District 6 Advisory Board

District VI Advisory Board Minutes www.wichita.gov Wednesday Evergreen Branch Library May 15, 2019 2601 N. Arkansas, Wichita, KS 67204 6:30 p.m. Conference Room The District VI Advisory Board meeting was held at 6:30 p.m. at the Evergreen Branch Library conference room, 2601 N. Arkansas, Wichita, KS 67204. There were eight District Advisory Board members, the Council Member, seven staff members and seven members of the public in attendance. Members Present Staff Present Denise O’Leary-Seimer Officer Brent Johnson WPD Gregory Boyajian Brandon Findley, Office of Community Services Shaun Rojas Bill Longnecker Matt Brown Joel Weihe Linda Matney James Deckhard Carrington Thom (Youth member) Council Member Cindy Claycomb Members Absent Guests Angela Martinez 43 Guests were present Gisela Pena Lorenza Snyder Call to Order Council Member Cindy Claycomb called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes The minutes for April 17, 2019 were approved. Motion passed (7-0) Recommended Action: Receive and file.  Staff Reports Police Report Officer Brian Johnson - There was a robbery at Mr. Taco. There was a knife involved but no injuries. There are no known suspects at this time. DAB Member – Should we call if we see people drinking while carrying a handgun? Officer Johnson - Yes. You can’t carry a handgun while being impaired. Approval of minutes – James Deckhard motioned to approve, Matt Brown seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0 Elena Devora with Tobacco Free Wichita gave a presentation on an environmental scan that their organization did of several city parks. Elena Devora - After doing a concentrated scan of the playground and picnic areas of Sleepy Hollow Park, we found over 1000 cigarette butts before we eventually gave up. It takes 10 years for a cigarette butt to bio-degrade. It is because of this situation that we hope you will support the tobacco free park ordinance. Off Agenda Audience Member – I am in support of the Tobacco Free Wichita Park policy and I hope you too will support it. Audience Member – I would like to thank Cindy Claycomb for her vote on the cell tower and also thank the city for pausing on the Gander Mountain decision. Agenda Items ZON2019-00014 Kathy Morgan presented on ZON2019-00014 and explained that the applicant requests an amendment to the attached PO-72 to allow a “vehicle storage yard” on 1.7 acres zoned LI Limited Industrial (LI). PO-72 currently applies to Lots 1 through 5 in the Burleson Addition. The applicant is requesting the vehicle storage yard on Lot 5, Block A of the Burleson Addition. The property is located north of West 21st Street on the east side of North Hoover Road. The property north and west of the site is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential (SF-5) developed with single-family dwellings on one-half acre to one acre lots. Property east of the site is IP Industrial Park (IP) zoning. The property south of the site is zoned LI and used for warehouse/office for a gas utility company. The property is included in PO-72. According to the Unified Zoning Code (UZC), “Vehicle Storage Yard” means the keeping outside of an enclosed building for more than 72 consecutive hours of one or more Motor Vehicles (except Inoperable Vehicles), boats, trailers or unoccupied Recreational Vehicles. The term Vehicle Storage Yard does not include Wrecking/Salvage Yard. The applicant has provided a proposed site plan for the vehicle storage yard showing the all-weather surface of 1-1/2 inch diameter gravel and a depth of four (4) inches. The site plan does not include the landscape plan for the required street yard landscape across from residential zoning along Hoover Road and the landscape buffer required within 15 feet along the north property line abutting residential zoning. The submitted site plan does not show parking stalls and pedestrian/vehicle circulation. The site for a vehicle storage yard requires solid screening along all four property lines. The site plan only shows screening along the north property line. Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was completed, staff recommends the request to amend PO-72 be APPROVED as submitted with the following amended conditions in PO-72: 1. The following uses permitted in the LI Limited Industrial Zoning District shall not be permitted on Lots 1-4, Block A, Burleson Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas: funeral home, hotel or motel, kenned (boarding/breeding/training), marine facility (recreational), microbrewery, night club, parking area (commercial), pawnshop, recreation and entertainment (outdoor), tavern and drinking establishment, vehicle and equipment sales (outdoor), asphalt and concrete plant (general), gas and fuel storage, landfill, mining or quarrying, oil or gas drilling, rock crushing, solid waste incinerator, transfer station, vehicle storage yard, and agricultural processing. 2. Vehicle Storage Yard shall be permitted on Lot 5, Block A, Burleson Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County. The following uses permitted in the LI Limited Industrial Zoning District shall not be permitted on Lots 1-4, Block A, Burleson Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas: funeral home, hotel or motel, kenned (boarding/breeding/training), marine facility (recreational), microbrewery, night club, parking area (commercial), pawnshop, recreation and entertainment (outdoor), tavern and drinking establishment, vehicle and equipment sales (outdoor), asphalt and concrete plant (general), gas and fuel storage, landfill, mining or quarrying, oil or gas drilling, rock crushing, solid waste incinerator, transfer station, and agricultural processing. 3. Vehicle storage shall only be allowed on rocked surfaces (4-inch depth). The vehicle storage may be expanded by increasing the rocked surface area of Lot 5, Block A, Burleson Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. 4. Lots 1 -5, Block A, Burleson Addition shall have an increased front building setback of 35 feet. 5. All outdoor storage uses on the subject property (on Lots 1-5, Block A, Burleson Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas) shall be screened on all sides by a solid screening wall or fence constructed of standard building materials customarily used for wall and fence construction such as brick, stone, concrete masonry, stucco, concrete or wood. 6. Submit a new site plan showing the parking stalls and pedestrian/traffic circulation to be approved by the Planning Director prior to beginning operation of the vehicle storage yard. 7. Submit a landscape plan for the required street yard landscape across from residential zoning along Hoover Road and the landscape buffer required within 15 feet along the north property line abutting residential zoning. Landscape buffer shall be 1.5 times the quantity stipulated in the Landscape Ordinance Guidebook. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning before beginning operation of the vehicle storage yard. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The property north and west of the site is zoned SF-5 Single-Family Residential (SF-5) developed with single-family dwellings on one-half acre to one acre lots. Property east of the site is IP Industrial Park (IP) zoning. The property south of the site is zoned LI and used for warehouse/office for a gas utility company. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is presently zoned LI and allows intensive uses except for those prohibited by PO-72. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The proposed Vehicle Storage Yard will be screened and requires a graveled surface for outdoor storage. 4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The property has been vacant since it was platted in August 2001. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located within the Established Central Area which is the focus area for the Wichita Urban Infill Area. The project site is further identified on the Future Growth Concept Map as appropriate for industrial development within the Established Central Area. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Amending PO-72 to allow a Vehicle Storage Yard would not generate any additional demands on existing infrastructure. DAB Member - So trees are only about 6 feet high to cover the view of R.V’s Kathy Morgan – Yes but R.V’s are about 100 feet behind the property line. DAB Member – So there will be a path put in correct? Kathy Morgan – Yes Council Member Claycomb- If they wanted to change the use later and add gravel they would have to get an additional approval correct? Kathy Morgan – Yes DAB Member – How much set back will there be on the North side? Kathy Morgan – The fence can be built on the property line plus 10ft of landscaping. Council Member Claycomb –If there is a protective overlay why was it put up in the first place? Kathy Morgan – You can request to amend a protective overlay. Audience Member – I’m pro-business and have nothing against auto storage but this area has too many. We have 4 storage facilities in this small area and you can store vehicles of all kinds at these locations. There is also an auto salvage in this area and I don’t believe we need any more. This facility doesn’t look like the surrounding businesses and it doesn’t fit with the new Sandcrest development or new bike path. I ask that you deny this request. Audience Member – I’m concerned that this facility will devalue the surrounding properties and it will not conform with the look of the neighborhood. Audience Member – I cannot weed eat because the fence of this property is so close to my fence. I don’t want to have to look at 15 ft R.V’s over a 6 ft. fence. Everyone else had to put up concrete fences in the area, so I would ask that you vote no. Don Mann – I’m the owner. I’m willing to do whatever I need to do. This property isn’t finished because I can’t put more money into this until I know what’s going to happen here. If this passes I’ll be more than happy to put in the trees and stain the fence. I’m trying to create affordable storage and I would like you to approve the request. DAB Member – The fence doesn’t seem sufficient and landscaping will take several years to grow high enough to make a difference. Greg Boyjian – Based on the owner’s comments I propose to accept staff recommendations with the following modifications:  The fence be moved back 10 feet south and the trees be planted outside of the fence as a buffer zone with 9 ft. trees on the north side and west side.  That additional staff research be done to see that fence trees and the path are all congruent on the west side. Joel Weihe seconded the motion. Motion was passed 6-2. Kathy Morgan – This case will be heard on May 23rd by the Planning Commission. Neighbors can email Kathy Morgan with additional comments and if this is approved there will be a 14day protest period. The Planning Commission meeting will be heard on the 2nd floor of the Ronald Reagan Building at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday May 23rd. ZON 00019-00009 & CON2019-14 Kathy Morgan explained that the applicant/owner is requesting the rezoning 3007 West Elm (0.56 acre) from SF-5 Single Family Residential (SF-5) to TF-3 Two Family Residential (TF-3). The property is currently vacant. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use for multiple duplexes on one lot; the applicant intends to develop three duplexes with six total units (see the attached site plan). TF-3 zoning district requires a 20-foot rear setback; however, the site plan shows a five (5) foot rear setback. The property is approximately 24,413 square feet, with 82.5 linear feet of frontage along West Elm Street. The Unified Zoning Code (UZC) requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet per duplex building and allows for a reduction of building setback as shown on a recorded plat. The request to allow three duplex buildings is within the required limitations. The property north and west of the subject site is zoned SF-5 and is developed with single-family residences. The property to the east is zoned TF-3 and is currently undeveloped with four duplexes. Property south of the subject site is zoned LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) and is developed as a shopping center with frontage along Central Avenue. Based upon the information available at the time the staff report was completed, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request, as submitted. Based on these factors, plus the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: A. APPROVE the zone change (ZON2019-09) to TF-3 Two-family Residential (“TF-3) B. APPROVE the Conditional Use Request (CON2019-14), subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be limited to three duplexes and six total dwelling units. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised site plan will need to be provided that will determine the location of landscaping, parking, setbacks and cross lot access with the duplex development to the east of the site. 3. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan. 4. Development on the site shall conform to all applicable codes to include zoning, building, landscape, housing, and health codes. 5. If the Zoning Administrator finds that there is a violation of any of the conditions of the Conditional Use, the Zoning Administrator, in addition to enforcing the other remedies set forth in the Unified Zoning Code, may, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, declare that the Conditional Use is null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Property north and west of the subject site is zoned SF-5 and is developed with single-family residences. Property to the east is zoned TF-3 and is currently developed with four duplexes. Property south of the subject site is zoned LC Limited Commercial (“LC”) and is developed as a shopping center with frontage along Central Avenue. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is presently zoned SF-5 Single Family Residential and the property could be developed with a new single-family dwelling. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: TF-3 zoning is immediately adjacent to the subject property. 4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: A substandard structure on the property has been vacant for approximately three years. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, the Community Investments Plan, identifies the area in which the site is located as appropriate for residential uses within the Wichita city limit. This includes development of duplexes. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Development of the property would not have any impact on community facilities or resources. All public improvements are available to serve the property. DAB Member – Will there be a dumpster at this facility? Kirk Miller – Yes, but I am not exactly sure where it will be located. Likely somewhere close to the front of the property. DAB Member – Will there be garages? Kirk Miller – I’m not sure. Normally we require a garage or 2 parking spaces. DAB Member – Will these properties be completely covered with concrete and structure? Kirk Miller –No there will be landscaping on the property. Joel Weihe motioned to approve the request and James Deckhard seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0 TNR (Trap Neuter Release) ordinance creation in the City of Wichita Animal Services Advisory Board Acting Chairperson, Stephanie McCurdy presented on the recommendation by the City to implement an ordinance that covers TNR that was adopted by the ASAB. She presented that A TNR Committee was developed in 2015 by the Animal Advisory Board to look into developing a standard within the City. • A December 2017 community survey found: • 20.63% of respondents felt that feral cats were a nuisance in their neighborhood • 64.41% of respondents felt that the City should take an active role in assisting neighborhoods with this issue • 48.56% felt that the most pressing issue for Animal Control was to reduce our euthanasia rate at the shelter The committee put together a proposed ordinance and it presented it to the Animal Advisory Board in April 2018. The committee presented a draft ordinance to the Board. The Board discussed this at several meetings and received significant public comment. A final draft ordinance was developed and provided to the Police Department. The Police Department formed an internal committee to review the ordinance and ensure applicability and enforceability. This will be a community based service and will be funded by grants obtained through various rescue groups. If TNR is to be used on private property, the property owner will be contacted and permission granted before any activity begins. DAB Member – As written does the ordinance pose liability to the caregiver for property destroyed? Stephanie McCurdy – Not currently. DAB Member – Communities I’ve talked to don’t have TNR ordinances but do work with TNR groups In Albuquerque New Mexico they have an extremely successful TNR program combined with a city funded spay and neuter program, without having an ordinance. I wonder what would be more successful, an ordinance or a resolution form the Mayor and City Manager? Jan Jarman – We have a State statute that you cannot abandon an animal. Other states don’t have the same statutes. Without an ordinance nobody is liable for nuisance animals. DAB Member – Is punishment then the taking of the cat. If so what happens to the cat? Jan Jarman – It would probably be euthanized. DAB Member – How willing are the participants to do all of the steps required to be a caregiver? Stephanie McCurdy – The caregivers really want to do this. DAB Member- I live next to a caregiver who has almost 30 cats and she is nearly 80 years old. What happens when a caregiver dies or moves? Stephanie McCurdy – They would be brought to the shelter in case of death. If they move they can take their colony with them. DAB Member- How does one become a caregiver? Stephanie McCurdy – We haven’t completely worked that out yet but they will likely have to register with animal services which would help us to know where they are. DAB Member- I think neighbors should have to be involved in this decision as well. Stephanie McCurdy- Say we do that, if they say they don’t want the cats they will either be euthanized or never registered. DAB Member- Can’t they be sent to an alternative location Stephanie McCurdy- We can transfer them to a rural barn location DAB Member- Is there a cost incurred to the City to do this? Stephanie McCurdy- No it would be grant funded. DAB Member- If this doesn’t pass, what are your fears about what will happen? Stephanie McCurdy- We won’t be able to locate the colonies. The Board feels the same but they don’t think the ordinance is perfect. DAB Member- Do you see mandatory spay and neuter helping the TNR ordinance? Stephanie McCurdy- Yes but breeders would still exist DAB Member- Why can’t caregivers let the cats inside? Jan Jarman – Because people will claim a feral cat is a personal cat and will increase the numbers they have illegally. DAB Member-What is the communication piece for the ordinance? Stephanie McCurdy- We will have a larger public education campaign including media and mail campaigns. DAB Member- What does it cost to implement TNR? Stephanie McCurdy- It is currently $20 -$25 to keep a cat per day at the shelter x 12 days of care plus euthanization, where TNR costs $10 per cat at no cost to the City. Audience Member- I’m a colony caregiver of 7 cats. They don’t leave my backyard and are slowly dying off of old age. The difference between a hoarder and a caregiver is that we don’t want to feed every cat and we want them spayed and neutered. Audience Member- I do volunteer surgeries for these cats. Killing cats is not the answer. They didn’t choose to be there and we can find a more humane way to deal with them than killing them. Audience Member- I’m on the Animal Control Advisory Board and. Rabies vaccination needs to be boosted in these animals. Worms are also a concern. Ringworm, Toxoplasmosis etc. can all transfer to humans which is why I am currently against this ordinance. Audience Member- These are living breathing creatures and they are not disposable. I’ve spent $2,000 in 2 years to care for these cats and they deserve to be taken care of. Audience Member- I’m an attorney and this ordinance is fatally flawed. Feral cats are a nuisance and a menace. If this is passed it would take repeated acts to do anything about it and nobody would be responsible. You can have up to 8 cats and there is no restriction on how many people in an area can have 8 cats, and there is also no notification to neighbors. The survey discussed does not take into account community opinion and I am outraged that the City might allow this to happen. Audience Member- As pet owners we care and clean up after our animals. This isn’t fair to people on the block who don’t want community cats. Food also goes to other wild animals. Audience Member- Complaints are happening now such as abandonment and reproduction. Data leads to solutions that work. By implementing something that leads to data we can do something. We are asking to legitimize TNR. Without that first sot we can’t legitimize anything. We are trying to stop the growth of colonies, there are goals to do so. Audience Member- The purpose is to legitimize TNR with funding. TNR has been shown to work to reduce colony size. This will reduce risks to public health. Audience Member- I’ve helped TNR over 1200 cats. In regard to who cleans up after them, some are cleaning up after cats. Who cleans up after the birds that are fed in the wild? Audience Member- This needs to be done with surrounding property owner’s permission and the cats need to be microchipped. Without these two things this ordinance is incomplete. Audience Member- These caregiver’s hearts are in the right place but without a 70-75% capture rate the numbers won’t go down. I’m not totally opposed but there needs to be responsibility and accountability. Audience Member- I work with Friends of Felines. In the first 2 years we had a 28% reduction in feral cat populations. We had reduced neglect calls. We work off of applications from our website. If we make it less regulated we can get more of the cats. Council Member Claycomb - So Friends of Felines doesn’t proactively go after cats? Audience Member – No the caregivers come to us. Audience Member – I’m asking not to approve this ordinance because it is not complete. We need provisions for microchipping, limits to number of caregivers on a block and protection of wildlife. Audience Member – I am the president of the Autobahn Society. This ordinance is not ready and it relies on the opinions of activists. TNR doesn’t work in a city of our size. Animal Services needs to work with the Law Department to develop an ordinance. Audience Member – We need an education program and I want to point out that this has been turned down by 3 other District Advisory Boards. District 3 rejected 7 to1, District 4 rejected 6 to 3 and District 2 rejected 7 to 1 with one abstain. Audience Member – Caregivers have no legal ownership and no microchips. I feel like this is being pushed through quickly to gain charitable funding. If charities later pull funding who pays for the program then? DAB Member – Capturing, neutering and spaying makes sense but microchipping and keeping in the caregiver’s yard would help. I’m also confused about caregiver responsibility. This ordinance needs more work. DAB Member - I motion to accept with the following conditions: There needs to be microchipping, letterboxing, year round shelter, community input with majority approval, park protections and owner responsibility for nuisance issues.. The motion was seconded. The motion is held at a 4-4 tie. Issues of Concern DAB Member - 3318 W. 9th needs mowed. Also will the Fire Dept. present on the fireworks ordinance this year? Council Member Claycomb – Yes. DAB Member – We asked what makes the community viable. Can the City manager come and present what other cities are doing to make their city viable and how much they spend to do so? Council Member Claycomb – I will attempt to get a white paper from staff about that and bring it to DAB members soon. DAB Member – City Council turned down the cell tower, so are now open for lawsuit? Council Member Claycomb – Yes. I made the motion based on aesthetics and we believe it will be held up in court. Neighborhood Reports Council Member Claycomb – There is a new budget simulator on the city website, I encourage you to participate in it by visiting Wichita.gov. There is also an Annual Report available that I encourage you to review. James Deckhard made a motion to adjourn. Matt Brown seconded. Meeting adjourned.