District 2 Advisory Board

District 2 Advisory Board Minutes Monday, March 08, 2021 • 6:30 p.m. Virtual meeting via Zoom Attendance Members Present Staff Present Chris Broadrick Officer C Ditch, Wichita Police Department Nancy Loosle Officer Ryan Snyder, Wichita Police Department Faith Martin Jon Sidwell, Park and Recreation Department Sam Lindeman Savannah Ball, Wichita Public Library Dee Nighswonger Kathy Morgan, MAPD Tim Johnson Philip Zevengerben, MAPD Tracee Adams Mary Hunt, MAPD Nazir Jesri Cory Buchta, Community Services Steve Lebeda Representative, City Manager’s Office Council Member Becky Tuttle Guests Members Absent Lowell Richardson Alicia Sanchez Bruce Gass Tyler York Kirk Miller • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Order of Business Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Becky Tuttle. Approval of March 08, 2021 Agenda: Motion PASSED 9-0-0 Approval of Minutes from February 08, 2021: Motion PASSED 8-0-1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 1  Public Agenda 1. Scheduled Items None 2. Off-Agenda Items None Action Taken: Received and filed. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Board Agenda 3. Updates, Issues, and Reports None • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Staff Reports 4. Wichita Fire Department Report None 5. Wichita Police Department Report Officer Ryan Snyder reported: More vehicle break-ins with specific locations targeted. Breaking out windows. Targeting places like Home Depot, YMCA, and apartment complexes. Breaking out windows and taking items. In the past, they would only open unlocked cars. Special assignment set up coming soon. Increase in shop lifting in northeast Wichita. Bigger ticket items. Putting together special assignment on those. 4*** N Lynden. Problem house. Working with MABCD. Working on getting search warrant on the property. 3*** N Rushwood. Drug activity. House owned by family, but owner was kicked out by squatters. Trying to evict them. Head of Wichita Police Foundation is leaving foundation. Looking for a replacement. Officer Chad Ditch reported: Some areas getting larceny to auto. 2am to 4/5am. Unsecured doors. Auto thefts when people start cars and leave unattended. DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 2  Patrol east kids clothing drive. Accepting donations for kids 10 and under. Looking for brand new underwear and socks. Slightly used shoes and blankets. Going until April 16. 6. Wichita Park and Recreation Report Jon Sidwell reported: Boston splash pad – second phase and is operation. Should be up and running this summer. Winter classes ending and spring classes starting soon. Printing guides. Can get at Dillons, Library, Rec Center, and City Hall. Running Easter event at Watson Park on the 27th. Will be modified. 7. Wichita Public Library Report Savannah Ball reported: All Library locations have reopened for in-person service. Regular hours in effect. Allowing customers to browse shelves. Public computers available at most locations. Print copy and fax at most locations. Can use Wi-Fi at designated locations. Can use self-check stations if available. Curb side still available. Offering virtual programs via zoom. Require registrations. Test proctoring in remote or virtual format. Q (Cory Buchta): What is the status of the meeting room at Rockwell? A: It is being used to house excess furniture that we removed to allow for social distancing. It is a quarantine area for returned materials to be disinfected. Action Taken: Received and filed. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • New Business 8. 2021 Athletic Court Inventory and Proposed CIP Program Jon Sidwell, Park and Recreation Department, presented on CIP funding for annual renovations to athletic courts within the Park System. The 2021 CIP includes $225,000 for Athletic Court Improvements, which includes tennis, futsal, pickle ball, basketball and multi-use courts. In recent years, the Park & Recreation Department (P&R) has been focusing on replacing existing cracked asphalt courts with reinforced concrete or post-tension concrete courts, which will last in excess of 20 years. These renovations also allow for the types and numbers of courts at a particular park to be modified to better match current neighborhood interests and maintenance resources. All of Park and Recreation’s athletic courts were inspected during the winter of 2020. Results were analyzed and ranked based on a variety of conditions and priorities. C (DAB): I live near Boston Park and I agree it is in need of a great new basketball court and the tennis courts need some love as well, not to mention the playground and the sidewalks. I would love to see a map to show where all those parks are. It would be great to see who are getting the benefits of all these parks and where it’s dispersed and what that looks like. Q (DAB): Has the grant funding already been secured? DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 3  A: I think it has already been secured, I can double check on that. Just to make sure, you’re talking about the Ralph Wulz Tennis Center? Yes, I’m pretty certain that’s already been in place and has provided us with instructions on how we can use it. Q (DAB): You mentioned there are several pickle ball courts that you’re adding in, is that something you’ve seen just in Wichita? A: Pickle ball has been growing nationwide to their point they’re talking Olympic sports. It’s definitely something that’s expanded in our city. There are a lot of outdated courts that could simply be turned around. Trying to balance the needs of the community and tennis community. Q (DAB): Is city seeing an increase in use of parks due to COVID? A: We do monthly attendance. I can look and see at everyone’s parks. I’ve noticed an increase more in the afternoons. Kids congregating at the playground here and at the basketball courts, which is why we’re really excited to get that basketball court replaced because it usually has about 20 plus people out there. It’s kind of a sore thumb. But to answer your question, I noticed an increase in the rec center. C (CM Tuttle): We had a financial report for the last quarter of 2020 and we saw for the first time our golf fund actually made money in quarter three. We’re hopeful the trend will continue. Q (Public) Bruce Gass: When it comes to the decision making, who sets the priorities, is it the Park Board or is it the staff? For which court gets repaired first? A: We go through a comprehensive inventory assessment tool to determine which courts are due for replacement. This tool gives a score for each court based on surface type, conditions, hazards, and complaints. So complaints from the public are added in there. In the end, we go based on the scoring. C (DAB): So public input is factored into the final decision. A (CM Tuttle): Yes, and it is taken to the Park Board, and then to the District Advisory Board, and then it will go to Council. 9. CUP2021-00002 Philip Zevenbergen, Metropolitan Area Planning Department, presented an application on behalf of Wichita Towers, LLC and Wichita KS Capital Group, LLC (applicants)/ Christian Ablah and Kim Edgington (agents). The applicants have submitted a request to form the new Kellogg Drive – Heather Community Unit Plan (DP-356) for property zoned LC Limited Commercial. The property is 1.74 acres and is generally located on the north side of East Kellogg Drive and east of South Rock Road. The proposed use is to form a cohesive development plan for multiple parcels by addressing parking, landscaping, access, and signage. C (DAB): A couple of things really concern me. That’s my neighborhood. Some of the signs can be so annoying and so bright. I’ve lived there for 40 years and that stretch of Kellogg has never been very successful. I am concerned about the 60 foot high signs because some can be so bright. Q (DAB): Farther down the road I have friends that live near those incredibly bright LED signs and they are not great. 60 foot high LED signs will be extremely disruptive, especially if you live behind them. Is that something that can be addressed? A: There is the ability for individuals to report signs and their brightness. There have been times when owners of signs have been told to turn the brightness down. The sign code does address things related to flashing and rotating. These are not billboard signs advertising businesses off site. You don’t find as many LED like typically the nuisance signs being the billboards. Q (DAB): I have a question about the fences. You mentioned it currently meets the standards and if it’s a new building or renovated, they have to put up a concrete wall. A 6 foot wood fence, I worry about those homeowners with safety and security. Can we recommend they go ahead and put up the wall? A: If you make a recommendation that is different from Planning Commission, it would go to Council. You can recommend they put up the wall upon final approval. C (DAB): I agree 100% about the wall. That’s why I’m on this board. I really try to protect property owners. I think sometimes we have some great ideas and we forget about the people that have these homes. The DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 4  wall would be great. The other section just on down there’s a hotel up there and there’s drug stuff going on there, and unfortunately there’s no wall there. But to me the biggest thing is the lights. I think that could just really bother the neighborhood. That bothers me more than the fence. C (DAB): I believe the sign is 60 foot high and just like the Chipotle sign caddy corner from there. They’re not going to light your backyard if you live back there. They just want people driving on Kellogg to be able to see it. I don’t believe they’ll get too much light 60 foot down. They’re not directed lights or anything like that. I wouldn’t have a problem with it. C (DAB): You don’t live in the neighborhood. I’ve had people gripe because there’s a billboard there, and if you put a sign out there’s no limits. It might strobe. I’ve gone by a church sign that nearly blinded me it was strobing. You just don’t know what they do. You’ve opened it up and 60 foot high is a long way up there it could light up the whole neighborhood. Q (DAB): If this was just left as five individual parcels zoned LC, as far as the Wichita Sign Code, what would they be able to do versus putting this into one CUP? You’re basically blending your square foot allowance right and working into one deal to try to get more square footage into one sign and also the height. Could you give us an idea if those were left individual what would it be in what they’re allowed to do? A: Signs can go up to 35 feet. You could have one sign per lot, which would be five. The square footage would be about the same. It would be broken up differently because the sign code affords 0.8 square feet of sign area per linear feet of frontage. Each lot would get an allotment. If you have 100 feet of frontage you can have a 100 square feet of signage. If you have 75 feet of frontage you can have 75 square feet of signage. Instead of five different signs all competing and cluttering up, you have two tall signs listing all the tenants. With the proposal you have greater height with greater visibility from Kellogg. If it’s left the way it is you can have 35 foot signs all with varying degrees of square footage based on what linear footage they have. From an economic point of view, this would hinder. The reason Eastgate across the highway went for taller signs was for better visibility on Kellogg. They had 35 foot signs before and they went up to 60 with the reasoning of better visibility to attract better tenants. C (DAB): Another problem, Kellogg drive in front of this property goes west only. They’re going to see the sign you can’t even get to the property. The signs are going to be useless. I would say no higher than the normal, they need to go back to 30 foot. I think the normal height of the signs is what I’d recommend. Action Taken: Motion to APPROVE the application as presented made by Faith Martin. Seconded by Nazir Jesri. MOTION PASSED 8-1-0 DAB RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING:  The 6-foot masonry screening wall be required along the entire north property line upon building permit application.  The signage remain in compliance with the Wichita Sign Code without change. 10. CON2021-00007 Philip Zevenbergen, Metropolitan Area Planning Department, presented an application on behalf of SPDR WEBB, LLC (Applicant)/ K.E. Miller Engineering (Agent). The applicant is requesting an amendment to Protective Overlay District #3 in addition to a Conditional Use to permit a carwash on property zoned LC Limited Commercial. The site is generally located on the east side of South Webb Road at the intersection of East Lincoln Street. C (CM Tuttle): I have received no public feedback. Q (DAB): Could you clarify there would be an exit from the north side of the property onto that access easement that goes to that EMS station in order for people to leave the car wash and then be able to turn left at the Lincoln Street light to go south. Is that correct? A: That is correct. (Explained route by referencing site map). C (DAB): Interesting nobody brought up noise. Especially with a blow dryer. Will this have a blow dryer? A: I believe so. C (DAB): I live 500 to 1,000 feet north of a Zips and I can hear the blow dryer drying cars. DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 5  A: We took into consideration Webb Road and Lincoln sees about 2,000 cars a day, so it’s kind of noisy already. A (Kirk Miller – Agent): I think they do have a blow dryer. They also have the EMS station in between that will deflect some of the noise. I found out they want to put a purple roof on the building. Is that an issue Philip? A: I can look at the protective overlay. It says vivid colors need to be limited to incidental accents. There should be predominantly earth tones with vivid colors limited to incidental accents, so I would say based on that they wouldn’t be able to put a purple roof on it, if it were up to my review. That was not part of the initial request, so it was not looked at from staff. We look to amend that protective overlay to allow the use and not to change the architectural controls. The case would have to be moved to be re-advertised. Q (DAB): So right now we’re just approving the staff recommendations for the carwash? A: Yes, and if they want to pursue a purple roof, they have to come back. Q (DAB): Can you clarify if that access easement is or is not for car wash traffic? A: It is. A (Kirk Miller – Agent): We will be using it. Action Taken: Motion to APPROVE the application as presented made by Nazir Jesri. Seconded by Tim Johnson. MOTION PASSED 9-0-0 11. ZON2021-00004 Philip Zevenbergen, Metropolitan Area Planning Department, presented an application on behalf of Precision Wealth Building, LLC (owner/applicant) K.E. Miller Engineering, P.A. (Agent). The applicant is requesting the rezoning of one lot in the Hampton Acres Addition (approximately 0.845 acres) from SF-5 Single Family Residential to MF-29 Multi-Family Residential. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family home and is generally located 600 feet south of East Harry Street and within one quarter mile West of South Webb Road (9220 E. Osie). The applicant intends to remove the existing single-family home and redevelop the site with three multi-family buildings. Two of the buildings will be 8- plexes and one the buildings will be a 4-plex. Q (DAB): Any community input on this particular development? A: Not that I have heard. This won’t go to MAPC until April. It was deferred, but we kept it at DAB. A (CM Tuttle): I have not received any community input. Q (DAB): What is the size of the lot? A: 0.84 acres, so just under an acre. Q (DAB): And they’re looking to do how many doors? A: They would have two 8-plexes and one 4-plex, so a total of 20. And MF-29 effectively gets you about 29 dwelling units an acre. I haven’t done the math, but they are probably maxing out the density for the area they have here. Q (DAB): And there is enough parking and everything there now? A: There would have to be, yeah. There is nothing here asking for a reduction in parking, so they can meet the parking requirement. And for multifamily, it’s based on whether it’s a one bedroom, that’s 1.25 spaces per bedroom. And if it’s a two bedroom or more, that’s 1.75 spaces. Q (DAB): Are we talking multiple duplexes or is this some sort of complex? A: There would be three buildings. One or two of them would have eight units a piece, and then one would have four units. C (DAB): That’s a lot. DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 6  A: There is a large apartment complex really on almost three sides on the west and the south. It’s probably akin to what the development is like on the surrounding properties. C (DAB): That’s what I was going to say. Directly to the east, I was just there recently, my daughter is moving out, those are all studios and one bedrooms directly to the east, sharing the property line and that parking lot, so that is not outside of what those residents would probably be. That’s actually very in line with what all those complexes are. Action Taken: Motion to APPROVE the application as presented made by Faith Martin. Seconded by Sam Lindeman. MOTION PASSED 8-1-0 12. Places for People Mary Hunt, Metropolitan Area Planning Department, presented information regarding two implementation actions recommended in the Places for People Plan: 1) creation of a land bank; 2) updates to the zoning code. The DAB was asked to provide feedback and allow Wichita residents an opportunity to express their thoughts. Q (DAB): When you say land bank, what is that? A: I’m getting there now. Q (DAB): How did you come up with these suggestions in alternative 1 and 2 (referring to by-right or administrative permit)? A: By Right came out of the Places for People Plan. That’s what’s happening nationwide. Then there was discussion saying what if we get a lot of pushback on the By Right, could we come up with a hybrid option for people to consider and that’s where we got alternative 2. There would be some notification so people most closely impacted would be notified. C (DAB): I think it’s about right. I think it’s about time and it’s a great idea. It cuts through the red tape and makes it easier on the City and the staff and makes it easier for developers, in general, so I think’s it’s a great idea. A: I think it’s a good time to remind people that our current process doesn’t go away. If somebody comes in and looks at our design requirements and says, “No way, I want the old fashioned way,” they can still do that. C (DAB): I think it’s great. We need to make it easier for development and to build our city up. I love it. Reduce the red tape. C (DAB): Anything we can do to promote fresh development in areas that you highlighted earlier is a great thing, especially if you're not getting rid of the normal way and you're just providing more options. This is good. C (DAB): I read through the bylaws and it looks pretty standard for they are set up, especially the formation of the committee. My only concern is the transparency of who is selected. Who is going to hold them accountable? When we talk about the Ethics Policy that might be a good time to bring that up again. Q (DAB): Would it be possible for a landowner to donate land to the land bank? A: Yes they can, but the land bank has the right to refuse it. If they donate their land, they cannot kick someone off their land if they are a landlord. It would have to be unoccupied housing. Especially in the early years of this, we are going to be looking at vacant lots first. Q (DAB): What are the drawbacks or criticisms of an approach like this? A: Really the only criticism that has come up over the years is that this is just eminent domain and you are hiding that. But again state law prohibits that. DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 7 Q (DAB): The meetings of the board of trustees for this would be subject to open meetings laws? A: Yes. The agenda will be posted. The minutes will be available and somehow broadcasting or opening the meeting to the public like the meeting you are now in. Q (DAB): Has there been any concern that either of these programs can lead to the City picking winners and losers? A: When it comes to land bank property, they are already distressed. No one in the real estate community wants to touch them. Part of it is that it’s focused on the established central area. Q (DAB): You talked about potential partners like Mennonite Housing and Habitat for Humanity. You mentioned there could be for-profit companies that would be partners. Would the board create some kind of standards and applications process to become a partner of the land bank or what does that look like? A: The nonprofit organizations are looking at where are you doing business and where do you want to do business. They tend to go into neighborhoods and do more than one project at a time. The land bank is going to have to evaluate which of the for profit entities, if their proposal is better than the other. The folks at Habitat will tell you they need the for profit builder developer building alongside them in the same neighborhood in order to be successful. You can just have all Habitat houses up and down the block and the next block and the next block. That just doesn’t work. Having a mixture is really necessary. Q (DAB): Is there something we didn’t ask that other groups have asked? A: Some of the concerns have been about notification. Some people want all of the design requirements and still have notification of 200 feet. Well, nobody will go for that, they will just stay with the normal process. And people think the City is trying to densify neighborhoods. C (DAB): I guess the feedback from the DABs in those impacted areas would be a more critical voice. Something could happen in our area but it would be rare. Q (Public) Bruce Gass: The land bank cannot obtain property unless somebody is willing to sell it or donate it is that correct? A: That is absolutely correct and it cannot be occupied. If it was the owner occupant, that person could apply to donate • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next District 2 Advisory Board meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 12, 2021. It will take place virtually via Zoom. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Respectfully submitted, Cory Buchta, Community Services Representative, District 2 DAB 2 • March 08, 2021 • Minutes • Page 8