes.

38:54Director Weidel.

38:55>> Yeah, I just a clarification question.

38:57Want to make sure I understand and got

38:58it down right.

39:00Um I think what I heard was uh evergreen

39:03trees and the height of six six foot

39:05high. Is that right? I just want to get

39:08clarification that the intent is that

39:10the trees would eventually mature to be

39:12at least six feet high, but that they

39:14don't necessarily have to go in as six

39:16foot high trees or do you want them to

39:18be planted as six foot high?

39:20Planted at six foot high. Okay.

39:27>> A wall's not going to grow. A fence

39:28isn't going to grow.

39:30So if they're going to be put in at six

39:31feet, so should the trees.

39:34>> I also have additional clarification

39:35question.

39:36Uh

39:38hipped or gabled roof is one question.

39:41The other one is

39:42do the trees need to follow the one per

39:4430 or what frequency of landscaping?

39:57>> Okay.

39:58Please use your mic for comments.

40:01So we can make sure everything gets

40:02recorded.

40:07>> Yeah, I think the only parts that I

40:08addressed were the evergreens. I didn't

40:10say anything or remove the hipped or

40:12gabled roof.

40:14So So was still in there.

40:17And what the other?

40:18>> And the frequency of the planting of the

40:20landscaping.

40:22>> Frequency?

40:22>> Like one per 30 ft.

40:24>> That wouldn't be frequency, that'd be

40:25distance.

40:26>> Sure.

40:28>> [laughter]

40:30>> Yes, that's what I was thinking.

40:32>> Yes, per 30 ft, yes. Yeah, I didn't

40:34remove that either. So that was still in

40:36there.

40:37Okay, so if everybody's clear on the

40:38motions and Commissioner Bill Johnson.

40:45>> Are we talking about the landscaping

40:48just on the lower part of that's

40:50existing residence?

40:52Not along the church property.

40:54>> On the residence.

40:55>> Yep, just on the residence.

40:58>> [clears throat]

40:58>> Okay. Okay, I think we're all good.

41:01Uh

41:03All in favor of the final motions and

41:06comments, signify by saying I.

41:08>> I.

41:09>> All opposed, same sign.

41:11Motion has passed 14 to nothing.

41:16>> [clears throat]

41:20>> Okay, the next agenda item is 4.3 zone

41:23case 2026 00

41:2604A.

41:39Okay. Sammy, you ready?

41:41>> Good afternoon, Samuel Deats, presenting

41:43planner.

41:44>> Can you speak a little bit more into the

41:46mic, please?

41:47>> Good afternoon, Samuel Deats, presenting

41:49planner.

41:50Zone change 2026-48

41:52is a request to go from SF5 single

41:55family residential to MF18 multi-family

41:58residential district.

42:00Site is 0.92 acres in size as generally

42:03located on the east side

42:05of North Hood Avenue within 875 ft north

42:09of West 29th Street North.

42:11The site is currently developed a single

42:13family home constructed 1941.

42:16And the applicant is requesting the zone

42:18change to allow for the construction of

42:20four single family homes to be built on

42:22the site.

42:24Based on the size of the site, the

42:26proposed use could alternatively be

42:27attained by a lot split.

42:31However, given that all the single

42:32family homes are located on a single

42:34lot, they are considered a multi-family

42:36use for the unified zoning code.

42:40MF-18 allows for multi-family

42:42development a maximum of 17.4 dwelling

42:44units per acre, which would allow for up

42:46to 15 dwelling units.

42:49So, their request for four dwelling

42:50units is less than that allowed. Should

42:52the zone change request be approved, the

42:54development standards would change as

42:57demonstrated in the table in your staff

42:59report.

43:00Compatibility, setback, and height

43:02standards will apply to the property

43:03given the proximity of residential

43:05zoning,

43:07which would uh

43:09mean that the the maximum height would

43:10be 35 ft and

43:13compatibility setbacks of 25 ft would

43:15apply.

43:18The site would have to comply with the

43:19screening and landscaping standards of

43:22the unified zoning code and landscape

43:23code, as well as the parking standards

43:25within the unified zoning code.

43:28Character of the neighborhood is a mix

43:30of low-density residential uses on local

43:32streets with pockets of moderate density

43:34residential and commercial along West

43:3629th Street North.

43:38Property on all sides is zoned SF-5

43:40single family residential and developed

43:42with single family dwellings. There is B

43:44multi-family zoning located 150 ft to

43:47the southeast. However, that parcel is

43:50not developed.

43:52The property was platted as part of the

43:54Timber Meyer Gardens Addition in 1923.

43:58There are no zoning cases associated

44:00with the property.

44:02The site does have access to Northwood

44:04Avenue, which is an unpaved two-lane

44:07local street without sidewalks.

44:09Water and sewer services are available

44:11nearby

44:12and the nearest Wichita Transit stop is

44:14located over 1/2 mile to the south.

44:18The proposed application is in

44:19conformance with the community

44:21investments plan which identifies the

44:23area as appropriate for residential uses

44:25including single-family dwellings,

44:27duplexes, and multi-family.

44:30The locational guidelines within that

44:32plan provide a framework for decision

44:34decision-making regarding land use

44:36changes.

44:37Development pattern guideline 1A states

44:39that development should occur where

44:41necessary supporting infrastructure and

44:43services exist or are planned for

44:45extension concurrently with the

44:47development.

44:49The requested zone change facilitates

44:51infill development on a lot with access

44:53to water, sewer, and transit services.

44:57Development pattern guideline 1E states

44:58that higher-density residential uses in

45:01neighborhoods or in retail and office

45:02uses should buffer lower-density

45:04residential uses from major commercial

45:06and employment centers and industrial

45:08uses.

45:09Additionally, guideline what land use

45:11compatibility guideline 1A states that

45:13higher-intensity development should be

45:15discouraged from locating areas of

45:17existing lower-intensity development,

45:19particularly established low-density

45:21residential areas. Based on those two

45:24guidelines, staff are recommending a

45:25protective overlay to ensure that overly

45:28intensive development of the property

45:30does not encroach on the low-density

45:32residential nature of the neighborhood.

45:36The purpose of the MF-18 district is to

45:39accommodate moderate-density

45:40multi-family residential development

45:43primarily within the city.

45:45The subject site is located near other

45:47properties zoned B and LC which makes

45:49the property suitable for

45:50moderate-density residential.

45:52It is, however, located interior to the

45:54neighborhood and does not front on

45:56arterial street which could have

45:58negative impacts to surrounding

45:59properties if it were allowed to develop

46:02uh to the full density that MF-18

46:04allows.

46:06If we could go to the site photos,

46:07please.

46:12This is looking west away from the site.

46:16This is looking southeast towards the

46:18site.

46:21This is also looking southeast towards

46:23the site.

46:26This is looking south away from the

46:27site.

46:31This is looking northeast towards the

46:32site.

46:35This is looking north away from the

46:37site.

46:39This is looking east towards the site.

46:43I believe that's all the site photos.

46:45Um at this time staff have not received

46:47any public comments regarding the zone

46:49change request.

46:51Based on the golden factors in your

46:52staff report, staff are recommending

46:54approval subject to protective overlay

46:56number 500, which states that no no more

47:00than four dwelling units shall be

47:01allowed. With that, I can stand for any

47:03questions.

47:04>> Any questions for staff?

47:07I'm seeing none. Is the agent or

47:09applicant available, please?

47:13Okay, you please come to the podium,

47:15state your name and your address for our

47:18records.

47:18>> Yes, uh Brandon Sedillo with ECR

47:20Construction.

47:22Um

47:24It's going to be a ZON-2026-00048.

47:28>> And what is your what is your address?

47:30>> First of all, right, right. Um 3118

47:32North Hood Avenue.

47:33>> Thank you.

47:34Go ahead.

47:35>> Uh yeah, so um

47:37I have one acre of space and I want to

47:39build four homes, four small homes.

47:41>> That was pretty quick.

47:42>> That's all I wanted to do.

47:46>> Okay, do you have you looked at staff's

47:48recommendations and comments?

47:50>> Yeah, I worked with them, so that's why

47:52um

47:53they said four would be fine.

47:55>> Okay, and do you do you support uh all

47:58the comments and

47:59uh recommendations?

48:01>> Yes.

48:02>> Okay.

48:03Um is there

48:05anyone on the commission have like to

48:07ask any questions?

48:09Saying none. Thank you, sir. Stand by.

48:12Uh is there anyone from the audience

48:14that would like to speak on this?

48:16Okay, if so, please come to the podium.

48:19State your name and your address for our

48:20records.

48:22And you have 3 minutes.

48:25>> Thank you. My name is Margaret Fletcher.

48:28I live at 3052 North Hood, which is on

48:30the east side

48:32of the street. There's one house between

48:35me and the proposed

48:37uh zoning change. I'm here to request

48:41>> [clears throat]

48:41>> rezone 3018 from SF 5 to MF 18 at four

48:47points. First is the road.

48:50Hood Avenue is in this corridor is an

48:54unpaved residential street.

48:56Apparently, it's not in the city's

48:58current paving budget. Paving funds were

49:01reallocated.

49:03Multifamily dwelling will add vehicles,

49:06parking, stormwater to the dirt road

49:09that's already carrying all the traffic

49:11it can handle.

49:14I had my property surveyed. The city's

49:1750-ft right-of-way standard for a paved

49:20two-lane residential street with

49:22sidewalks would remove approximately

49:24half of my front yard because the

49:26utility poles are on the west side of

49:28the street, the pavement would shift

49:30east, and the burden falls on all the

49:33east side properties.

49:35The street is not built to accommodate

49:37the traffic this development could

49:38generate. It cannot be properly improved

49:41without taking significant private

49:44property.

49:45I'd like to ask the staff a direct

49:47question.

49:48Can you confirm whether Hood Avenue

49:51between 29th and 33rd is included in the

49:542026-2027

49:57paving budget.

49:59And what is the city's plan to address

50:01the increased traffic from this

50:02development?

50:05Uh second, the comprehensive plan.

50:09Staff reports reference these property

50:11types frequently as being in an area of

50:13opportunity.

50:15That designation does not apply to this

50:17neighborhood.

50:18The Places for People Plan defines areas

50:21of opportunity as areas with economic

50:24challenge,

50:25disconnected development patterns, and

50:27vacant or underutilized parcels.

50:30This is a stable, fully developed 1950s

50:35single

50:36single-family neighborhood.

50:38The Community Investment Plan's location

50:40guidelines, as you've already said,

50:42[laughter]

50:43state that higher intensity development

50:45would be discouraged in established

50:48low-density residential areas.

50:50The plan's future land

50:53use map designate this area for

50:56low-density residential, less than two

50:59unit 10 units per acre, and specifically

51:03identifies duplexes as appropriate.

51:06Since MF-18 allows 17.4 units per acre,

51:10nearly double the plan's recommendation.

51:14Third is the character of the area.

51:16The property directly north of the

51:18subject is a friary.

51:21The friars recently removed one house on

51:24one of their lots and plan to build an

51:26orchard with walking paths and stations

51:29of the cross.

51:31The immediate

51:32>> Uh your time has ran out.

51:33>> Could you please give me I have that

51:35much of one paragraph.

51:37>> Okay, I'll give you that much more time.

51:38>> Okay, the immediate context is a

51:40contemplative low-impact use surrounded

51:44by family homes. It's not compatible

51:47with

51:47and this year in May Zone Case

51:51ZON20260009

51:55um had an almost identical case on

51:58Janette

51:59where they um

52:01which is also in District 6. Um

52:03they they changed it to

52:06TF3.

52:08I ask the commission to be consistent. I

52:11ask commission to recommend denial of

52:13the request

52:15consistent with that case.

52:17Even another family, a single family

52:20house, would be more appropriate right

52:22there. Thank you for the extra time.

52:24>> Okay. And and thank you uh for your

52:26comments. Much appreciated. Is there any

52:28questions for the uh speaker?

52:31Seeing none. Uh is there anyone else

52:33that would like to speak on this?

52:35Is there anyone else that would from the

52:37audience that would like to speak on

52:38this?

52:39Okay, we will have the uh uh the

52:41applicant uh

52:43come back. Uh you have 2 minutes for

52:46rebuttal.

52:47>> Um

52:48yes, it's 1 acre. I'm asking for four

52:51homes. I'm allowed 17, so I have plenty

52:53of space to build a garage. They will

52:56have a garage and they the space does

52:58allow for a 38-ft

53:01uh

53:02driveway in the middle of the thing.

53:05Also, um

53:07here

53:08I think

53:10they just built a uh

53:12duplex, a large duplex, and I'm trying

53:14to build something smaller than that.

53:17And that took like pretty much all the

53:19area.

53:22And I'm just asking for like

53:24yeah, not that much.

53:26>> Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Howie,

53:28you have a question?

53:29>> Yes.

53:30When you say

53:32four homes, is it four single-family

53:34homes?

53:34>> Yes.

53:35>> Thank you.

53:37Any additional questions?

53:40Seeing none. Sir, thank you. Uh much

53:42appreciated.

53:43We will bring it back to the commission.

53:47Any comments, suggestions, motions?

53:53>> I make a motion that Oh, sorry.

53:56>> Okay. Commissioner Rule.

54:02>> Excuse me. The lady that spoke said she

54:05wanted

54:06clarification from staff if there was

54:09any plans in the budget to pave

54:12What is it? Hoover or Hurd?

54:20>> I'm going to look to staff to see if

54:22we've got any information on it. It

54:23doesn't appear that we do.

54:26So,

54:27the difficulty that we have with these

54:29is that

54:30the CIP, if it's typically the paving of

54:33roads is done as one line item, but

54:36there can be multiple streets. So, it it

54:39can change from year to year what public

54:41works identifies as one of the streets

54:43that's getting paved out of that

54:44program. I know that in the past they've

54:46focused on streets that are adjacent to

54:48the schools and other

54:50what they would deem sensitive uses. So,

54:54looking at staff, it doesn't appear that

54:55we're aware of any paving projects

54:56planned for this area, but that again,

54:59that's just to the best of our

55:01knowledge. Commissioner Fry.

55:03>> I do know that a neighborhood can

55:04petition

55:06to have their road paved and pay the

55:09easement for or pay the

55:13property payment over time

55:16to have their road paved. It takes 50%

55:18or more on a petition, so they could

55:20advance that if they wish and not have

55:23to wait on the CIP.

55:25>> Also,

55:27I think at one time we used to

55:30have a no protest petition requirement

55:33in the staff reports.

55:35Would that be something that would be

55:37applicable

55:39to this that

55:41in the event that

55:43there was a petition that the applicant

55:46would would not protest that?

55:50>> I'm only I'm only familiar with the no

55:52protest petitions uh when it comes to

55:54annexations and water service.

55:57Uh I'm not familiar

55:59that we've done that anytime recently in

56:01the zoning case. I'll look to others if

56:04they've

56:04>> I don't think that recently, but I think

56:05in the past I'm pretty sure that we've

56:08had that

56:09in there. Uh

56:11you know, just for that purpose.

56:16>> Um yeah.

56:17>> I said they wouldn't oppose it.

56:18>> I'll look to legal. I don't I don't have

56:20an opinion other than the fact that

56:22since we haven't done it for other

56:23cases, I guess in this unique instance

56:25that I suppose you could, but

56:27the precedent has been that we haven't.

56:30>> Correct. I believe the no contest

56:32petitions generally refer to

56:36water and sewer in regards to a

56:38development that is planning to be

56:39annexed or

56:41is going to be annexed in the near

56:42future.

56:43I can't think of an instance when we

56:45have done that. Um

56:47what you're suggesting.

56:50>> Well, it it used to be part of the

56:53the norm I think at one point. Not

56:55recently, but it's like I said this is

56:57going back

56:59a ways, but they you know, in the in the

57:02in the event that there was a

57:05a petition, you know, for

57:09a pavement

57:10that

57:11the

57:13uh

57:14applicants or the agent for the

57:15applicant wouldn't there be a no protest

57:17they wouldn't protest it. That's what

57:19I'm saying. So

57:21>> And I guess to that point Jared just

57:23reminded me that at one point

57:26not super distant past we did have a

57:29requirement that there be platting done

57:32as part of the the change would have to

57:33be followed up by a platting. So, it may

57:35have been related to one of those

57:37requirements.

57:38>> Okay.

57:38>> Um one thing that I would offer is that

57:40if if you do have an interest in doing

57:43that, uh what we could look at is more

57:45of a broader policy as well. So, then

57:47it's not just singled out on one

57:49property, but we've got a policy on

57:51and a practice for how to approach

57:53those.

57:54>> Because unfortunately, most of the dirt

57:56roads that we have on our inner core

57:57city, which we shouldn't have, but we

58:00do,

58:01uh most of them are are uh

58:03are rentals or out-of-state property

58:05owners, and they're not going to do

58:07anything to raise their taxes. So,

58:10but anyway, I just wanted to throw that

58:11out. Didn't mean to muddy the waters

58:13any. So,

58:14um

58:15so, that wouldn't apply to this case

58:18anyway. So,

58:20anyway, uh

58:21Commissioner Theisan.

58:22>> I apologize for speaking out of turn

58:24earlier without being recognized, but I

58:26would make a motion to approve with the

58:27protective overlay number 500.

58:30>> Second.

58:31>> We have a motion for approval uh by

58:33Commissioner Theisan and a second by

58:34Commissioner Joe Johnson.

58:36Uh there's no additional comments. Uh

58:39all in favor of the motion signify by

58:40saying aye.

58:41>> Aye.

58:42>> Opposed say nay.

58:43Uh motion passed 14-0.

58:50And next agenda item is 4.5,

58:53uh zone case 2026-00050,

58:57and the uh agent for the uh is here,

59:00correct? Okay, thank you. Okay,

59:03Christina.

59:04>> Thank you, Chair. This is zone 2650. The

59:07applicant requests a zone change from

59:09single-family to two-family. The

59:11property is 0.13 acres in size, located

59:14at 1028 North Indiana Avenue, so not too

59:16far from the section intersection of

59:19East 9th Street East 9th Street North

59:21and North Indiana Avenue.

59:25The site is currently developed with a

59:26single family dwelling.

59:29The applicant is requesting the zone

59:30change to convert the existing single

59:32family dwelling into a duplex or two

59:34dwelling units.

59:36The site is 5,800 square feet, which is

59:40less than the 6,000 square feet required

59:42for a duplex.

59:44Um the applicant has the option of

59:45filing an administrative adjustment

59:47through the planning department to

59:49reduce the minimum lot size by up to 10%

59:52in order to accommodate a duplex

59:54required for the site.

59:56Um so the should the zone change request

59:58be approved, there will be no changes to

1:00:00the parking or development standards.

1:00:02And then for parking, um it requires one

1:00:05parking space per dwelling unit for

1:00:07single family and two family homes. So a

1:00:09duplex would require a total of two

1:00:11parking spaces. And then the front,

1:00:14rear, and interior and street side

1:00:16setbacks would remain the same as well

1:00:18as the maximum height.

1:00:20The character of the neighborhood is

1:00:21low-density residential. As you can see

1:00:23on this zoning map here, um the majority

1:00:26of properties in this area are zoned

1:00:27single family. Properties to the north

1:00:30and west are zoned single family and are

1:00:32undeveloped. To the south, we have B

1:00:34multi-family and is developed with a

1:00:36single family dwelling. And then to the

1:00:38east, on North Cleveland, is zoned

1:00:41single family and developed with a

1:00:42single family dwelling.

1:00:45Uh some a bit of case history, uh the

1:00:47subject site was platted in 1909. And in

1:00:502004, the subject site was added to the

1:00:53McAdams Neighborhood Revitalization

1:00:55Plan.

1:00:56And following that plan's adoption, the

1:00:57site was subsequently downzoned from B

1:01:00multi-family to SF-5 single family

1:01:03residential.

1:01:06The requested zoning is in conformance

1:01:07with the Community Investments Plan.

1:01:09The Wichita Future Growth Concept Map

1:01:12identifies the area to be appropriate

1:01:14for residential uses.

1:01:16And so this includes single family, two

1:01:18family, multi-family residences. So a

1:01:20duplex would be appropriate um within

1:01:23the community investment plans future

1:01:25growth concept map.

1:01:27Uh the community investment plans

1:01:29locational guidelines uh state that

1:01:31development should occur where necessary

1:01:33supporting infrastructure and services

1:01:35exist or are planned for extension

1:01:38concurrently with development. And so,

1:01:40the site is already served by municipal

1:01:42water and sewer.

1:01:45And uh it is in conformance with the

1:01:46Wichita Places for People Plan. The plan

1:01:50I just identifies a list of strategies

1:01:53and targets. Uh strategy number five is

1:01:56to provide a diversity of housing

1:01:57options to attract new residents and

1:01:59allow existing residents to remain

1:02:02within the established central area.

1:02:05Target number five aims to create 350

1:02:08350 new net housing units within the

1:02:11established central area annually.

1:02:14However, the request zone change is not

1:02:16in conformance with the McAdams

1:02:18Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.

1:02:20The revitalization plan has their own

1:02:22future land use redevelopment concept

1:02:24map and identifies the site to be

1:02:27appropriate for single detached uses.

1:02:30One of the goals is to replace uh

1:02:32substandard housing and vacant

1:02:34residential lots with a predominance of

1:02:36attractive, affordable, owner-occupied

1:02:39single-family housing developments.

1:02:42And the purpose of the two-family

1:02:43residential district within the unified

1:02:45zoning code is to accommodate moderate

1:02:47density single-family and duplex

1:02:49residential development. It's intended

1:02:52for application primarily within the

1:02:53city of Wichita.

1:02:55Uh the applicant is requesting to turn a

1:02:57single-family dwelling into a duplex, so

1:02:59it is in conformance with the uh the

1:03:02intention of the unified zoning code.

1:03:04We are recommending denial of the zone

1:03:06change request. Um this is based on the

1:03:08golden factors, which are which are

1:03:11Excuse me, which is on pages three and

1:03:13four of your staff report. Um primarily,

1:03:15our recommendation is um

1:03:17is based on the findings of the McAdams

1:03:20neighborhood revitalization plan and the

1:03:23fact that the site is already too small

1:03:25to accommodate a duplex without an

1:03:27administrative adjustment. Um I did

1:03:30receive one phone call from the

1:03:31president of the McAdams neighborhood.

1:03:33Uh she's not

1:03:34able to attend this conference today,

1:03:36but she let me know that she is opposed

1:03:39to the proposed zone change and as well

1:03:41as a neighbors. So, with that I will go

1:03:44to some of the site photos.

1:03:47This is looking east towards the site.

1:03:49You can see the single family existing

1:03:51single family house here in the corner.

1:03:53Next slide, please.

1:03:57This is looking north away from the site

1:03:59towards some of the single family

1:04:00dwellings. Next slide, please.

1:04:04This is looking west away from the site.

1:04:06Um part of the lot is vacant and the

1:04:09other part is with a single family

1:04:11dwelling. Next slide, please.

1:04:14And this is looking south away from the

1:04:16site.

1:04:17And with that I will stand for any

1:04:18questions.

1:04:19>> Any uh questions for staff?

1:04:22Saying none, uh thank you. Um agent or

1:04:25applicant, uh please come to the podium.

1:04:28State your name and address for our

1:04:29records, please. And you have 10

1:04:31minutes.

1:04:32>> Hello, I'm Josh Price and I'm

1:04:35in Cheney, 3300 South 343 Road West.

1:04:40Um

1:04:42We've got I'm sorry, I got a couple

1:04:44letters here.

1:04:44>> Sir, if you can give that to your

1:04:46information to staff and they will pass

1:04:48it out.

1:04:55>> We did purchase the property to do a

1:04:58single family home and remodel, but as

1:05:00we got into it, um I kind of discovered

1:05:02it was

1:05:04in need of engineering and rebuild. So,

1:05:07uh EMB CD like suggested to get a uh

1:05:11engineer involved and so he said to do I

1:05:15need to do it, he'd come out and visit

1:05:16and see what we needed to do. And when I

1:05:18did that, basically it kind of opened up

1:05:20the house and discovered that it was

1:05:22huge. It was a big house, and the amount

1:05:24of rehab to do on this house was going

1:05:26to be significant.

1:05:28And we we did do two other houses close

1:05:32to this one on Lulu, and then I did a

1:05:34brand new duplex over on Ida Street.

1:05:37And the surprising part is the Lulu

1:05:39house, which is be similar to this in

1:05:41size for the two two units,

1:05:44I had like 400 people call me to try to

1:05:46rent that house from me, and in my brand

1:05:48new

1:05:50Ida Street house, basically I had like

1:05:52six. And so it's full, but I still had

1:05:54six. So I felt the need for having this

1:05:58back to a duplex, cuz it was

1:06:00multi-family prior to.

1:06:02And having this back to that

1:06:04would be

1:06:05a lot would would be a lot better

1:06:07basically for for the area.

1:06:10So when I did one of the letters is from

1:06:12a neighbor right across the street, and

1:06:14all most of the neighbors around there

1:06:15I've met them all,

1:06:17and they're all super excited. One guy

1:06:18was wanting to put his kid in in one if

1:06:21it got approved and everything. And so

1:06:22and I have another tenant in Ida Street

1:06:24that is interested in her daughter

1:06:26renting it too. So the need for smaller

1:06:29smaller houses is there. And we will put

1:06:33um

1:06:34Uh as far as for the other determining

1:06:36factor was, you know, because I'm going

1:06:38to have to gut most of it down to

1:06:41everything. Um

1:06:43I it gives me the ability to do the the

1:06:45correct fire firewalls and the the the

1:06:48the correct stuff to do for a duplex,

1:06:51you know, for multi-family house. I

1:06:53worked for two different builders in in

1:06:54Sedgwick County here, two of the largest

1:06:57builders, and the the last one I worked

1:06:59for, he that's primarily what he did was

1:07:01was uh

1:07:02new duplexes. And so I'm pretty versed

1:07:05in on what's supposed to be there, what

1:07:07needs to be there.

1:07:09Um

1:07:10>> [clears throat]

1:07:11>> You know, a lot of the work that was

1:07:12done on this house, I could tell was

1:07:13sort of done by contractors, but it was

1:07:15just junk. I mean, and I feel like

1:07:17everything we're doing is within the

1:07:19parameters of, you know, we're

1:07:22of fixing up an older house and making

1:07:24it into a non-eyesore.

1:07:27So

1:07:29Um

1:07:31There are quite a few other

1:07:34multi-family housing houses around that

1:07:36area, even though this one's not in the

1:07:38same block.

1:07:40So

1:07:41most of the neighbors I talked to after

1:07:43I got the letter were kind of surprised

1:07:45that this was being denied.

1:07:47So, the guy across the street, and then

1:07:49there's like uh the lady next door.

1:07:52Um

1:07:53I've cleaned up the alleys. I mean, I

1:07:55I'm a I'm a

1:07:57consider myself to be a good landlord

1:07:58and good

1:08:00good person in general to to rent from,

1:08:02you know, I try to work with most people

1:08:05in any way, shape. So, I I had a house,

1:08:07the neighbors beside it

1:08:09both came over and were interested in

1:08:11what was going on, and we built that,

1:08:13and the one neighbor's wife or mom was

1:08:16looking for a place, and knowing that

1:08:18she was going to probably move in there,

1:08:19we put ADA toilets in for her. I mean

1:08:23so

1:08:24I usually go above and beyond, you know,

1:08:26a lot of investors just want to put

1:08:27lipstick on a pig, and I just don't do

1:08:29that. I I don't agree with that. Um you

1:08:32know, I build it like my mom's going to

1:08:33live there. So, you know, we do quartz

1:08:35countertops, and the insides are really

1:08:38really nice.

1:08:39I told my real estate agent she needed

1:08:41treat this one as a training curve. If

1:08:43she could sell me this, then she could

1:08:44sell about anything.

1:08:46So

1:08:47but uh

1:08:50I don't know if there's

1:08:51>> Okay.

1:08:51Uh Commissioner uh Joe Johnson.

1:08:54>> Yeah. Sir, are most of the homes in the

1:08:57area

1:08:58owner-occupied?

1:08:59>> Um the one across street I know is, and

1:09:01the one next to him is, the one right

1:09:03directly north of it is not. That is

1:09:06owned by a family in California. The

1:09:07people across the street from it, that's

1:09:09their family. And then the houses to the

1:09:11south of me, she she's owner occupied

1:09:15and I've I haven't met the gentleman on

1:09:17the the corner house, but I'm pretty

1:09:19certain he's an owner. Then across the

1:09:21street like west and south, I believe

1:09:24there's the three two on the corner

1:09:27are renters.

1:09:28And then the the older lady who's right

1:09:30across the street in the brown house,

1:09:31that she's an owner as well.

1:09:34So, there are

1:09:36you know,

1:09:38I I feel like if somebody was going to

1:09:39purchase this house and do what I've

1:09:41done to it or plan on doing to finish

1:09:43it, it would have cost a fortune. I do a

1:09:46lot of the work myself and I have

1:09:48contractors that come in and help me for

1:09:49the HVAC and, you know, the

1:09:51important real important stuff. And then

1:09:53>> Uh Commissioner Owensby.

1:09:55So, you know, I have a couple questions,

1:09:57you know. So, you said it's a just a

1:09:58large house and

1:10:00uh do you know how many square feet it

1:10:01is?

1:10:02>> Oh goodness, I should know that, huh? Um

1:10:06I'm not sure. The back apartment would

1:10:07be like almost 725 sq ft and the front

1:10:10would be like 800. I've got a

1:10:13I've got kind of a blueprint and layout

1:10:15of what I've continually did.

1:10:17So, uh

1:10:19the back one bedroom is would be

1:10:20actually really big. It didn't

1:10:22essentially have more bathrooms than my

1:10:23house. So,

1:10:25so I could I kind of feel like

1:10:27the layout would just support that. So,

1:10:32and I do put in Oops, sorry, sir. I do

1:10:33put in like laundry and everything else.

1:10:35So, I don't I don't I try to make the

1:10:37houses I do

1:10:39like one thing, you know, and I don't

1:10:41charge more for those type of things,

1:10:43either. I feel like I don't want I don't

1:10:45want house broke or rent broke tenants,

1:10:48either. I I think that's that's really

1:10:50bad.

1:10:52>> And my second question is uh have you

1:10:54had any conversations with the

1:10:56McAdams Homeowners Association?

1:10:58>> No, and I didn't even know that existed.

1:11:00I called about this house prior to and I

1:11:04talked to them ABCD twice. Stephanie was

1:11:07who I talked to the the first time and

1:11:09then she suggested I needed to get the

1:11:10engineer. So, after that it took the

1:11:12engineer forever to get back to me and

1:11:15actually for me to get the house ready

1:11:17for it. It it took a while for for me to

1:11:20get that. So, I didn't know that was

1:11:22even even a deal.

1:11:24And then I also didn't know about the

1:11:27that it was multi-family prior to

1:11:29getting the the letter. I didn't know it

1:11:31was even that. It made sense because

1:11:33there were two different furnaces in

1:11:35there and I believe the gentleman who

1:11:36owned it before was trying to rent out

1:11:38the upstairs and trying to do something,

1:11:41but

1:11:42nothing that was done was really to

1:11:44code. It was

1:11:46it was exciting, but um

1:11:49I just it was uh

1:11:51So,

1:11:53>> Okay, Commissioner Austin, do you have a

1:11:54question? Or I'm sorry, Commissioner

1:11:55Williams,

1:11:56are you done?

1:11:57>> I had one more question. So,

1:11:59we don't know whether it was actually an

1:12:01approved duplex or just converted to a

1:12:04duplex with a

1:12:05>> Um it was zoned before 2004, I believe

1:12:08she said that in multi-family. So,

1:12:12now whether that was

1:12:14that I I don't know that if he pulled

1:12:16permits on it, I don't know. From what I

1:12:18could tell, I don't know that any

1:12:19inspectors would have approved what that

1:12:21was done.

1:12:22But I I guarantee they're approved now.

1:12:25So, it's

1:12:26it's definitely

1:12:28it's definitely going to be there for a

1:12:29lot longer.

1:12:32>> Okay, Commissioner Austin.

1:12:34>> Yeah, I'm just according to the for the

1:12:36record for the

1:12:37county GIS website, that shows 1675

1:12:41square feet, three bed, two bath. So,

1:12:44and and then but I did have some

1:12:45questions in the in the

1:12:47street view photo, there's a looks like

1:12:49a garage at the back. Is that correct?

1:12:51>> There is. There is There is a three-car

1:12:53garage. I believe he the the guy before

1:12:56he painted cars back there. It is only

1:12:59alley access. And I cleaned up that

1:13:02whole alley even to get to it. And then

1:13:04there's a big pile of trash in that

1:13:05picture and that's all that came from

1:13:07that alley. So I shoved it out and I

1:13:10cleaned up all the whole alley there to

1:13:11just get to the doors to to assess the

1:13:14garage and be able to trim the trees.

1:13:16>> Okay.

1:13:16>> And

1:13:17>> And your duplexes, are you are you

1:13:19converting this into two duplexes like

1:13:22two bedrooms each with like a single

1:13:23>> one would be a two-bedroom and then it

1:13:25would have a bathroom shower downstairs

1:13:27and it has a bathtub upstairs. And then

1:13:28the back one would be a single single

1:13:31bedroom which is bath full bathroom

1:13:33shower upstairs and the kitchen and the

1:13:36the other and half bath downstairs. And

1:13:38that one you

1:13:40in enter it from the back.

1:13:42And so I got where the van's parked. You

1:13:44know, I'd actually do a sidewalk going

1:13:46down and back to the back. I do and I am

1:13:48purchasing the lot beside it. It's in

1:13:50probate right now. So because the

1:13:52gentleman that had bought this house and

1:13:54that guy they didn't they missed a some

1:13:56sort of paper so they're So I am

1:13:58purchasing that one over there.

1:14:00So

1:14:01how would you do?

1:14:02>> I just want make sure you're where you

1:14:04have to meet the parking requirement for

1:14:05your duplexes. So I was curious if the

1:14:07garage was going to stay in

1:14:09>> Yeah, the garage is going to stay and I

1:14:10was going to actually put the parking in

1:14:12the front in this front part cuz most of

1:14:15the neighborhood are like that. And I

1:14:16was looking at that if that was okay and

1:14:18I didn't know if that was okayed or not.

1:14:20Cuz there's a lot of different

1:14:25>> So per the zoning code, parking's not

1:14:28allowed in the front setback in TF3

1:14:30zoning. So it'd have to be on the side

1:14:32or the rear.

1:14:33>> The side or the rear. Okay, so the the

1:14:34lot beside it. Okay.

1:14:35>> Okay.

1:14:35>> Or the or the garage.

1:14:37Who would Who would I contact about the

1:14:39alley? Do I need to Would I

1:14:43have to fix all that additional gravel

1:14:46and everything because I was trying to

1:14:48>> You can you can reach out to public

1:14:50works engineering about that. And also

1:14:53they'll probably defer you to street

1:14:54maintenance, but I can tell you the city

1:14:57typically does not maintain alleys to a

1:14:59high degree. So, they may

1:15:02look to you to see what improvements you

1:15:04want to do, too. Um

1:15:06but that'll be a conversation with them.

1:15:07But we can talk with you later on about

1:15:10parking if you got questions about that.

1:15:12>> Okay. I Yeah, we could use the garage

1:15:14for that. We just I had trying to figure

1:15:16out what to do with it cuz it is three

1:15:18car garage. So,

1:15:20>> Yeah, I do have a question on that

1:15:21garage from

1:15:24from staff. Is that garage currently in

1:15:27conformance?

1:15:29>> I

1:15:29I don't know. I mean in terms of zoning,

1:15:33I don't know. It sounds like there's

1:15:34been a lot of work that's been done to

1:15:36the property that may or may not be in

1:15:38conformance. So,

1:15:40we'll have to look into

1:15:41>> Well, I just hate for him

1:15:43specially knowing that he can't do

1:15:46frontal parking is that if he's going to

1:15:49be relying on that garage and all of a

1:15:51sudden pops up that hey, guess what? The

1:15:54the the garage is not conforming, you

1:15:57know, whether it's

1:15:58any setbacks or or any of that stuff. I

1:16:01hate for him to go through all that work

1:16:03and find out that he's got another

1:16:05problem there. So,

1:16:07you know, I'm sort of sort of wondering

1:16:10if

1:16:12this may not possibly we may not look at

1:16:16at deferring this until you can find out

1:16:18a little

1:16:20more information on things that you can

1:16:23do, you can't do.

1:16:25Uh you know, come up with a site plan

1:16:27and then and see

1:16:29uh cuz I hate for you to

1:16:31start doing stuff and realize you you

1:16:34you've got something else hanging out

1:16:36there that's going to prevent it.

1:16:38>> I I

1:16:40>> Commissioner Joe Johnson.

1:16:42>> I don't see anything wrong with

1:16:43approving it and let

1:16:45and then he has to do all that.

1:16:49So, I make a motion

1:16:50to approve.

1:16:52>> Okay, well, so time out.

1:16:56Did

1:16:58uh Comm- uh Director, do you have any

1:16:59additional

1:17:00>> I was just going to add that

1:17:03you know, if you if you all do approve

1:17:04it

1:17:05and when he comes back and he finds out

1:17:07he's got issues with the garage, we've

1:17:08got there are other

1:17:10there are other options, you know, for

1:17:12variance or whatever you may need to try

1:17:14and resolve that. So, it's it's not

1:17:16impossible. We've got options where

1:17:18>> Okay, I was just looking not putting any

1:17:19burden on him as, you know, is what I'm

1:17:21looking at, so.

1:17:23>> Unfortunately, I don't I don't think

1:17:24there's anything we A, we don't know if

1:17:26it's a violation today and B, even if we

1:17:28did, I don't think there's anything that

1:17:30you could do as part of this action

1:17:32today that would resolve it, so.

1:17:34>> Okay.

1:17:35>> Well, if they remove the garage, they

1:17:37they'd still have room for parking,

1:17:39right?

1:17:40>> That's right. They could have a pad back

1:17:41there and access from the alley.

1:17:43>> Okay. Okay, good.

1:17:45Okay, so uh Commissioner Warren.

1:17:48>> Yeah, are

1:17:49you planning on

1:17:50remodeling this property into a duplex

1:17:53or tear this building down and build a

1:17:54new

1:17:54>> No, I'm remodeling this one here.

1:17:57So, yeah, I wouldn't tear it down. The

1:17:59cost of the IDA one

1:18:01and then the the cost of the rent on

1:18:03I've learned a lot since I've split away

1:18:06and so the cost of the new build versus

1:18:08where it that location, too.

1:18:10I feel like I'm like that was really

1:18:12maxing out the rent I could charge in

1:18:14that area and to cover all my expense

1:18:16and everything, so. I do like remodeling

1:18:19the older houses and stuff. I did the

1:18:20Lulu house that's on 550 Lulu. I

1:18:23remodeled that

1:18:25duplex as well. That was my first one

1:18:27and

1:18:28I just like

1:18:29fixing up

1:18:32>> Uh

1:18:33before we go back to the the motion, is

1:18:35there anybody else out here

1:18:37uh from the public that wanted to speak

1:18:39on this?

1:18:42Seeing none, we covered that base. So,

1:18:45we do have a motion

1:18:48uh on the floor to approve. Is there a

1:18:50second?

1:18:51>> Second.

1:18:52>> I'm sorry.

1:18:53>> I'm sorry, second.

1:18:55>> Okay, I didn't hear hear that.

1:18:56Okay, so we have a motion by

1:18:58Commissioner uh Joe Johnson, and we have

1:19:00a second by Commissioner Austin. Is

1:19:02there any additional comments?

1:19:05Seeing none, uh Director Wedel?

1:19:08>> Yes, so sorry. Um real quick, uh the

1:19:10alternative findings on this one, what

1:19:12I'm hearing is that uh

1:19:14you

1:19:15one of the findings could be that you

1:19:17find that it's in conformance with the

1:19:19McAdams neighborhood plan because it

1:19:21does talk about rehabbing housing stock,

1:19:23although it's not single-family, it

1:19:24would rehab housing stock. Also, um

1:19:27you've taken into account the

1:19:28applicant's information that's been

1:19:30provided that there's neighborhood

1:19:31support for this as well. Um so, those

1:19:35are the two that I can think of.

1:19:38>> Okay, does motion maker and the second

1:19:40confirm with Director's statement?

1:19:43>> Yes.

1:19:44>> Good, so we don't have to repeat them.

1:19:48All right, we will call the vote. That

1:19:50all in favor of approval signify by

1:19:52saying I.

1:19:53>> I.

1:19:53>> All opposed the same sign.

1:19:55>> No.

1:19:56>> Okay, well, that motion has passed uh 13

1:19:59to 1.

1:20:01Um thank you, sir.

1:20:04>> Thank you.

1:20:05>> Okay, the next agenda item uh that we

1:20:08have is uh

1:20:10Director Wedel is going to be talking

1:20:12about the 2027

1:20:15MAPC BZA

1:20:18uh calendar.

1:20:18>> Yeah, thank you, sir. I'll turn it over

1:20:20to Philip. He's done a lot of work on

1:20:21this, and I appreciate all his efforts

1:20:23on that. So.

1:20:25>> Yeah, real quick cuz I know a lot of you

1:20:27have had a an extremely long day and

1:20:29haven't had lunch yet. So,

1:20:31uh wanted to bring a couple options to

1:20:33you for the 2027 calendar based on some

1:20:36of where the holidays land toward the

1:20:38end of the year.

1:20:40Um

1:20:41I've got visuals on the slides which you

1:20:42want to go to the next slide. So, we've

1:20:44got two options. You had the um table

1:20:46versions and I put a box around the

1:20:49dates that are uh looking at changing.

1:20:51Option one, very high level, would have

1:20:5324 meetings uh for the year.

1:20:56Uh there would be no meeting on the week

1:20:57of Christmas. Uh one caveat in order to

1:21:00get 24 meetings in the year is that in

1:21:02October and November the MAPC dates

1:21:06would have to switch to a first and

1:21:08third Thursday.

1:21:09Uh those typically are on the second and

1:21:11fourth Thursdays. In addition, we'd have

1:21:13to accommodate subdivision on a

1:21:15Wednesday. We've done it in the past and

1:21:18that's just because Veterans Day would

1:21:19be on Thursday. Uh so, sometimes that uh

1:21:23has a challenge with a quorum and then

1:21:25also possible confusion for those who

1:21:27follow us regularly or regular agents of

1:21:30forgetting that it's on Wednesday. So,

1:21:32that's option one, kind of pros and

1:21:34cons. You get more meetings, but you're

1:21:35having to adjust what your schedule uh

1:21:38normally is in order to do that. Option

1:21:40number two

1:21:42is uh has 23 meetings. So, instead of

1:21:45November having two meetings, uh the

1:21:47month of November would have one

1:21:49subdivision and one planning commission.

1:21:51Uh again, you would have no uh

1:21:54meeting during the week of Christmas.

1:21:56All of your planning commission meetings

1:21:58stay on the second and fourth Thursday

1:22:00except for November. Um that's just

1:22:03because we would bracket the holiday

1:22:05weeks. We'd have a subdivision week the

1:22:07first Thursday and then we would skip

1:22:09the week of Veterans Day and have

1:22:11planning commission on the third

1:22:13Thursday and then skip the skip the week

1:22:15of Thanksgiving and then go back into

1:22:17your regular rhythm uh in December

1:22:21uh other than skipping the week of

1:22:22Christmas. So, you keep more of a

1:22:24regular rhythm that we're used to, we

1:22:26have to reschedule a meeting to a

1:22:28Wednesday, but in order to do that you

1:22:30lose a meeting through the year. As a As

1:22:32a reminder, this year we only have 23

1:22:34meetings, so it's not not uncommon

1:22:36not to have two meetings a month, and it

1:22:38really just depends on how the dates

1:22:40land every year related to holidays. So,

1:22:42we're just looking for some feedback. If

1:22:44anybody has any feedback to share,

1:22:46um

1:22:47for, against, indifferent. Um we don't

1:22:49necessarily have to vote on this. We're

1:22:51just looking to provide feedback so that

1:22:52we can get our calendars put together,

1:22:54which will impact, of course, the

1:22:55advanced plans calendar, cuz it always

1:22:57follows the first meeting of the month,

1:23:00um as well as the subdivision calendar,

1:23:01which would obviously go in between

1:23:03those as well. So, I'm going to stop

1:23:05talking, let you guys discuss amongst

1:23:07yourselves, or provide staff some

1:23:09feedback.

1:23:09>> to see if there's a consensus for either

1:23:11one of the options. Um me personally, I

1:23:14support option two.

1:23:17So, can we actually do a

1:23:20roll call

1:23:21uh what the preference would be?

1:23:23>> Certainly, you bet, sir.

1:23:26>> So, um I

1:23:28and it's an advisory vote, right? I

1:23:30mean, it sounds like sounds like all

1:23:32those in favor of option two is the one

1:23:34that's been voiced so far.

1:23:36Um okay.

1:23:37Um Aldrich?

1:23:38>> Yes.

1:23:41>> This is on option two?

1:23:42>> Option two, yes.

1:23:44>> Zimmerman?

1:23:47>> Two.

1:23:49>> Okay, I'll take that as a yes.

1:23:51Um

1:23:51>> [laughter]

1:23:53>> Two. Okay, yes. Mater?

1:23:56>> Yes.

1:23:57>> McKay?

1:23:58>> Yes, two.

1:24:00>> [laughter]

1:24:02>> Duel?

1:24:03>> Yes.

1:24:05>> Bill Johnson?

1:24:05>> Yes.

1:24:07>> Hi?

1:24:08Klutz?

1:24:09>> Yes.

1:24:10>> Warren?

1:24:12Troll?

1:24:13>> Two.

1:24:14>> [laughter]

1:24:14>> Joe Johnson?

1:24:15>> Option two.

1:24:17>> Option two. Austin?

1:24:20Absolutely two. Williams Bay.

1:24:24>> Two. Two, okay.

1:24:26And Theeson.

1:24:28Two is fine. All right, looks like it's

1:24:30it's almost unanimous with an an

1:24:32indifferent in there. So.

1:24:34>> Oh, thank you.

1:24:35>> So, there's no need for a substitute

1:24:36motion or any comments.

1:24:38>> It looks like they called my name. I

1:24:40thought he was waiting for me to do

1:24:41that.

1:24:42>> Me, too. So.

1:24:43Okay, we don't have any additional other

1:24:46other business.

1:24:47Uh

1:24:48unless you guys just want to hang

1:24:49around. Uh we are adjourned.

```*