Places for People Ongoing Concerns
“Places for People” is a densification plan aimed at the “core” of Wichita or “Established Central Area,”
encompassing everything from Ridge Road to Rock Road, from 29th Street North to 31st Street South.
Places for People will allow multiple structures to be built on existing city lots, which will increase the
city’s tax income through increased property taxes. Programs like this are being rolled out across the
country in a one-size-fits-all plan developed by the American Planning Association. Wichita’s
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission has been adamantly pushing this plan for a couple years as a
way to make Wichita “vibrant, strong and economically strong.” Consider closely what they are
proposing. From District VI, we share an exchange between Scott Wadle, director of Planning and a few
concerned citizens in hopes that our questions, Wadle’s responses and our assessment of those
responses start discussions citywide. With 25 questions, it is long, but we feel important.
• Original questions or comments made by residents and posted to Facebook March 1 are
written in bold.
• Scott Wadle, Director of Planning has written responses March 2, 2021. They are in black.
• Collective concerns about Scott’s responses are in red and have been taken from various
neighborhood Facebook pages and members of our group. This has always been a group effort.
March 10, 2021.
- Why is the City moving away from single-family zoning and how should those who invested in
property in the city’s core be compensated for this drastic change?
a. Significant areas of the City and especially District VI are not zoned single family.
Actually, significant areas in District VI are zoned single family including Northwest Big
River, Indian Hills Riverbend, Indian Hills, Benjamin Hills, Sherwood Glen, neighborhoods
surrounding OK School, the Womer edition, and sections of Riverside, North Riverside,
Midtown, El Pueblo, Twin Lakes and Orchard Park.
b. The City did not have single family until sometime around the 1940s or 1950’s.
c. Single family zoning would still be in place for properties that are currently zoned single
family. However, property owners would have more options and flexibility to meet market
demands and their own life circumstances.
• Rephrasing the question: What is the City doing to support single-family owner-occupants
who have been working and investing in their properties to maintain a single-family area or
neighborhood in the city’s core, whether that area is zoned single-family or not? Single
family owner-occupant neighborhoods with a few single-family rentals (one or two per lot)
are the kind of “vibrant neighborhoods” most people want to live in unless they choose an
apartment complex.
• If the statement is true, that there are many other residential lots already in place that
accommodate duplexes, triplexes etc., then no change is needed. Unless removing setbacks
allows developers to build larger buildings than is currently allowed, which leads back to
the question; why is the City moving away from or at least not equally supporting singlefamily dwellings?2 - Places for People is a densification plan aimed at the city’s core, which has been presented
under a veil of marketing using trendy words like walkability, diversity, nodes, etc. Why are
Places for People, the zoning change and the landbanks needed? Not wanted, but needed?
a. The vision of Wichita is for stronger neighborhoods, vibrant centers, and a stronger
economy. In order to accomplish that, the plan recommends infill housing, walkable design,
multi-modal transportation, and increasing housing options. This does not answer why it is
needed. As Richard Ruth said in the District 3 DAB meeting, “This is a lot of sizzle to sell
steak.” No one is buying that Places for People is needed. No one is asking the city to do
this. This is the city’s idea of how to increase the tax base without impacting the suburbs.
It is prejudiced and unwarranted. And, it is disingenuous to present it as anything but a
tax-income plan for the city. Some in our group have recognized it as straight out of the
American Planning Association’s playbook. The impact on neighborhoods will be
devastating.
b. Many of the areas in District VI are currently zoned for housing greater than single family.
• We are aware of what’s here. What no one can know is what other impacts, especially
undesirable impacts, would come with the Places for People plan, but looking at other
cities that have embraced this idea of infill in the inner city, there will certainly be
negative impacts that should be openly discussed with the citizenry.
• For one, changing the zoning means no notices of any kind will go out to neighbors
let alone to the public before construction begins on an infill project.
• As Malcolm Gladwell wrote so deftly, “A prediction in a field where prediction is not
possible is no more than a prejudice.” Places for People is a prejudiced plan that will
work against diverse neighborhoods in the “Established Central Area” as you’ve defined
it, from Ridge Road to Rock Road, from 31st Street South to 29th Street North. It works
for the benefit of the neighborhoods outside the “ECA.” - What is the target housing density within the boundaries? How many units per block is the
goal? The vision of Wichita is for stronger neighborhoods, vibrant centers, and a stronger
economy. In order to accomplish that, the plan recommends infill housing, walkable design, multimodal transportation, and increasing housing options. These are what the zoning update will help to
accomplish. There is no target housing density.
Without a goal, or any data to say when enough is enough, or what level of density is needed
to reach the planning department’s goal, how do you know when you’ve achieved “vibrancy,
strength, flexibility, fiscal resiliency” and all the other pie-in-the-sky attributes you suggest
will be realized by implementing Places for People? - Who will stand up for owner-occupants who have invested in neighborhoods that will be
forever impacted by overbuilt properties?
a. Please describe what is meant by “impacted” and “overbuilt”?
• Overbuilt is squeezing extra dwellings into what has always been a single-dwelling lot.
• Impacted? Imagine building a courtyard in your fenced backyard at considerable expense
with seating, landscaping and maybe even a water feature. It’s an investment in your health
and provides a place of solitude and respite in the middle of the city. Then your neighbor 3
builds an apartment above his/her garage that allows occupants to peer down into your
courtyard. Poof! There goes your peaceful place for solitude, not to mention the $10,000-
$20,000 investment in your outdoor space. Gone is the little oasis you invested in, in your
backyard and all your backyard privacy. That’s what we mean by “impacted.”
• Imagine your street is a quiet street in Riverside, when, two or three people on your block
decide to build “mother-in-law” houses in their backyards. The owners already park one car
on the street because they don’t have enough room in their driveway. Now, with their
mother-in-law house, they have one or two more cars that have to park on the street. Of
course, all those cars cannot fit in front of one lot so the cars stretch up and down the street.
When these cars aren’t parked, crowding the street, they add to neighborhood traffic. That’s
what we mean by “impacted.”
• Imagine your 6-year-old wants to learn to ride a bike. Does she ride on sidewalks, which is
illegal or in the street, which now has more traffic, where you cannot see her because of all
the parked cars? If she rides in the street, with the parked cars and increased traffic, that is not
as safe as it is now with fewer cars and less traffic. Being a parent is hard enough. Why make
it more difficult in the city’s core? Suburban flight is no mystery. It is caused. When it
becomes too difficult or dangerous to raise kids in the core of the city, parents who can move.
That’s what we mean by impacted.
• Living next to backyards with rentals, living next to row houses, that do not have to conform
to the acceptable setbacks the rest of the homeowners have always adhered to and enjoyed.
That’s what we mean by impacted.
• Changing to the new definition of “walkable” which is 10 feet of cement out next to the
street, eliminating old growth trees that arch over the streets and were bought and paid for by
taxpayers. That’s what we mean by impacted.
• This is a noticeably short list of “impacts” that will be felt by current individual investors of
homes in older, functioning neighborhoods.
b. Is the concern about design issues? If yes, then please be sure to check out the design standards
that are included in the proposal.
• The issues are more serious than fitting in aesthetically to a neighborhood, although that
is certainly a concern — the design of the row houses and the others you showed are
cheap looking or inappropriate design for older established neighborhoods and eliminate
green space. See slides #27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 41, 42/43 and 44 in the Places for
People PowerPoint presented by Scott Wadle. But there are other concerns:
• There are no estimates in the Places for People presentation regarding what any of these
suggested dwelling ideas would cost to build or to rent per month or what the Planning
Department sees as “affordable” or how many affordable housing units are needed.
• River Vista Apartments, 150 N. McLean Avenue, recently built on the Big Arkansas
River is one of the reasons residents of Riverside, Midtown and Delano are skeptical. It
was supposed to be affordable housing, a walkable apartments village, with a design that
would blend in with our downtown architecture. Instead, they are expensive and look
nothing like the renderings shown to the public during the proposal stage. But those
drawings did keep the public from fighting against selling off our riverbank and outdoor
amphitheater. 4
• The public was sold on the idea that we needed a new library — one that overlooked the
river — how beautiful would that be? But our library with its magnificent upper deck
looks at the backside of the above-mentioned apartments and straight into a three-story
parking garage. - Why are functioning neighborhoods that are already “walkable” and already have
appropriate nodes, celebrate diversity, and offer low- middle- and high-end housing
opportunities included in this blanket assault on single-family zoning?
a. Please provide some additional information about this question. What are the
negative issues that you are predicting?
• This is not a personal “prediction.” Study the impact of densification in other
cities.. No one can predict with certainty, but we should be learning from other
city’s mistakes, not repeating them
• Loss of individual green space e.g. front yards, backyards and the space
between dwellings.
• Increase in density.
• High-end new builds, which were prohibited when people purchased their
homes, would increase property taxes on houses many intended to live in the
rest of their lives.
• We have all heard from and/or know people who, because of new builds in
their neighborhoods, had their taxes raised higher than what their original
mortgage payment + taxes had been for the life of their mortgage and now they
cannot afford, or can barely afford their homes.
• At the end of people’s lives, when they have their mortgages paid off, when
they are retired and their peak earning years have passed, when they have a
plan in place regarding where to live out their lives, increased property taxes
puts seniors/retirees in jeopardy financially.
b. Please know that many of the walkable neighborhoods were developed prior to the City’s
implementation of single-family zoning and currently have a variety of zoning districts.
We understand that. This does not answer why the city of Wichita is interested in this
densification plan that moves away from single-family housing. - What will prevent gentrification in this plan?
a. Gentrification is defined as the process where the character of a poor urban area is
changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new
businesses, typically by displacing current inhabitants in the process.
The premise that this only happens in poor neighborhoods is outdated.
Gentrification is the transformation of a city neighborhood from a lower value to
a higher value neighborhood. Gentrification is also viewed as a process of urban
development in which a neighborhood or portion of a city develops rapidly in a
short period of time, often as a result of urban renewal programs. This process is
often marked by inflated home prices and displacement of a neighborhood’s
previous residents.5
b. In many of the District VI neighborhoods, duplex and multi-family housing exists
and gentrification has not occurred.
• Much of the duplex and multi-family housing built in District 6 was built
prior to 1960 when the term “gentrification” was coined so they would not
have called it that, but can we really know it didn’t occur? Can we see in
2021 the impact of new-build in an established neighborhood 60 years ago?
• We could, one by one, look at examples and speculate. We don’t have any
firsthand knowledge of the impact of building the Riverview condominiums
on properties adjacent to 1401 W. River Boulevard in 1968. We know
everyone regrets that the Kirby Castle was torn down to make way for this
“new” multi-family building. With hindsight, the city and the neighborhood
see the mistake, even though the neighborhood has come to accept a fourstory, 14-unit, out-of-place structure.
• We can safely say mistakes will be made under the Places for People plan.
The problem here, the facts are, you have no way to predict what this
wholesale plan will do to the “city’s core” which encompasses nearly the
entire city of Wichita. And, no one from planning is addressing potential
problems. Your plan is presented as the panacea for everything with no
downside. Citizens deserve to weigh the pros and cons of this proposal.
c. The zoning changes would allow for more flexibility in housing to meet market
demands and life circumstances. This flexibility will allow more opportunities for
quality affordable housing – neighborhoods where people can age in place or to
remain with different financial circumstances. Who is asking for flexibility?
Every neighborhood that’s weighed in has asked for something more like
rigidity. We are looking for protections for historic neighborhoods. And if
property taxes go up, many people will not be able to age in place. Furthermore,
that “flexibility” means nonresident property owners can, with little notice and no
say from the neighborhood, decimate an established block or street. - Will Places for People add more tax dollars to the city’s general fund? Is that in fact the
point? Will that tax revenue remain earmarked for the city’s core, or might it be used in the
suburbs and new developments?
In addition to contributing to stronger neighborhoods, more vibrant centers, and a stronger
economy there is the possibility that increased improvement values on properties would
provide additional tax revenue. This would provide greater fiscal resiliency and makes for a
stronger community. It is possible that it could fund additional maintenance, services, and
infrastructure. This “possibility” seems all but certain as the city doesn’t not collect
property tax on new builds or infill structures. So, does Places for People promise anything
to the neighborhoods it would impact most? This is not appealing to people in the city’s
core, that they’ll be taking the hit in densification and possible increased property taxes to
benefit the unaffected areas outside the core.6 - Is there an opportunity to opt-out or tailor the plan to define separate areas as was done in
Portland, Oregon, where one area was a success, and another was a failure? It seems we are
putting too much of the city’s inner core at risk.
a. The current proposal would make changes for the Established Central Area – approximately
Ridge Road to Rock Road, from 29th Street North to 31St Street South.
b. The design standards included in the proposal for zoning updates have been developed based on
stakeholder input received through the Places for People public meetings, survey, and community
conversations.
This is to increase the tax base without going up on the mill levy; every real estate agent
understands that. And the City reaching 1 percent of the population to explain this plan without
benefit of honest, transparent view of both negative and positive impacts is not a compelling
argument that planning received “stakeholder input.” - Would you be transparent and identify the developers who stand to benefit by rezoning our
neighborhoods? How will Places for People benefit David Burk, Jerry Jones, George Laham or
other known developers the City seems to favor?
a. The proposed zoning changes were developed by staff in order to implement the community’s
Places for People Plan. The question was not who wrote the plan but who are the developers that
are expected to benefit from these changes? The Planning Department works with developers every
day and must know which ones are most likely to take advantage of these new opportunities.
Neighbors in Riverside are aware that developer Rob Snyder has been buying up properties and
now owns 28 properties in Riverside. Imagine the devastating impact he could have on Riverside in
this unchecked zoning change.
b. The Places for People Plan was developed over two years, with more than 55 meetings and the
input of hundreds of people.
• Many of us went to those meetings. It became clear that they were not designed to actually hear
and gather input from participants. None of the drawbacks of the plan were ever brought up or
discussed. It was a top-down process. We were told how it would work. Presenters tried to
refute or simply dismissed our concerns.
• Now that there is a plan, the public is entitled to review the plan and adjust to the possible
changes and consequences.
• It is often mentioned that Planning had more than 50 meetings and more than 4,000 people were
engaged. Wichita’s population is just over 391,000 so only 1 percent of the population has been
reached, understood and/or given feedback on the Places for People plan. We do not think this
is adequate for a plan that could have such a sweeping impact on the city. Even the “Save
Century II” volunteers reached 17,000 in less than one year. You have not engaged an adequate
number of citizens.
• Since COVID 19 has drastically changed how people live and engage, more time is needed to
engage members of the public.
• People who did not become engaged earlier, for whatever reason, are engaged now and
speaking out. Perhaps the city’s previous efforts to hear their concerns missed them. We hope
the Planning Department will not be dismissive of their attempts to get involved now.7
a) The vision of the Places for People Plan is for
a. Strong neighborhoods
b. Vibrant centers
c. A strong economy
There are many strong, vibrant and economically strong neighborhoods inside the excessively broad
and all-encompassing boundaries for this plan, from Ridge Road to Rock Road, from 29th Street North
to 31st Street South. Why not allow certain strong, vibrant neighborhoods to be exempt? Why the
blanket proposal?
a) In order to help accomplish this, the Places for People Plan recommends the following
a. Infill reinvestment
b. Walkable design
c. Multi-modal transportation
d. Quality affordable housing options
We contend that the neighborhood associations and DAB have already accomplished this.
i. “Infill” is already being done according to the zoning we already have. Including setbacks,
ensuring that giant buildings are not built. And many of the non-single-family lots are
already built out and serving the community.
ii. “Walkable designs.” Midtown, Riverside, North Riverside, Delano and probably others are
already walkable with sidewalks setback, away from street, with trees planted in the
easements. The renderings in the Places for People plan show rows of houses built out to
within 10 feet of the street with cemented sidewalks next to the streets. This is not as safe as
what we have now. No parent wants their kids playing on a sidewalk that abuts the street.
The Places for People proposal is less walkable. Without an easement between the sidewalk
and the street, where will trees grow to allow for shady walks and tree lined streets?
iii. “Multi-modal transportation” has already been achieved. We have cars, bikes, bike lanes and
trails, rental bikes and scooters and brand-new electric buses. What’s missing? On top of
that, eliminating setbacks and current zoning restrictions does not need to be a part of
creating better transportation.
iiii. “Quality Affordable housing options” are not automatic with this plan. The cost of new
housing rose 7.7 percent in Wichita in 2020. The missing information needed to assess this
plan should include:
• What does “Affordable” mean as it applies to housing?
• Will newly built dwellings meet this expectation?
Case in point: the 40 new single-family homes being built in Riverside at $325,000 per unit do
not meet the expectation of “quality” or “affordable.” Most likely, the homes that those buyers
leave behind to move into the Riverside housing development will also not be “affordable” in
any way we understand affordable — considering the median property value in Wichita is
$139,800 and the median household income is $51,051, according to U.S. Census data. - When, under what circumstances will the City stop giving tax breaks to developers, and stop
the precedent-setting TIFs for residential housing?
The proposals for implementing Places for People are related to zoning updates and the
creation of a land bank.8
The public has the right to petition and trigger hearings. It does not have to be implemented
just because 45 people on a committee and one percent of the population were engaged. - Will all future property tax dollars be earmarked for the general fund to irrevocably benefit
infrastructure, police, fire, EMS, etc. (We are not talking about specialty accoutrements like bikepath lighting, which passed to serve a new, fancy, high-end development).
a. The proposals for implementing Places for People are related to zoning updates and the
creation of a land bank.
b. The City programs funding from the General Fund during the City budget and capital
improvement program processes.
This doesn’t answer the question. We are asking because the city gives away moneys that
should be going to the general fund. If you cannot answer this, who could? - What was the reason the boundary defines the inner-city core? Has anyone studied
how similar programs have contributed to suburban flight in other cities?
The zoning updates are proposed for the Established Central Area (approximately Ridge
Road to Rock Road, from 29th Street North to 31st Street South) primarily because the
current zoning code is suburban in nature and typically prohibits the historic development,
mixed use and the character of the ECA neighborhoods. The proposed zoning changes will
help return the flexibility and ability for incremental updates that the ECA neighborhoods
were historically developed with.
• The first two cities in Kansas that have been used as shining examples of similar programs
are suffering from “white flight.” Overland Park, for example, is only 4.6% black. There is
a higher percentage of black people on some streets in Riverside and Midtown than in
Overland Park.
• This will lead to gentrification. Experts in real estate whom we’ve consulted agree, there’s
no way that a zoning change will help poor people and people who need to buy a house for
$40,000 or less. Although that is available to them now if we just leave well enough alone.
Communities of color will be outraged by Places for People when the figure out what it
means. - Why is the boundary not the city limits so that all neighborhoods share in the need to
increase property tax income? Why are typically white suburban neighborhoods exempt from
this densification plan?
a. Areas outside of the Established Central Area were not identified for the proposed zoning
updates primarily because the current zoning code is suburban in nature and typically
prohibits the historic development, mixed use and the character of the ECA neighborhoods.
The proposed zoning changes will help return the flexibility and ability for incremental
updates that the ECA neighborhoods were historically developed with.
You must provide a density goal, you must know what is needed, otherwise, it looks like
you are doing nothing but providing opportunities for builders, not residents.
b. Please know that there are multiple instances in Wichita of new large residential
developments requesting zoning changes so that they can meet market demands for greater
flexibility in residential housing options – including duplexes and accessory apartments.
It seems very unlikely that residents are asking for zoning changes “so they can meet market 9
demands.” This is the city, developers and builders making these requests, is it not? And if
residents, citizens had not fought ridiculous ideas like this in the past, Wichita would not
have the historic neighborhoods, livable neighborhoods and be as desirable a place to live
and raise a family as it currently is. - How has the pandemic, and the newest data been factored into the pre-pandemic Places
for People plan, which indicates urban density may no longer be healthy?
a. I’m not sure that the data supports this statement. Studies have found that it is not urban
density that results in higher virus transmission. Rather, it is lack of preventative
measures, crowding and connectivity between people.
b. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in market demand. Some new
developments have incorporated accessory apartments to provide space for remote schooling,
home offices, and living spaces for relatives. Allowing for flexibility with residential uses can
help families and residents to better address situations like the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Thank you for helping to make this point. The virus is more easily spread in
environments where people are crowded together and there is more connectivity between
people. This is well documented.
• In all cities, millennials are moving away from inner cities to live where there is more
space because they want a better work-life balance, because so many people are now
working remotely, and many jobs will remain remote there is no reason to be inside the
inner city. And there is plenty of data about those statements. Who or where are these
throngs of people who are wanting to move into the city’s core? - Who has studied how sociologists are projecting that populations in densely populated areas
will become childless? Is childlessness in the city’s core part of your plan?
People who study cities are indicating how important it is for urban areas to be affordable and
attractive to people with varying life circumstances – including families, elderly, young
professionals and more. Having flexibility for housing to meet these needs through accessory
apartments, single family houses, duplexes, and small apartments is an important way to help
neighborhoods become even more vibrant.
The concerns addressed throughout this document in response to your answers should make
clear that there are many details about this plan that seem to work against children, against
families and against seniors. Across the country, cities are realizing that the only way to make
infill new builds affordable is to build them tall and make each apartment extremely small. That
does not appeal to most families or seniors. - Accessory dwelling units, commonly known as mother-in-law units, were originally designed
for parents or children of the OWNER OCCUPANT. The Places for People plan encourages
and allows all investors to build buildings in backyards of every rental they own, and in any
undeveloped lot or batch of lots in the middle of single family or duplex lots without limiting the
volume of units in any area.10
a. The current zoning code does not regulate the status of ownership, and the proposed update
does not make any changes to this. Exactly. And that’s a huge problem, as outlined
throughout this document.
b. The vision of Wichita is for stronger neighborhoods, vibrant centers, and a stronger economy.
In order to accomplish that, the plan recommends infill housing, walkable design, multimodal transportation, and increasing housing options. The proposed zoning update would
help accomplish that through greater flexibility for residential units. I’m not sure that the
economics due to the cost of construction and the rent thatcan be obtained would support the
conclusion that investors will build as many accessory apartments as possible.
Like we’ve said, you cannot know, you cannot predict, this is a wild guess, a crapshoot, a
gamble and a risk that encompasses nearly the entire city. Many surmise that the only
financials that make sense are for builders who get their money from construction and big
corporations who can carry the initial cost of construction long enough to realize a profit. Or,
from developers like Rob Snyder who has been buying up property throughout Riverside,
allowing his rental property to fall into disrepair, in the hopes that a rezoning will make it
feasible for him to construct something more lucrative on his lots.
c. The current zoning code and the proposed updates do have limits on the amount of units
that can be built on a site. Good! What is the number? How many per block? How many
per street? How are they measured? In percentages of the number of dwellings? Square
feet? Is it proportional to the lot on which it’s built? What are the details? And what is in
place to protect neighborhoods from being overbuilt? - Is this what makes a community more vibrant, or does this more accurately contribute
to overcrowding?
a. Community vibrancy can be measured in many different ways, including: social interactions,
level of on-going investment; number of public events, aesthetics; mobility, and diversity (age,
household sizes, etc.). The proposed zoning updates with the increased flexibility and design
standards can greatly contribute to neighborhood vibrancy by allowing the neighborhood to
accommodate a greater range of life circumstances (i.e. aging in place, young professionals
just out of school, multi-generational families and more).
Many neighborhoods in Wichita are already diverse in all measurable demographics: age, race,
family size, education, gender, sexual preference and income. We do not need sweeping
zoning changes though out the city to allow for diversity. A blanket plan that stretches from
Ridge Road to Rock Road, from 29th Street North to 31st Street South is too broad to be
effective, too generic to help any specific neighborhood and too ill-defined to be managed.
This is an American Planning Department one-size-fits-all program being pushed all over the
country. Wichita, and in particular Riverside, deserves better. - Walkability: Walkability as described by one presenter, will be accomplished by eliminating
currently established setbacks and is described as wider sidewalks utilizing ten feet next to the
curb, while the new setback allows building up to ten feet from the street. This would-be
“walkability” will mean walking between the curb and the exterior wall of the buildings.11
a. Walkability can generally be defined as places where walking is a viable and preferable means
of travel. To make something more walkable means that you make walking: useful, safe,
comfortable, and interesting. Below is a brief overview of each.
i. Useful means that walking is a viable option to reach a destination.
ii. Safe means that the environment has been designed to give people the abilityto walk
without both substantive risk of injury and a feeling of safety.
iii. Comfortable means that building sand landscapes shape the environment intoan area that
is comfortable for walking. This can be measured in many different ways but it includes
not having blank walls/tall fencing abutting walkways; avoiding vast wide-open spaces
(i.e. parking lots, etc.); providing shade.
iv. Interesting means walkways lined with places and contexts of interest – might be building
facades, landscaping, vegetation, etc.
b. The proposed zoning update helps to improve walkability by providing additional housing
options. Additional housing options allow for more historic patterns of development, which
occur at a more pedestrian scale. It can also allow for additionalhousing units, which
contributes to additional neighborhood and small scale retail/services.
First, most of the older neighborhoods are walkable already. All of the walkable areas depicted
in renderings show sidewalks next to the street. Which is not as safe as what we have now.
And with sidewalks next to the street and no easements or front yards, they won’t be as
comfortable either because the plan eliminates green space and places to grow shade trees. - How will adding housing units built out to the edge of the property make a
neighborhoodmore vibrant? Explain that, please. How does that work?
a. Community vibrancy can be measured in many different ways, including social interactions,
level of on-going investment; number of public events, aesthetics; mobility, and diversity (age,
household sizes, etc.). The proposed zoning updates withthe increased flexibility and design
standards can greatly contribute to neighborhood vibrancy by allowing the neighborhood to
accommodate a greater range of life circumstances (i.e. aging in place, young professionals
just out of school, multi- generational families and more).
b. The proposed zoning update does not include significant changes to setbacks, withthe
exception of the Single Family on a compact lot. In that case, side setbacks are proposed to
be five (5) feet.
Changing setbacks is significant. And not needed. - If blanket zoning changes eliminate setbacks, how many lots will be overbuilt on a single city
block? How many owners in one neighborhood will be allowed to build out to the perimeter of
their land? What will the core of the city lose in trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover — in
other words, in landscaped front yards?
The proposed zoning update would keep setbacks the same as they currently are in the zoning
code. The exception would be for single family on compact lots, where the side setbacks
would be 5 feet.
Changing setbacks is significant. And not needed. 12 - Why would we want our children walking next to the street with fewer yards to play in?
How is that better than sidewalks with an easement between the sidewalk and the street and
front yards between the sidewalk and the structure, which is what we have now?
Changes to setbacks do not change where the rights-of-way /sidewalk is located.
Renderings show sidewalks abutting the street without an easement. Are your renderings
wrong? See slides # 32, 34,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42/43 and 44 in the PowerPoint you presented. - How will neighborhoods with sidewalks, and established walking and bike paths be affected
by the Walkability plans.
They should get used even more.
We contend that they will not be used more if they seem more dangerous and are less
comfortable. - Nodes: While this plan seems to encourage local business opportunities, why is there no
concrete program to encourage grocery stores in areas that have been identified as food
deserts?
Please see the recently discussed Food Policy Plan – reviewed at the City CouncilFebruary
workshop.
Please provide the Food Policy Plan, reviewed at the City Council February workshop. - Transparency is talked about, the presenter references “all of the public meetings,” but
most of the citizenry has been concerned with Covid 19 in the past year. Can Places for
People be tabled until in-person meetings can be held and the effects of the pandemic on
urban living have been thoroughly identified, explained and discussed openly?
Thank you for the input we are currently collecting input from a variety of stakeholder
organizations, including City advisory boards. We do not have a specific schedule but have
mapped out a general process. We do hope to provide an update onthe feedback received to the
City Council in early summer.
We are the stakeholders. Our voices are equal to any appointee as we have invested our own
money, without any subsidies from the city of Wichita. No TIFFs, no STAR bonds, nothing, just
hard-earned wages. - Where are the minutes posted of the Places for People Committee meetings? Where is the list
of contact information for the members, times and dates of these meetings?
c. The minutes and roster for the Places for People Plan can be provided from the
Planning Department. Please contact Mary Hunt at 269.4421 to request them.
d. The draft zoning code update proposal was developed by staff using the
recommendations from the Places for People Plan