EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2021 WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2021 WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
4.1 Case No. PUD2020-00014: City zone change from SF-5 Single Family Residential to PUD Planned
Unit Development to create the Falcon Falls PUD #82 to permit accessory apartments and one non-
resident employee for home occupations on property; generally located one-half mile west of North
Hillside Avenue and north of East 45th Street North.
All of Lots 7 through 18 inclusive, Block B, TOGETHER with all of Lots 1 through 11, inclusive and all of
Lots 40 through 49, inclusive, Block E, all as platted in Falcon Falls 2nd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County,
Kansas, TOGETHER with all of Lots 1 through 40, inclusive, Block A, TOGETHER with all of Lots 1
through 25, inclusive, Block B, TOGETHER with all of Lots 17 through 50, inclusive, Block C, TOGETHER
with all of Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block D, TOGETHER with all of Lots 1 through 22, inclusive, Block
E, all as platted in Falcon Falls 3rd Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a zone change from SF-5 Single Family Residential to PUD
Planned Unit Development in order to create the Falcon Falls Addition Planned Unit Development (PUD
#82). The purpose of this PUD is to permit accessory apartments by-right on each included lot, in addition
to permitting a limited number of non-resident employees for home occupations. The PUD consists of the
portions of the Falcon Falls 2nd Addition and Falcon Falls 3rd Addition which are generally located within
one-half mile west of North Hillside Avenue and on the north side of East 45th Street North. The subject
portion of these Additions consists of 93 platted lots.
If the PUD is approved, it would permit accessory apartments by-right on each included lot. If the site were
to remain zoned SF-5, a conditional use is required to permit an accessory apartment on each lot. As stated
in the PUD text, if the accessory apartments are detached from the main dwelling, they shall follow all
development standards for accessory structures as stated in the Unified Zoning Code (UZC) Section III-
D.7.e. In addition, the accessory apartments shall follow the standards listed under General Provision 5,
which mirror the supplemental use regulations in Section III-D.6.a. Said regulations are listed below:
1. A maximum of one Accessory Apartment may be allowed on the same lot as a Single-Family
Dwelling Unit and may be within the main building, within an accessory building, or constructed
as an accessory building.
2. The appearance of an Accessory Apartment shall be compatible with the main dwelling unit and
with the character of the neighborhood.
3. Accessory Apartment shall remain accessory to and under the same ownership as the principal
single-family dwelling unit, and the ownership shall not be divided or sold as a condominium.
4. The water and sewer service provided to the accessory structure shall not be provided as separate
service from the main dwelling. Electric, gas, telephone and cable television utility service may be
provided as separate utility services.
The PUD text also includes special provisions for home occupations. The types of home occupation that
are permitted in SF-5 remain standard. However, the PUD text permits one non-resident employee per
zoning lot for home occupations. This differs from the standard language for an SF-5 district, which does
not permit any non-resident employees. However, property surrounding this site is zoned RR Rural
Residential and SF-20 Single Family Residential which permit rural home occupations with up to four non-
resident employees.
The intent of the PUD is to permit more employees than permitted in SF-5, but less than SF-20/RR. The
PUD would provide one non-residential employee, which is in line with what would be permitted on lots
Page 1 of 9that are zoned TF-3 Two-Family Residential. The PUD would be similar to the UZC standards, allowing
home occupations to be conducted out of the primary dwelling, and accessory structure or accessory
apartment.
Properties surrounding this location are a mix of low density residential both within the city limits of
Wichita and unincorporated Sedgwick County. Property to the north is zoned SF-5 Single Family
Residential with single family dwellings and undeveloped single family lots. Property to the east is zoned
SF-5, TF-3 and LC Limited Commercial with single family dwellings, duplexes, and undeveloped
commercial land. Property to the south is zoned SF-5 with single family dwellings within the addition and
agricultural land south of K-254 Highway. Property to the west is zoned SF-5 and SF-20 with large lot
single family residential and agricultural land.
CASE HISTORY: In 2005, both the Falcon Falls 2nd Addition and Falcon Falls 3rd Addition were recorded
with the Register of Deeds.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
NORTH: SF-5 Single-family residences
SOUTH: SF-5 Single family residences, agriculture
EAST: SF-5, TF-3, LC Single Family residences, duplexes, undeveloped land.
WEST: SF-20, SF-5 Single Family residences, agriculture
PUBLIC SERVICES: West of the site, East 45th Street is a paved, two-lane arterial street. East of the site,
East 45th Street transitions to a paved, four-lane arterial street. It does not have sidewalks. All streets within
the subject area are paved, local streets with sidewalks on one-side of collector streets. All municipal
services are available.
CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Community Investments Plan (the Wichita-Sedgwick
County Comprehensive Plan) includes the 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map. The Map identifies
the area in which the site is located to be appropriate for New Residential. This category is described as
follows: “Encompasses areas of land that likely will be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses
predominately found in the residential category. The residential category affords a range of options from
single family residential to multi-family units of varying densities.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available at the time of the public hearing, staff
recommends APPROVAL of the application subject to provisions of the Pike Addition PUD #80, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. The legal description on the face of the PUD drawing shall be updated to describe those lots in the
PUD.
2. The applicant shall record a PUD certificate with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract
(referenced as PUD #82 Falcon Falls Addition Planned Unit Development) has special conditions
for development on the property.
3. A copy of the recorded certificate along with four copies of the approved PUD shall be submitted
to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days of governing body approval, or the
request shall be considered denied and closed.
This recommendation is based on the following findings based on the Golden Factors:
Page 2 of 91. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Properties surrounding this location are a
mix of low density residential both within the city limits of Wichita and unincorporated Sedgwick
County. Property to the north is zoned SF-5 Single Family Residential with single family dwellings
and undeveloped single family lots. Property to the east is zoned SF-5, TF-3 and LC Limited
Commercial with single family dwellings, duplexes, and undeveloped commercial land. Property
to the south is zoned SF-5 with single family dwellings within the addition and agricultural land
south of K-254 Highway. Property to the west is zoned SF-5 and SF-20 with large lot single family
residential and agricultural land.
2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is
currently zoned SF-5 which permits accessory apartments by conditional use. It also permits home
occupations, but they are restricted to having no non-resident employees.
3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The
intent of the PUD is to remove the barrier of requiring a conditional use for each lot in order to
construct an accessory apartment. It is unlikely that all subject lots will construct accessory
apartments. In addition, the intent of the PUD is to provide less restrictions on home occupations
without changing the types of home occupations allowed. Again, it is unlikely that each subject lot
will conduct a home occupation. Therefore, the governing text of the PUD should minimize any
negative impacts on surrounding properties.
4. Length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned: The property was previously
agricultural land and is now beginning development of single family homes.
5. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare, compared to the loss in value or the
hardship imposed upon the applicant: The proposed changes should create no significant issues
related to the public health, safety or welfare given the governing language of the recommended
PUD text.
6. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and
policies: The Community Investments Plan (the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan)
includes the 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map. The Map identifies the area in which the
site is located to be appropriate for New Residential. This category is described as follows:
“Encompasses areas of land that likely will be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses
predominately found in the residential category. The residential category affords a range of options
from single family residential to multi-family units of varying densities.
7. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: There are no anticipated
significant adverse impacts on community facilities.
8. Opposition or support of neighborhood residents: At the writing of this staff report, Planning
staff has received comments from neighbors opposing this request. Staff has also received one
comment in support of the application.
PHILIP ZEVENBERGEN, PLANNING STAFF: presented the staff report. He stated that the case was
heard before DAB 1 on February 1, 2021 and discussed the general public comments that were presented
at the DAB meeting. The DAB recommended approval with a 9-1 vote.
Page 3 of 9WARREN: If this is passed today, the other lots that are not included in the PUD would have to go through
the conditional use process in order to get an accessory apartment, is that correct? If they choose to do so,
would there be a way to expedite the process for them as long as they fall in line with the same type of rules
as the PUD?
ZEVENBERGEN: They would have two options: 1) go through the public hearing process with the
conditional use, or 2) go through the public hearing process to amend the PUD to be included. There is no
way to speed up that process. However, with the approval of this, the likelihood of approval of a conditional
use for the same type of thing is great.
HARTMAN: How many total lots are in Falcon Falls?
ZEVENBERGEN: I don’t know the exact number, but it may be upwards of 250-300 lots. Out of all of
the applications that the applicant has submitted, this one is affecting the fewest number of lots and it has
the best access.
J JOHNSON: wanted to congratulate ZEVENBERGEN on a thorough presentation.
FOX: The lot sizes in this area seem to be smaller in this development compared to the other two that we
have considered. And the neighborhood is more built out than the other two which makes it easier to see
the lot sizes with the other house already built. Does the zoning code have rules regarding density and lot
coverage?
ZEVENBERGEN: Single-Family SF-5 has a minimum lot size of either 5,000 or 6,000 square feet. These
lots are well above the minimum lot size. Also, if they were going to be doing a detached accessory
structure, that structure would have to adhere to setbacks.
FOX: The smallest lot size I see in this area is 0.17 acres which would be well above the minimum lot size
then.
KRIS ROSE, BAUGHMAN COMPANY, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT: the applicant agrees with
staff comments and can stand for any questions. It looks like there are about 250-300 lots in the
development.
BRIAN STEWART, 2637 E KITE COURT: There are 475 lots in Falcon Falls. This would increase the
parking situation, for which there is already insufficient parking in the neighborhood. This would increase
the surface area which increases the run-off of stormwater. Rentals are an issue in the neighborhood. People
will be renting these. This will be an HOA nightmare for enforcement. There is inadequate access to the
neighborhood. It looks like there are three entrances, but there are really only two. There is 45th and there
is Hillside. And those roadways are insufficient to handle the current traffic and not all 475 lots have been
built. The idea is a good idea. Just do it somewhere else where it was planned-on from the beginning.
JEWELL MONCURE, 2410 E THUNDER STREET: When do they plan to complete these 93 lots? Mr.
Russell has done this with two other developments. What is the status of those two projects? When will the
residents in Falcon Falls know the outcome from City Council?
ZEVENBERGEN: Explained that one of the previous cases was already approved by City Council and
the other is slated to be heard by City Council soon. Anyone who speaks at this meeting will have their
Page 4 of 9name and address recorded and will receive a follow up letter from the MAPC meeting as well as the City
Council meeting. If anyone listening who does not want to speak but wants to receive the follow up letters
can email me to put their name on the list. This case will be going to City Council in late March or early
April.
KALYN DAME, 4723 N HOBBY STREET: She lives on one of the ponds and they are not allowed to
build even a shed on their lot because of the drainage. How does this affect the other lots? She has heard
from many neighbors who are concerned that this will just open the door to allow duplexes to be built.
There are people on her street who rent out their homes.
PATTY STEVENS, 4907 N MARBLEFALLS STREET: Bought her home in what she assumed would
be a single family neighborhood. Now she understands that there will be a casita built in the backyard of
the property behind her. This would create less space between dwellings. She wonders how it will be limited
to just a mother-in-law or a student or something? Who is to say that they won’t rent it to a family? This is
not fair that these properties could do this and she would have to go through the public hearing process.
She is concerned about how close the buildings can be to the property lines.
ZEVENBERGEN: From a land use aspect, this is not guaranteeing that an accessory apartment will be
built in someone’s backyard. The applicant is looking to provide a floor plan option where the apartment is
part of the main structure of the main home. As you look at from the street it would look like a single family
home. If it is built in the backyard, there are size and height restrictions as well as setbacks to ensure there
is adequate spacing between structures.
STEVENS: What are the size restrictions, and what are the setback restrictions?
ZEVENBERGEN: The setbacks would allow an accessory structure to be a minimum of five feet off the
property line. But it also depends on if there is a sewer easement in the backyard. If there is, it is typically
eight to ten feet off the property line. That applies to accessory apartments and to sheds. If people are
allowed to build a shed on their property, that shed could be five feet off the back fence or right up to the
easement.
STEVENS: They could build part of the casita 10 feet off the back property? I knew there was going to be
a house behind me, but I didn’t realize it could be that close to my property.
ZEVENBERGEN: Yes, if the easement is 10 off the property line, then they can build up to that point.
GREENE: If you have any more questions or comments, you can call the Planning office and talk to
ZEVENBERGEN.
JIM WILLIAMS, 5002 N MARBLEFALLS STREET: He is ok with request, but it most concerned
about them turning into rentals. He was on the board for some time and knows that the covenants do not
prohibit rentals. Jay Russell has rentals in our neighborhood.
ANDREW DOLL, 2817 E MANTANE CT: There are rentals already in the neighborhood. The new
owners who can do this in the PUD will think this is an easy way to generate revenue. It makes me nervous
to hear that it will be difficult to enforce whatever regulations are on these properties regarding rentals. The
ability to build units will incentivize people to build smaller houses closer to the street. People bought
houses in here not thinking there will be two houses between them and the next lot. Also, how are we going
to rectify the special assessments? How are they going to be assessed to the current owners verses the new
one that can do more with their property? They could have a revenue generating structure on their lot. How
Page 5 of 9will this affect special assessments to be fair? The HOA doesn’t just prohibit someone from building on a
lot on the water, but they also prohibit it on a lot that is considered a “wooded lot.” The HOA can prohibit
me from building in my backyard, but they may not be able to restrict Mr. Russell. This is not in the best
interest of the neighborhood.
FOSTER: Can you described the rentals? Are these single family homes in their entirety being rented out?
DOLL: The rentals can be known just by looking at them with all the cars parked on the street. The ones I
know of are the single family homes being rented out verses a bedroom being rented out.
FOSTER: Have you studied the covenants well enough to confirm if rentals are permitted?
DOLL: I have not but there was a speaker before me that was on the board who said they were permitted.
SABRINA WALKER, 4702 N MARBLEFALLS STREET:
There was an issue with her connection into the meeting and she was not able to verbally give a testimony.
The following testimony was given via the chat box.
Mr. Russell in his mission statement said he wanted to build communities with natural settings and not just
build homes. When you first come in off of 45th street you see the natural setting. We do not want the look
to change. I take pride in where I live. I follow the rules of the covenant as I understand it. Will these apts.
lower the value of our home or resale value? Why not continue to build single family dwellings and if
someone has to have their child or mother move in build a larger home. Keep the character of Falcon Falls
intact. Thank you.
DAVID BANOWETZ, 5023 OSPREY CIRCLE: This is overdoing it. This will make the community
less desirable.
CHRIS STALICA, 4711 N MARBLEFALLS STREET: Has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years.
There are renters on both sides of his property. Those properties lack maintenance and there are a large
number of cars in front of their properties. This will increase the number of rentals in the neighborhood and
devalue the neighborhood.
MARK DOLECHEK, 4947 N MARBLEFALLS CT: He is not opposed to the accessory apartments. He
is just concerned about them becoming rentals.
STEWART: This goes back to the other PUDs and the other developments that applied for this. Did those
allow rentals? This one hinges on whether or not the developer understands the HOA covenants. Rentals
do exist in Falcon Falls.
ROSE: We were under the impression that the prohibition of rentals was in the HOA covenants, but
obviously it is not. We can do a restrictive covenant for these lots that prohibit rentals within the PUD.
Falcon Falls is an older development so maybe the HOA has been changed over the years. In addition, the
HOA Board can modify their HOA covenants to prohibit rentals, but that is a private issue. Regarding not
permitting accessory structures in the backyards because of drainage, this does not make sense. I do not see
how increasing the square footage of a house or adding a structure in the backyard is going to impact he
drainage.
Page 6 of 9WARREN: Regarding drainage, when the county approves a drainage plan, what do they base that on? Is
it on the amount of square footage that could be placed on each lot? If so, how does this measure up? Does
this exceed the numbers that were put in the place at the time of approval?
ZEVENBERGEN: Other staff within the Planning Department are more knowledgeable about how
drainage plans are approved, or Joe Hickle with Public Works could answer this question. However, when
this was originally platted as an SF-5 addition, the zoning permits accessory structures with the principle
structure, which would have to be taken into account when the drainage plan was created and approved.
WARREN: If there is a restrictive covenant prohibiting rentals, how is this enforced? Also, are there
restrictions in this area on what can be done on these lots regarding additional structures if you have a water
or a wooded lot? If so, this is a fairness issue. If someone cannot put a shed because of water or trees, why
would we allow this?
ZEVENBERGEN: The decision today does not change the covenants. Whatever zoning goes in, this does
not supersede the covenants. If a lot backs up to water or a wooded area and the covenants prohibit structures
in the backyards of those lots, someone in this zoning would not be able to build an accessory apartment in
their backyard if they had one of those lots.
ROSE: Regarding drainage, with any development in Wichita, I don’t know if there is a maximum lot
coverage for a home. A home owner could maximize the lot coverage on their lot with a home. There should
be no drainage issue with adding a few hundred square feet. There will be no additional driveways like a
duplex would. Regarding the HOA, they have the ultimate right to deny things that the covenants do not
allow. They can go out and notify individuals that they are not in compliance with the covenants. And if
the HOA wants to change something, if they have enough support, their covenants can be changed.
JEFF VANZANDT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: He was able to get Joe Hickle on the phone. Joe
said that the subdivision has a master drainage plan, if a new home includes an accessory structure, it will
need a drainage plan that does not jeopardize the master drainage plan.
HARTMAN: HOAs generally have an architectural control board that deals with this type of situation to
see if they could approve it or not. Regarding the size, I don’t see that this would be any different than
putting an addition onto your house. It should not affect the drainage plan.
MCKAY: Mr. Rose said that they would put a statement in the PUD that it would prohibit rentals.
ROSE: Yes, if the HOA does not currently prohibit rentals, we can put a statement in the PUD that would
restrict rentals for lots zoned PUD.
WADLE: Before considering putting that language in the PUD, I would suggest conferring with the Law
Department.
VANZANDT: If the applicant is willing to put the additional restriction in the PUD that is fine. Regarding
the other lots, it must be done by amending the covenants to restrict rentals. The PUD would not affect the
other lots that are not in this application. What we don’t want to do is allow something in the PUD that
would be in conflict with the covenants. That does not seem to be the case here. This PUD does not
supersede what the covenants say.
Page 7 of 9B JOHNSON: Over the years we have dealt with so many individual lots where someone wants to come
in a do this. This application is doing something out in advance to take care of the issue before hand. I don’t
see that very many of these lots will have an accessory apartment--- maybe only 5 percent or 10 percent.
As long as what these do not exceed what was planned in the past with the covenants. I don’t see an issue.
MOTION: To approve subject to staff recommendation with adding a provision to the
PUD text that prohibits rentals.
MCKAY: seconded the motion with the stipulation that the PUD contains the no rental clause.
FOSTER: There is a discrepancy on the total number of lots in the development. There is a concern about
if Fire would be ok with this.
ZEVENBERGEN: When the discussion came up for the Pike Addition on West Maple, since that
development only had one entrance, Neil Strahl with Planning Staff looked at this development since we
already had the application and it was determined that this would not exceed the fire code even if every lot
permitted built an accessory apartment.
FOSTER: Regarding setbacks, the rear setback for a principle structure when up against a platted reserve
can be pretty close.
ROSE: When there is a platted reserve, the rear setback is five feet. This does not supersede any covenant
restrictions for visibility. However, if there is an easement, then they can only build to the easement line,
which is often greater than five feet.
FOSTER: We cannot adjust these setback because we are not talking about the plat. People in the HOA
need to take notes and potentially go back and adjust the language as they see fit to control these items.
GREENE: Access was always a big thing for me with the applications. When I saw that the plat had two
access points along Hillside and one access point along 45th Street, I felt a lot more comfortable.
B JOHNSON: Everyone is going to be pulling a building permit on these houses anyway, so everything
should be built right too.
J JOHNSON: What was the DAB vote?
GREENE: 9-1
J JOHNSON: They were under the impression that the covenants prohibit rentals. This just reinforces that
the provision should be added to the PUD.
VANZANDT: Yes, it has to be in the PUD. We cannot require the HOA to put it in their covenants.
FOSTER: Who is burdened to enforce this if it is in the PUD?
ZEVENBERGEN: If it is in the PUD, it would be the City who enforces it.
FOSTER: Is the enforcement going to work?
VANZANDT: The HOA could elect to enforce this, but often times HOAs are underfunded when it comes
to enforcing these. The City can attempt to do this through the zoning, or the HOA could elect to enforce it
as well.
Page 8 of 9JR COX, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Enforcement would fall to the zoning enforcement officers
under the Metro Area Planning Department. They would be the ones to attempt to enforce this. However,
this could be very difficult to enforce. If it is part of the PUD it is a statutory requirement.
B JOHNSON moved, MCKAY seconded the motion, and it carried (13-0).
Page 9 of 9You can also read
