Sedgwick County commissioners defer Harry Crossing PUD after debate over screening wall

Sedgwick County commissioners on Feb. 11 deferred a rezoning request for roughly 26 acres at the southeast corner of East Harry Street and 143rd Street East after heated debate over how the site should be screened from nearby homes.

Planning director Scott Wadle told the board the applicant seeks to rezone the property from SF-20 (single-family) to a custom Planned Unit Development, PUD No. 154, to allow a mix of residential and limited commercial uses. Wadle said the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission recommended approval (10-0, one abstention), but staff received protests and written comments opposing the application; 37 protest forms were submitted, four fell inside the counted protest area and constituted roughly 2% of the protest-area acreage — below the 20% threshold that would trigger a supermajority vote requirement under state law.

Deborah Evans, who said she lives adjacent to the site, told commissioners she was “very, very, very upset” and questioned how the protest boundary was calculated. She urged the board to favor residential development and warned that unspecified commercial uses — from loft apartments to treatment facilities — could come forward under the PUD. “It’s like the people don't matter,” she said.

The applicant’s agent, Kim Edgington of PSC Consulting, said the owner worked with staff to add restrictions on uses, setbacks, screening and height and that the property is in the growth corridor. Edgington said, “We did incorporate all of the recommendations that staff had regarding screening, setbacks, landscaping,” and that the owner is willing to accept additional conditions to protect neighbors.

County counselor Justin Wagoner cited KSA 12-7-57f to explain how the protest area is calculated — 1,000 feet in unincorporated areas and 200 feet within city limits — and that the subject parcel is excluded from the denominator. Wadle reviewed PUD design standards in the packet, including compatibility setbacks, signage and the unified zoning code’s screening requirements. He said residential and nonresidential front setbacks were listed at 20 feet and maximum building height at 60 feet.

Commissioners spent much of the hearing focused on screening and whether to require a masonry wall if nonresidential uses directly abut existing residential properties. Commissioner Howe moved to override the planning commission’s recommendation and require an eight-foot masonry screening wall along the subject property where a commercial use would directly adjoin residential zoning; Howe said an eight-foot wall better protects privacy and safety. The motion failed for lack of a second.

After further discussion about targeted alternatives (for example, masonry where commercial would directly border existing homes and standard screening per the unified code elsewhere), Commissioner Beatty moved to defer the matter one week so county counsel and planning staff could craft clearer, narrower language that would accomplish the board’s intent without imposing an unduly broad requirement. The motion passed 5-0.

What’s next: The PUD public hearing remains closed; the board will consider the item again after staff and counsel return with proposed motion language and an estimate of the linear footage and likely cost of masonry screening where applicable.