View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

May 15, 2001

Minutes

 

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Quentin Coon, Sheri Geisler, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts and Charles Malcom. Lori Hays was absent.  Joe Robertson arrived at 7:05 p.m.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, Administrative Assistant. 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:01 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

 

 

Review of the minutes of the April 17, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 

 

Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 6 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the April 17, 2001 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the April 10, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the May 1, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the April 24, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   Les Mangus stated that City Staff is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan with the changes recommended earlier by the Planning Commission being incorporated.  He stated the update is 90% complete and will be ready to present to the Planning Commission soon.

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

 

 

Z-96-09: Public Hearing on application to Amend the Preliminary P.U.D. of the Flint Hills National Golf Planned Unit Development to change Lots 72, 73, and 74 of Parcel 3 from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residential District. Jason Gish of Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants, Inc. represented the landowner, Devlin Enterprises.  Mr. Gish stated that this change is to satisfy market changes in the Flint Hills National area.  Basically this is to change 3 current lots, lot 72, 73 and 74 to 20 smaller lots, for patio homes.  Mr. Gish stated this is located in the southwest corner of the Flint Hills property.  Chairman McEachern asked what the acreage was for this amendment.  Mr. Gish stated it is 16.19 acres.    Chairman McEachern asked if there was to be any park area.  Mr. Gish stated there is a center reserve area that can be used for passive recreation and a reserve around the entire area with berms and screening.   Mr. McEachern asked if they were planning a playground.   Mr. Gish stated that generally 90% of the market for this location has children that are already grown and they had not planned on a playground area. 

 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 7:18 and asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak to the issue.  There was no one.  Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. 

 

Ron Roberts commented as to the length of the cul-de-sac, he feels it should be tied into the main road.  Mr. Roberts stated there is a grass emergency access and doesn’t really feel that is adequate.  Les Mangus stated that at the emergency access, the soil is put over rigid grid that will allow a fire truck to cross over it after a rain, with no problem.  Chairman McEachern asked if the Chief at the Fire Department had looked at this plan.  Mr. Mangus stated that he has.  Chairman McEachern asked if he approves of this.  Mr. Mangus stated he does approve of this.  Mr. Mangus also commented that this cul-de-sac is actually shorter than one the Commission approved in Phase 2. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the amendment to the Flint Hills National Golf Club Planned Unit Development to change Lots 72, 73 and 74 of Parcel 3 from the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the R-2 Single-Family Residential District.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked Mr. Mangus if all items that were listed to be rectified have been corrected.  Mr. Mangus stated that they have been corrected.

 

Motion carried 7-0

Z-96-09: Public Hearing on application to Amend the Preliminary P.U.D. of the Flint Hills National Golf Planned Unit Development to change Lots 72, 73, and 74 of Parcel 3 from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to R-2 Single-Family Residential District

 

 

 

 

Review the Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Phase III of Flint Hills National Club Estates Addition. Jason Gish of Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants, Inc. represented the landowner, Devlin Enterprises.  Mr. Gish stated that they are requesting that the plat be amended as shown.  There will be 20 homes sites, a reserve, cul-de-sac and a reserve area off the entrance.  Mr. Gish stated that there is also existing hedgerow, berms and screening along 130th and Flint Hills National Parkway.  Lynn Heath asked if all items have been rectified.  Les Mangus stated that the only comment not rectified is that the benchmark needs to be added to the plat and Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Gish has assured him this will be done.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend approval of Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Phase III of Flint Hills National Club Estates Addition with the condition that the lack of the benchmark be remedied.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  The motion was approved 7-0.

Review the Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Phase III of Flint Hills National Club Estates Addition.

 

 

 

 

Z-2001-01:  Public Hearing on application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential District with the Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development District Overlay to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District on 43.6 acres South of U.S. Hwy 54 and East of 159th Street.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.  The applicant, Debbi Bush, of 726 S. 159th Street East, Wichita, presented information on behalf of Cottonwood Point.  Mrs. Bush stated that the property is currently zoned R-2 Single-Family Residential and they are asking that the property be rezoned to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District.  Debbi Bush stated the property owners feel this is an appropriate use for this area.  Mrs. Bush presented a PowerPoint presentation, which included the following information:

 

Property to the North is zoned Commercial,

Property to the East is similar housing,

Property to the West is agriculture and a cellular tower,

Property to the South is Mrs. Bush’s home.

 

The land adjacent to the MH property will not be impacted, if she thought it would be impacted she would not allow it next to her own home.

 

Why we need a mobile home park in Andover.  In the $250,000 and above range there are plenty of houses available.  In the $250,000 to $150,000 to range there are houses available.  In the $150,000 to $100,000 range there are plenty houses available.  In the $100,000 to $85,000 range there is limited availability.  In the $85,000 and less range there is even a less availability.  The current mobile home park is full with a waiting list and the apartment complex was full within 6 weeks of being completed.  There is a need for this price range of housing.

 

Who will live here?  What we need affordable housing for is our grandparents, children and grandchildren to preserve the extended family so they can live in the same city.  Who will live here?  There are teachers, police officers, entrepreneurs, small business managers, ministers, nurses, tellers, stay at home moms, retired, receptionists, mechanics, accountants and secretaries will live here.  We need these people in our community and we have a responsibility to provide housing alternatives to them.   

 

Manufactured housing park pays it’s fair cost of taxes.  Fully developed the personal property assessed value will be well over $10 million dollars, the real estate assessed value well over $2 million dollars.  This exceeds the projected assessed value by 2.9 million dollars.

 

What assessed value really means and what it really provides.  When you look at assessed values you really are looking at assessed value in relationship to city taxes and L.O.B.’s, basically for school districts.  What it also provides, because everyone generally thinks that the mill levy that they pay for the school taxes goes directly to the school system and it does not.  The assessed value has nothing to do with what goes into a school system.   It pertains to, what basically happens is you pay an assessed value but that goes to the government, the state and the state turns around a writes a check to the school district, not based on assessed value but based on the number of students in that school.  Currently, the district is facing negative growth.  What we are looking at is not only negative growth in the school system but also a decrease because of the state legislature in the amount of dollars per student we’re going to be able to receive.  

 

They are proposing 169 lots in the entire park.  There is a pond, a collector road, 8’ sidewalks and a tornado shelter.  The manufactured housing park will have three phases to it.  Phase I is closest to 159th Street, Phase II will be behind (east) of it, and Phase III will be on the other side.  Phase I will have 68 lots, collector road, sidewalks, a tornado shelter and a pond.  The minimum requirements of the zoning district are exceeded in this.  The minimum lot width required is 40’.  This project will have 50’ lot widths.  Minimum unused land required is 10%, this project will be greater than 20%.  The minimum lot square footage is 3,500 sq. feet; this will have a 5,000 sq. ft minimum.  The minimum dwellings per acre is 7, this will have 3.94 dwellings per acre. 

 

Accessibility to site.  This site is located adjacent to an arterial road and includes a collector road as part of the project.  Traffic studies have concluded that Kellogg and 159th Street do not require any improvements now.  We would be more than happy to share our fair costs in the improvements of that intersection.

 

There will be community covenants to insure a 5 star community.  Our mission is to establish a community that fits the image of Andover but still allows affordable housing.  We allow larger residential design manufactured homes.  I live adjacent to this project and I care about its appearance. 

 

Why manufactured housing?  The use is appropriate for the land, the affordable housing is needed in Andover, utilities are easily accessible, the R-2 Single-Family zoning district meaning residential has already been approved.

 

What is manufactured housing?  Everyone has their own perception of what manufactured housing is and quite frankly it has changed dramatically.  If you haven’t been exposed to it by perhaps maybe a friend or maybe a family member that has lived in it or sought to live in one, there is quality construction now and they are affordable.  Mrs. Bush then showed a virtual tour of two different manufactured homes made by the Manufactured Housing Institute to display the quality of manufactured home now. Mrs. Bush stated “We feel this is a good use of the property and think it fits the needs of Andover and again, my home is located next door to it, I care about what goes on next door to me, I’m not interested in putting anything that is going to detract or impact anyone negatively.”

 

Quentin Coon saw on the map the collector road came in off of 159th and the one down south that just dead ends.  Les Mangus stated that the alignment of that collector street is real similar to the alignment that was approved for Cottonwood Point.  It kind of leads to nowhere now but there is a plan in the future to extend that collector street all the way through to Harry Street. 

 

Joe Robertson asked about the comment stating negative growth in the school district and asked her projection and where she got that information. Mrs. Bush stated it is her understanding that this is the first year that the school district has experienced negative growth.  She stated she thought that was common knowledge; she had overheard it in a conversation.   Joe Robertson stated he did not understand participating in the costs at 159th and Kellogg.  Mrs. Bush stated that what is basically going on at that intersection is that apparently KDOT does not believe there is enough traffic there to warrant a stop light.  What she is saying is that if we can convince KDOT that there is enough traffic there we are more than willing to share in the cost of that with the other landowners.  What she is trying to say is that if you feel that other housing developments should share in the cost of that stoplight then we are certainly willing to share in the cost also.  Chairman McEachern asked Jeff Bridges if there was a stop light going in there, would we try to assess other adjacent areas or adjoining areas to try to recoup some of the costs.  Jeff Bridges stated “From a process point of view we could, if this got approved and we showed the plan to KDOT, and KDOT said yes when this first phase goes in you get a stop light, we have a choice.  We could either assess them, or they are going to have to pay $865.00 per lot for an arterial impact fee.  If the city chooses to use those dollars toward the traffic signal they could or the City could choose to assess them the cost of the signal and reduce their impact fee accordingly and then use some of the other dollars for improvements to 159th Street or whatever.  Regardless of whether the traffic signal is there, they’re still going to be responsible for $865.00 per dwelling unit for the arterial impact fee.”  Joe Robertson stated he was trying to understand, and he did not recall either private individuals or corporations, assisting in the intersection construction, KDOT, but the arterial fee I guess if a city wants to direct it that way they could, if that’s the angle that that is going to go as, but that’s just normal business today without any exceptional statements by any developer.   Mr. Bridges responded with:  “The Cloud City commercial addition that you approved has given us a petition for a traffic signal, the Warren Theater project was going to be responsible for a portion of the traffic signal at Onewood Drive and Kellogg had that materialized, so it is not without precedence that the City assess a portion of the costs of the traffic signal back to the property owner that is generating traffic.”

 

Joe Robertson asked what kind of foundations these manufactured homes are going to be on.  Debi Bush stated that the wheels are removed off of them and they are tied down, they will not be on a permanent foundation, the person can move the home to another park if they choose.  They can put the wheels back on and move the home, but there is skirting that goes around it that disguises that fact.

 

Quentin Coon asked how they would control what type of home gets placed.  Mrs. Bush stated that basically that is one of the advantages they have as a new park.  She stated that over the years manufactured housing has changed and the quality of it hasn’t really been reflected in the new parks because what they have to do is kick somebody out that’s been there for 20 years.  As a new manufactured home park we can create basically, if you’re used to homeowners associations, where we will restrict what types of homes we allow in there.  Basically covenants to protect others.  Chairman McEachern asked if there is an age limit on the homes that you are going to allow as far as the age back.  Mrs. Bush says that as of right now they are going to abide by the regulations in the manufactured housing guide that basically says you can’t allow anything in there that is older than 10 years but we are not looking for, necessarily, 10 years is too much to her.  They are looking for composition roofs and vinyl siding or more of a residential design style and construction.  Lynn Heath commented that he worked with Richard Peckham and he goes and looks at each home and approves it before it before it comes into his lot.  If it looks nice he will let it in.  Chairman McEachern stated that it looks like you would seek after the more recent ones.  Quentin Coon asked if she was saying that while you want something less than 10 years, would you require just everything to be new.  Mrs. Bush stated she wouldn’t require that everything be new but she thinks that they will be looking at nothing older than 5 years would be her guess.  That would not get you in the park; there will be other requirements that are going to have to be met.  Ron Roberts asked if there would be single wides and double wides.  Mrs. Bush stated she would hate to restrict single wides.  She thinks there is a need for it but again it goes back to the age and the composition of the roof and the style, and so forth.  Ron Roberts asked if they are going to allow non-owner occupied.  Mrs. Bush stated they will not allow rentals if that’s he means.

 

They want people that want their own home.  There is a big need for this type of park nationwide and has a lot of statistics to support that.  Quentin Coon asked if each lot would have a garage.  Mrs. Bush stated there will be no permanent structures on any of the lots, only storage sheds.

 

Chairman McEachern explained to the public that we allow the applicant to make their presentation, then the meeting is opened up to the public and comments are made from the public, then we give the applicants a chance to respond. 

 

Bob Kaplan, 430 N. Market, Wichita, representative for Cottonwood Development.  Mr. Kaplan “I am here to share the principles that govern the deliberations in this case as in all cases.  Start with the principle, this is the embarkation point, that with the principal that by law, a property owner is entitled to the use of their property to it’s most economic advantage.  That is the right of the property owner.  Is that right totally unfettered?  Of course not.  That right can be mitigated by those criteria which this community and every community establishes as factors to be considered in your deliberations.”  He stated that the City of Andover has a standard set of criteria that is considered in each zoning case.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the factors must be weighed, to the extent they can be weighed, in the overall interests of the community, considering the applicant’s right to use the property in it’s highest and best and most economically advantageous use and then consider it, the advantages of that use and the disadvantages of that use to the community as a whole. 

 

Mr. Kaplan stated there are factors that are legally irrelevant and there are other factors upon which a decision cannot be predicated, such as school district considerations, which are the responsibility of the School Board, not the responsibility of the Planning Commission or City Council, nor is it the prerogative of the Planning Commission to decide how many students attend the school.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that comments and objections by other homeowners is a factor but not a basis for a decision.  Whether those comments are well founded and whether or not they are persuasive or not persuasive are not in and of themselves a basis for decision.  He also stated that a decision cannot be predicated on the fact that there are only two people in the audience who speak in favor and there are 22 who speak against.  The neighbors have a right to be heard and should be heard and whether they are in the notice area or outside the notice area they have a right to express their opinions.   Mr. Kaplan stated that this is only one factor and the Planning Commission has 14 or 15 to consider.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that there are certain important factors to the development and growth of any community.  This goes beyond affordable housing; the idea is flexibility, a variety of housing.  People need a choice in housing.  We must have choices to proper and grow.

 

Mr. Kaplan also stated that in the absence of persuasive evidence, not hearsay, that this development would have such a detrimental effect on this community that it should be prohibited, then it is entitled for your recommendation for approval.

 

Dick Krehbiel, 108 St. Cloud, Wichita.  Mr. Krehbiel is the property owner adjacent to the subject property, which is Wholesale Fireworks.  He is very much against this project.  He stated there is a tremendous traffic problem at that corner, he stated there are many accidents and from what he understands KDOT is not going to give us a traffic light there and this will only add to the traffic.  He stated there are $200,000 homes to the north, $350,000 to $900,000 homes to the northwest, $200,000 + homes to the southwest and $200,000 + houses to the south.   Mr. Krehbiel stated that the problem he has with mobile homes is that they look nice on drawings but in 10 years what do you have.  If they are not well managed they are a really big problem in 5 or 10 years from now.  He stated there is nothing to prevent Mr. and Mrs. Bush from selling the property.  He has seen many that have deteriorated rapidly.  Mr. Krehbiel stated that “Andover has experienced an extremely bad tornado and that is just adding to the problem.” 

 

Mr. Krehbiel stated that a lot that is 50’ x 100’ is really a small piece of property.  Mr. Krehbiel stated that 160 lots equates to roughly 1 ½ child per lot, and he doesn’t know if the schools are ready for that many children within the next three or four or five years.  He feels this would fill up rapidly due to the need for this type of situation.  He stated that equates to roughly 200 cars in that intersection approximately 3 times a day, which is 600 cars and that intersection can’t hold that many cars right now.

 

Mr. Krehbiel  stated that he has looked into this and it is a known fact that the existing Quonset hut that sits back there right now behind his property that he was required to put stucco on and do all kinds of various things to make his building look nice, that Quonset hut is limited in its stay the way the development is now.  Mr. Krehbiel stated that once you approve this mobile home park that Quonset hut can stay there forever and he is not for that at all.

 

Larry Hale, 1500 Timberlake, Wichita, read a letter from Bill Ledgerwood, owner of Augusta RV, located at 159th and U.S. Hwy 54, Andover, as follows:

 

Gentlemen,

 

I, Bill Ledgerwood, owner of Augusta R.V., am completely against a mobile home park next to us.

Our traffic situation alone should be considered as one very important reason against such a proposal.  With no stop light at 159th St. (County Line Road) or a through frontage road to clear traffic, at best we have a very dangerous intersection. 

In any event Andover is looking to the future and mobile home parks seem to look good at first and go down hill as time progresses.  This is not in Andover’s best interest.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Ledgerwood

 

Thane Nelson, representing K. Todd Allan Construction, who lives at 14010 Spring Valley Road, Wichita.  Mr. Nelson stated that he a contractor in the subdivision to the north on 159th called Belle Reeve.  He stated that when he is going to the subdivision at 8:00 a.m. the traffic is just terrible, always a lot of traffic.  Mr. Nelson stated he knows that for all consumers there has to be lower income housing.  Mr. Nelson stated that he builds houses from $85,000 to million dollar homes and he feels that you call them manufactured homes but they come in on wheels and to him that means a trailer house Mr. Nelson feels the park will start to get dilapidated and have no garages.  Mr. Nelson stated “We took a poll when we tried to build houses for the $85,000 market for people, the blue collar workers, Raytheon, and they all have two boats, a car, a motorcycle, they have all kinds of other things and that’s why they want to move to a trailer home and not afford the house to have all their toys and so all that stuff’s going to get parked out in the yard.”  Mr. Nelson stated he understands there needs to be affordable housing for everybody but he feels a slab on grade house with a storm shelter would be a better alternative than something we roll in and roll out.  “If you listen to KFDI and some of the different channels that are on TV, I mean, there’s methamphetamine labs and all kinds of things that are going on in trailer houses cause there’s just a lot more of that type of stuff and to me, I live at 143rd and Kellogg which isn’t too far away, just to the south, and I don’t think it would be a very good thing to go there and then there’s another access, that road to the south, there’s no way out of there if waters high at all because there’s a dip in the road and there’s no way to get out.  So there’s only one exit at that intersection ever if waters up high so they all dump onto Kellogg.  Right now we have over one million dollars invested in Belle Reeve and we’re just in the starting stage.  We’ve got three model homes and we’re putting in our entrance monuments and all of our stuff and if, uh, my realtor was to start moving in and telling people that there’s gonna be a trailer park down there, I don’t know that people will be that enthused and that’s just my personal opinion and I just wanted to say it.”

 

John McKenzie, 1414 W. Clubhouse, Andover, Kansas.  Mr. McKenzie stated that Dick Krehbiel really spoke to the traffic issue but doesn’t agree with Mr. Krehbiel’s estimate for the increase in traffic of 200 vehicles.  Mr. McKenzie feels that is too conservative as far as traffic counts.  Mr. McKenzie feels the intersection will be a mess and have way too much traffic.  He stated he moved to Andover to get away from the “labs” Mr. Nelson was talking about.  Mr. McKenzie stated that we already have a high percentage of mobile homes compared to the community and he feels we are way over the limit we would appreciate anyway and doesn’t know why we would put a bunch of mobile homes in the middle of 5 or 6 pretty affluent neighborhoods.

 

Bill Baxter, 4535 SW Circle, Towanda.  Mr. Baxter owns a business called Flint Hill Motors Sports that adjoins the property on the north.  Mr. Baxter agrees that Andover needs more affordable housing but he thinks the intersection needs improved first, and the street needs improved first before we put that many homes in.  He is also concerned about property values.  Mr. Baxter stated that he is under contract to buy some property that borders this one on the north and he hasn’t closed yet.  Mr. Baxter stated he has yet to see a mobile home park come in and improve the value of anybody’s property except that of the mobile home park owner.  Mr. Baxter stated that he doesn’t have any facts to support that but he hasn’t heard any facts to the contrary and if Mr. Kaplan could show him a mobile home park that went in somewhere and raised the value of the neighboring property he would like to let him speak.   Chairman McEachern asked the location of the business.  Mr. Baxter stated it is in with Augusta RV.

 

Susan Quinn, 1325 W. Elm, Andover.  Ms. Quinn had a question regarding the tax rolls and asked for explanation as to how taxes work because it is her understanding that a mobile home does not pay property tax and wants to know who will pay the property taxes.  Mrs. Bush stated that mobile homes are taxed under personal property taxes.  She stated that the tax goes to the same types of uses as property taxes.  Ms. Quinn stated “When she gets her tax bill she knows that a certain amount of money is going to certain places to support the City of Andover and to support USD 385 and if I own a mobile home that is not the same thing, so who is paying this if you have 100% occupancy and you have 1.5 children?  We are looking at 300 children or 200 children adding into this.  Um, what money is going into the city from this property as you of the owner of the park, the mobile home park, and how will this help our city?”

 

Mrs. Bush stated “Assessed value pertains to city, local taxes and L.O.B.’s, Local Option Budget.  L.O.B.’s were used to build the schools in Andover.  Property owners are assessed a certain percentage but that percentage does not go to the school system, it goes to the State of Kansas and the State of Kansas writes a check to the school system, not based on assessed value but based on per student and they pay a certain amount based on the number of students in the school district.”  

 

Susan Quinn then asked if the mobile home park was considered an improved property, compared to a vacant lot?  Mrs. Bush stated that actually she would pay commercial tax rates on the actual lot itself.  Mrs. Quinn asked if that meant each lot within the mobile park.  Mrs. Bush stated it was 25% on the actual lot itself.    Mrs. Bush stated that Mrs. Quinn would have a lot that she pays taxes on and then the house resides on it.  She pays commercial property taxes on each lot.  Mrs. Quinn said “So you are paying 25% of the assessed value per lot, of the entire lot, or of each individual unit that is on your lot?”  Jeff Bridges asked if he could explain, as several Council members had asked him that specific question.

 

Mr. Bridges stated that mobile home parks are taxed two ways.  The ground that the mobile home sits on is assessed at 25% as commercial property.  Mr. Bridges stated “The mobile home itself is assessed as personal property because it can’t be assessed as real estate because it can be moved.  Mr. Bridges stated that the personal property bill is distributed, the taxes paid under personal property, are carved up the same way real estate taxes are.  It all goes to the same pots it is just called personal property rather than real property.  So the same percentage of that personal property bill, personal property tax bill, will go to the different units of government that receive it, the school under the L.O.B., the city, the county, the fire district.  They pay less because the value of the mobile home or manufactured home is less but they pay the same percentage in the same “pie.” ”

 

Thane Nelson had a comment that the assessed value of the mobile home would decrease as each year goes by and the taxes would keep going down because the value of them do not ever appreciate.  Mr. Bridges stated that you would have to check with the County Appraiser on that.

 

Doug Stark, 619 N. Stratford, Wichita.  Mr. Stark spoke on behalf of his parents Charles and Mary Lou Stark, who own the property that is directly adjacent to the west, known as Spring Creek Farm.   They asked him to come and offer their opposition to this.  They are opposed for two reasons.  The first reason is regarding property values.  Mr. Stark stated that he has yet to see there be property value increases on mobile home parks, and his parents are envisioning their property, and in fact have a conceptual drawing being done now, to develop it into a nice residential neighborhood much like that one that is going on across the street to the north, so their concern is in property values.  Mr. Stark stated that the other issue that they are concerned with is drainage.  Four Mile Creek does come right through their property, and part of their property already is in the flood plain and they are concerned about how the drainage and water runoff during a storm might change the flood plain and increase the flood plain on their property which certainly would not help the value of it either. 

 

Don Cowles, 108 Lakeside Drive, Andover.  Mr. Cowles stated that his main complaint is that he believes the property owners around the area in question buy their properties with a vision of what it is zoned to be allowed to have on it.  Mr. Cowles stated that when people bought properties they invested probably, most of them, considerable of their life savings on it.  Mr. Cowles feels that homes would generate over the next 25 years more continuous property tax for the city, the school system and everyone than mobile homes would.  Mr. Cowles asked “How do you know when you buy a parcel of land that the zoning isn’t going to change, and it’ll be changed for some other purpose.  I think the value, what I heard one of the previous gentlemen say, I think the value of the trailer park land property tax that is ¼ of the value of the lot, is a certain amount of money.”  Mr. Cowels stated that he feels that in the future the homes will be worth less so you will have a parcel of land in the City of Andover that will still generate a lot of traffic, a lot of need for schools and streets and all the other things, but which will continually reduce the amount of property tax that it generates, and feels that from a property value standpoint over a period of time it is certainly going to reduce revenue.  “My question to the Council is do we really want to do that to people who live around there that have already invested and built and been told to put stucco on their buildings and things like that.  Is that really the correct thing to do?  I don’t think it is.  Thanks for listening.”

 

Jerry Jones, 642 Ruth, Andover.  Mr. Jones stated that he lives near the property and owns property that adjoins the subject property.  He stated that he really questions when he looks on down in time at the depreciation instead of appreciation of this coming in next door to his area.  He stated that his area does need a lot of help and doesn’t need anything to deter from it anymore, or help it go downhill anymore and that definitely wouldn’t help Andover’s overall picture as a community.  Mr. Jones stated another one of his concerns is drainage.  He is concerned about Four Mile Creek, and when it is all in and done and apparently that would be handled in the architectural and planning stages of this development, but would want some reassurance there for drainage and the effect of drainage in Mecca Acres.  Mr. Jones other concern is the intersection of 159th Street and Kellogg.  Mr. Jones stated he is very tired that the only solution anybody can think of to offer to KDOT, is putting another stop light.  He stated that this is a major artery and something like loops, proper access roads, whatever has to be put in to plan for the future.

 

Curtis Harris, 749 Verna, Andover.  Mr. Harris stated that his property backs up to the subject property.  Mr. Harris is concerned with the screening to separate the areas.  Chairman McEachern stated that if this is approved it would go in front of the Site Plan Review Committee for screening and most things of this magnitude would require screening.  Mr. Harris stated that he is also very concerned with the drainage.  He has lived here for a long time and when it rains, it floods.  Mr. Harris asked if the people in the mobile home park were going to be made aware that they are in a flood plain.  Mr. Harris also asked what corrections were going to be made to stop some of the flooding.  He doesn’t feel enough has been done regarding the flooding.  “My concern is everything backing up to my property, you know, I don’t need any more neighbors and especially that caliber.  A ton of mobile homes, I like it out there, the peace and quiet.  I’ve lived out there all my life and uh, I hate to lose that.  You can step out your back door and hear turkeys gobbling down the creek and birds and then all of a sudden here we’ve got 169 mobile homes and God knows what kind of, I’m not saying the caliber that comes through, but yes our area needs improvement too, like Jerry Jones said, we don’t need any more of it out there and I feel that’s what it’ll turn into.  I see a lot of personal gain here and as far as I’m concerned our area hasn’t gained anything.”

 

E.B. Lyda, 134 Elm Court, Andover, President of the Green Valley Greens 3rd Addition Homeowners Association, stated that on behalf of the Homeowners Association, we are adamantly opposed.    He stated he might not have as much of an issue if he knew there was going to be a mobile home park there when he moved in the area.   Mr. Lyda asked Mrs. Bush if she knew a mobile home park was going to be there if she would have bought her house.  Mrs. Bush stated she would have bought her house if she knew a mobile home park was to be there.  Chairman McEachern asked that questions not be directed to the audience.  Chairman McEachern stated that the hearing is for presentation of information to the Commission to make a decision on.

 

Linda Frazier, 635 Verna, Andover.  Mrs. Frazier stated that her property backs up to the subject property.   Mrs. Frazier stated she has lived in this area for 25 years.   “I  know it is zoned residential right now, I just don’t really know how it got zoned residential being that road is under water, the field is under water, almost every time it rains, including when they first built their house there, it was under all the time, every time we got a good rain.”  Mrs. Frazier stated that the mobile homes will sit up high but the things in their shed and things closer to the ground and wanted to know how they will get in and out with the road on 159th being closed ¾ of the time during the rainy season.  Mrs. Frazier also asked who would be paying for the road to be raised and all the ground to be raised up in order for these people to get in and out?

 

Laurie Thoni, 156 Chelmsford Court, Wichita.  Mrs. Thoni asked the Commission to consider if Mrs. Bush will stay in the area after the mobile home park comes in.  Mrs. Thoni asked if there is a contract pending on this land if the zoning issue is passed.  Mrs. Thoni asked if we could just take two steps back and see if there is a major personal gain if the zoning is passed.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that he has heard concerns with drainage, property values or depreciation and traffic.  Chairman McEachern allowed Mrs. Bush to respond to the public comments. 

 

Mrs. Bush stated that this property had previously been approved for the R-2 Single-Family Residential District zoning.  Mrs. Bush stated that they have had an extensive hydrology study done.  Mrs. Bush stated that the engineer is in attendance if there is a need for professional opinions.  Mrs. Bush stated that as far as the traffic is concerned, she is hearing that there is development occurring at this intersection such as across the street in the northwest corner there is already development.  Mrs. Bush stated they are not inhibiting development because of traffic issues; in fact, the development in that intersection is to allow us to present that to KDOT.  These issues should not be issues to stop the development.  Mrs. Bush stated that her motivation has to do with extended families that do not have the opportunity to live in Andover; there are very limited housing alternatives in Andover.  Mrs. Bush also stated that the mobile home park is not something they intend to sell; they intend to manage the property.  Mrs. Bush stated she has no problem living next door to a mobile home park and has no problem with the different types of housing in Andover.  Mrs. Bush stated that if the addition is maintained it won’t have an impact outside the area.  Mrs.. Bush stated she thinks we are dealing with screening issues and doesn’t believe the land values will be impacted.  Mrs. Bush stated that the M-1 zoning will allow twice as many dwelling units as the R-2 zoning and they do not feel that this will negatively impact this area.  Mrs. Bush stated that they have been approached for several different uses for this property and chose not to do anything that will impact the community negatively.

 

Kenny Hill, a civil engineer from Poe & Associates, 5940 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas.  Mr. Hill stated that his firm did the engineering for the Cottonwood Addition.  Mr. Hill stated that his firm worked with Flood Plain Management Company that did an extensive study on the flood plain through this area.  He stated that they do have an application in with FEMA to revise the flood plain mapping and correspond with both the original plan that they had and the proposed plan.  The plan presented today was prepared by Poe & Associates and it does keep all the mobile homes out of the flood plain.  The entry road is also out of the flood plain.  The road back to 159th Street would be above where the 100 year flood plain level is.  Mr. Hill pointed out that all the drainage will be approved by FEMA as well as the Division of Water Resources in Kansas.  Mr. Hill stated that the drainage issues are exactly the same as it was for the original R-2 zoning. 

 

Les Mangus had a question regarding the proposed entrance.  “We all know that the 100-year flood plain crosses 159th Street, is that proposed entrance north of that crossing?”  Mr. Hill stated it is north of the flood plain crossing.  Mr. Mangus also asked “To get into the development wouldn’t require crossing the flood plain?”  Mr. Hill stated that was correct.  The entrance area is north of where that area floods.  Mr. Hill stated that no mobile home would be in the flood plain.  Chairman McEachern was concerned because of flooding problems and did not want there to be problems with that.  Chairman McEachern stated that with the R-2 these house sites would have to be elevated, like we have done in other areas.  Mr. Hill stated that he did not believe that any of the sites would have to be elevated to stay out of the flood plain limits.  Mr. Hill stated that some of the streets and the sites for the residential plan because of the view out basements that were proposed.  Mr. Hill stated that mobile homes really work better than homes because they are elevated 3’ off the ground.  Chairman McEachern stated there are two areas, which seem to come together and is concerned with flooding.  Mr. Hill stated there is a concrete box structure to connect the two smaller flood plain areas and these would have to be approved by the Kansas Department of Water Resources.  Mr. Mangus stated that an application has been made to FEMA and the Kansas Department of Water Resources will have to approve these plans.  Mr. Mangus stated there is a new flood plain map which is in circulation now and will become effective July 19, 2001, which actually puts elevations on that flood plain, where before it was just delineated on a map and there was no engineering to justify that area.  Mr. Mangus stated that with the new map the flood plain was actually decreased.  There was general discussion as to the flood plain area.

 

Sheri Geisler asked Kenny Hill “When the flood plain area is adjusted, does that go onto that south 159th Street bridge that gets flooded, is that going to be effected by, or will you will doing anything with that?”  Mr. Hill stated that as far as improvements on this bridge they will not be doing anything will that.  Chairman McEachern asked if this area will be drained such that both of those ponds will catch most of the runoff.  He stated he will be concerned when there are streets in there in a heavy rain, and wanted to know if most of that water go to the two retention ponds.  Mr. Hill stated that the drainage will go to the low areas and some will go to the ponds.  He also stated not all of the drainage will go to the ponds. 

 

Bob Kaplan stated that he requests that the Planning Commission stay focused on land use issues.  He stated that drainage issues will be done at the platting stage.  This should not be considered for the Planning Commission.  Mr. Kaplan stated that drainage is not a land use issue.  Mr. Kaplan stated that as far as traffic, there is a belief that there will be less traffic with the R-2 rather than the MH-1.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this is not true and suggested that we check that with Les Mangus.  Mr. Kaplan stated that we want a traffic light at 159th but it doesn’t look like KDOT is going to make a change along the Kellogg corridor for a minimum of 10 years.  Mr. Kaplan asked that the Planning Commission stay focused on the land use issue. 

 

Thane Nelson stated that he is very concerned with the drainage issue and asked the Planning Commission to be careful with the drainage issue from an engineering standpoint. 

 

Dick Krehbiel asked Mr. Kaplan if he would want a mobile home park adjoining his property.  Mr. Kaplan stated that would not be a problem for him.

 

There was no one else from the public that wished to speak to the issue.  Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that the Planning Commission makes changes that we consider for the good of the community.  He stated that the Planning Commission is concerned with growth, drainage, traffic and other items that will effect the community for the next 10, 20 and 50 years.

 

Chairman McEachern called for a 5-minute recess.  Meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. 

 

Chairman McEachern called the meeting back to order at 9:25 p.m. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that City Hall received 1 voice mail message regarding this subject, in opposition.  Charles Malcom stated that he received one phone call and it was not in opposition.  Sheri Geisler stated she received several phone call in opposition.  Les Mangus stated that he had received many phone calls in opposition.  Chairman McEachern stated that City Councilman Gary Fugit called him and let him know he had received many phone calls in opposition. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if this fits in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t make any distinction as to which type of future residential, whether it is R-4 or MH1 Districts.  Lynn Heath asked Les Mangus the percentage of homes in Andover that are mobile homes.  Mr. Mangus stated that at the time of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan manufactured housing ran a little more than 10%, however now it is a little less than 10%.  Mr. Mangus stated that several cities have higher percentages.  Mr. Mangus stated that Overland Park runs over 40% multi-family.  Lynn Heath asked if mobile homes are considered multiple-family.  Mr. Mangus stated that they are.  Sheri Geisler asked if a slab home could be built for $80,000.  Mr. Mangus stated that a slab on grade house could be built for $80,000, however the housing market has, until recently, focused on the $150,000 and up homes, and has just in the recent months been shifting to houses less than $150,000. 

 

Lynn Heath, Sheri Geisler and Quentin Coon had concerns with 159th Street regarding the flooding and traffic.  Les Mangus stated trip generation differences between mobile homes and stick built homes the difference upon completion will be negligible because the ITE manual projects that stick-built homes generate 10 trips per day and mobile homes 5.2 trips per day.  Mr. Mangus also stated that Minneha Township has jurisdiction over the maintenance of 159th Street south of U.S. Hwy 54.  There was general discussion regarding U.S. Hwy 54 and the traffic issues.  Mr. Mangus stated that KDOT is not interested in future development plans for the area, they want to see what is being done now or within 6 months.

 

Chairman McEachern then stated that the Planning Commission would now review the Rezoning Report.

Z-2001-01:  Public Hearing on application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential District with the Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development District Overlay to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District on 43.6 acres South of U.S. Hwy 54 and East of 159th Street. 

 

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2001-01

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Dennis & Deborah Bush, Cottonwood Point Investments, LLC.

 

REQUEST:

R-2 Single-Family Residential to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park

 

CASE HISTORY:

Currently Cottonwood Point R-2 P.U.D. currently used for agriculture.

 

LOCATION:

+/- ¼ mile south of US Hwy 54 and east of 159th Street

 

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 43 acres.

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Manufactured home park

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage

 

South:

Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural

 

East:

A-1 Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision

 

West:

Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner Limited Commercial, remainder is residential

 

 

 

Background Information:

Located along an unnamed tributary to Four-Mile Creek with a substantial flood

 

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

 

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

 

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

North:  B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage.  South:  Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural.  East:  A-1 Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision.  West:  Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner Limited Commercial, remainder is residential

 

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage.  South:  Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural.  East:  A-1 Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision.  West:  Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner Limited Commercial, remainder is residential

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

2.   What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

North:  B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage.  South:  Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural.  East:  A-1 Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision.  West:  Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner limited commercial, remainder is residential

 

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage.  South:  Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural.  East:  A-1 Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision.  West:  Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner limited commercial, remainder is residential

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

4.   Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

5.   Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

6.   Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the subject property?

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

Sewer is located on the property.  Water is +/600 feet north along U.S. Hwy 54.  159th Street is paved.

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Sewer is located on the property.  Water is +/ 600 feet north along U.S. Hwy 54.  159th Street is paved.  Services are not adequate but can be provided.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Platting with easements and building setbacks

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Definitely a need for screening

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

No vacant MH-1 land is available within the City of Andover

 

 

x

PLANNING:

No vacant MH-1 land is available within the City of Andover

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

10.   If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Will provide the service of rental property for the community

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

11.   Is the subject property suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Could be used for R-2.  

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

12.   To what extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Compatible to North, East and South, these are residential

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13.   Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14.   Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

The Comprehensive Plan encourages providing a variety of housing.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

15.   What is the support or opposition to the request?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition – Drainage, traffic, flood plain, property values, screening..

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

16.   Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Based on evidence given tonight staff would approve with proper approval on flood plain and Kansas Water Conservation District, subject to platting

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Video that was provided from the Mobile Home Institute. 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

17.   If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

There was general discussion regarding MH-1 and R-2 districts. 

 

Lynn Heath feels this is a good place for an additional mobile home park.  He also feels we need housing for this income group.  Mr. Heath feels the traffic will take care of itself as that area grows and he also feels that we will have to rely upon the experts regarding the flood plain. 

 

Quentin Coon doesn’t feel the Comprehensive Plan encourages manufactured housing.  Mr. Coon stated that the plan says we can consider manufactured housing but it   doesn’t encourage manufactured housing.  Mr. Coon stated that people want to move to Andover because of the quality of Andover and asked if this adds to the value of Andover.

 

Sheri Geisler had no comment.

 

Ron Roberts stated he agrees and disagrees with Mr. Heath.  Mr. Roberts does not feel this is a bad location for a mobile home park.  “Whether or not we need one is another question.”  Mr. Roberts has concerns with the road and intersection traffic congestion.  Mr. Roberts stated that as a person who has had a death in the family from a traffic accident, it would weigh heavily on his conscience if someone was killed at that intersection.  Mr. Roberts stated that there are high speeds at that intersection and wonders when KDOT will look at this. 

 

Joe Robertson stated that he is concerned with the growth issues.  Mr. Robertson feels that if the homes are stick built (R-2) the growth will be slower.  He also feels the surrounding property values would be maintained if stick built homes were in this area.  However, Mr. Robertson also stated that if they are properly designed and given proper space, manufactured homes could be just as attractive as stick built homes.

 

Charles Malcom stated that he agrees with Lynn Heath.  He lives next to a mobile home park now and has no problem with that.  He feels this mobile home park is a good idea.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that he is concerned with the intersection and the traffic.  Mr. McEachern also stated he has concerns with the property values and agrees with Joe Robertson and the fact that stick built homes would grow gradually.  Mr. McEachern is also concerned with the flood plain and stated that we would just have to trust Poe and Associates.  He stated that the current manufactured home park is filled so there must be a need for this.  Mr. McEachern stated that most people’s greatest value is their home.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-01, be approved to allow a change in zoning from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District. at Cottonwood Point, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 9, 12, and 14.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion. 

 

The motion failed 5-2 with Lynn Heath and Charles Malcom voting for the motion.

 

A new motion was made as follows: 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Joe Robertson, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-01, NOT be approved to allow a change in zoning from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District. at Cottonwood Point, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 4, 11, 14, and 17.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion

 

The motion passed 5-2, with Charles Malcom and Lynn Heath voting against the motion.

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the public for their input

 

 

 

 

 

VA-2001-01:  PUBLIC HEARING regarding the recommendation on the vacation of the 20’ utility easement in the front yard at 237 Cypress Court. Pamela Adams of 237 Cypress Court stated that the purpose of the vacation of the utility easement is for the placement of a well.  Public hearing opened at 10:31 p.m. No one wished to address the issue.  Public hearing closed at 10:32 p.m. Les Mangus stated that notices were mailed to the property owners and public utilities on April 11, 2001 and notice was in the paper on April 12, 2001 and April 19, 2001.  Mr. Mangus stated that KGE and Cox Communications responded and have no objections to the vacation.  Mr. Mangus stated that the staff has no objection as the utilities are in other easements.  Quentin Coon asked where the additional easements were.  Mr. Mangus stated that the street right-of-ways have the utilities in them in this case.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend approval of the vacation of the 20’ utility easement to the City Council.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

VA-2001-01:  PUBLIC HEARING regarding the recommendation on the vacation of the 20’ utility easement in the front yard at 237 Cypress Court.

 

 

 

 

VA-2001-02:   PUBLIC HEARING regarding the recommendation on the vacation of the west 5’ of the 20’ utility easement in the rear yard at 712 N. 18th Fairway.  Debbie Folkerts of 712 N. 18th Fairway stated that the purpose of the vacation of the west 5’ of the utility easement is for the placement of a well.  Public hearing opened at 10:36 p.m.  No one wished to speak to the issue.  Public hearing was closed at 10:36 p.m.  Les Mangus stated that notices were mailed to the property owners and public utilities on April 30, 2001 and notice was in the paper on May 3, 2001 and May 10, 2001.  Mr. Mangus stated that KGE and Cox Communications responded and have no objections to the vacation; however Cox Communications stated that the owners need to be aware that they will accept full responsibility of any cost should Cox Communication need to relocate or repair its utilities due to this utility vacation.  A copy of the Cox Communication letter was given to Mrs. Folkerts.  Mr. Mangus stated that the staff has no objection.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend approval of the vacation of the west 5’ of the 20’ utility easement to the City Council.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

VA-2001-02: PUBLIC HEARING regarding the recommendation on the vacation of the west 5’ of the 20’ utility easement in the rear yard at 712 N. 18th Fairway.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Article 7, Signs, to permit Temporary Fireworks Signs accessory to temporary fireworks sales locations.  Les Mangus stated that during the annual review of the regulations regarding fireworks it was brought up that with the new signage regulations there was going to be quite a disadvantage to those fireworks locations that located on residential lots as far as signage.  Mr. Mangus stated that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission a public hearing was authorized to consider an amendment to the signage regulations in the Zoning Regulations to allow the temporary fireworks signs.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 10:39 p.m.

 

Dick Krehbiel, owner of Wholesale Fireworks located at 1611 Ledgerwood, who resides at 108 St. Cloud in Wichita, stated that there should be regulations to signage.  He had photographs he showed to the Planning Commission of signs next to his location and voiced his concern over the appearance of signs near his business location. 

 

Debi Bush of 726 S. 159th Street, Andover.  Mrs. Bush stated that fireworks is a temporary business.  She stated that Mr. Krehbiel built a business in Andover just to be able to put the large sign on it to advertise fireworks.  Mrs. Bush feels that the new zoning regulations concerning signs makes signage fair and equitable.  She feels this is a temporary use, temporary structure; temporary sign is the way it should work.   Mrs. Bush stated that these uses are temporary and have nothing to do with zoning districts.  These are temporary uses and in order to make it fair and equitable all people that are operating those kinds of firework stands, the signage has to be equal. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that there is no district zoning distinction in this ordinance.  This is for temporary signage.  Joe Robertson stated that the sign on the fixed building was not impacted by this ordinance.  Mr. Mangus stated that that is correct. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that we heard the complaint there was a year around sign on the one building but fireworks can’t be sold but one week out of the year.  Les Mangus stated “That is a permanent sign on a permanent building.  That is the name of their corporation.” 

 

Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 10:50 p.m.

 

There was general discussion about sign heights and signs.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend approval of this Ordinance to the City Council.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

PUBLIC HEARING on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Article 7, Signs, to permit Temporary Fireworks Signs accessory to temporary fireworks sales locations. 

 

 

 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-V-2001-03:  Application by Darrin Lyon, 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover, for reduction of the rear yard setback of 20’ to 10’ in the B-3 Central Shopping District.  Variance from 20’ to 15’ granted March 20, 2001 by Andover Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. and welcomed the public to the hearing and laid out some of the ground rules. 

 

1.  “It is important that you present any fact or views that you have as evidence in this hearing so that the findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.  In order to grant a variance five specific written findings of facts must all be met according to the state statutes and the City Zoning Regulations.

 

2.  This board is authorized by state statute to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing Body.

 

3.   After the Zoning Administrator provides us with some background information we will call upon the applicant and then we will hear from other interested parties.  After all have been heard, each party will have an opportunity for final comments.  The Board will close the hearing to further public comments and then will consider their decision during which time they may direct questions to the applicant, the public, the staff or our consultant. 

 

 

3.      In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board can require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of fencing and/or landscape may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions on the premise benefited by the variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-107D which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance upon other property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as are provided for in Section 10-108D.  Failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to the zoning permit for a variance shall constitute a violation of the regulations.

 

5.  You should also be fully aware that if the applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes.  For example, if the applicant proposes to build a brick building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building with asphalt shingles, it’s not something that the City can enforce. 

 

6.  Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address. 

 

So at this time we would like to proceed with the hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing or voting on this case because of their spouse owning property in the area of notification, or conflict of interest, or a particular bias in this matter.” 

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

 

No one disqualified himself or herself.

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

Notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal on April 19, 2001.  The notice was mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on April 13, 2001 unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present; I will declare that proper notification has been given.  No one made any comment.

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:

 

Have any of the Board members received any ex parte verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  No one had any comments. 

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;

 

Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief background on the case.

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

 

Bob Kaplan, the representative of the applicant, Darrin Lyon, stated that he is asking for an additional 5’ reduction in the rear yard building setback, because when he first applied he applied for the wrong amount of setback and only asked for 5’ but actually wanted a total of a 10’ reduction. Mr. Kaplan explained that Mr. Lyon’s lot is 180’ deep, with the 50’ for frontage road for  KDOT for corridor management, which they did not know they would have when this property was originally prepared for a plat, 35’ front yard setback and 20’ rear setbacks, the workable space for Mr. Lyon is reduced to 70’.  Mr. Lyon is asking for the reduction in the rear yard building setback in order to have a 75’ building.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he spoke to the neighbor to the rear, a Ms. Novak, who is concerned with drainage, as her property floods, but has never contacted Mr. Lyon regarding the setback.  Mr. Kaplan suggested she contact Mr. Lyon and the owner of John’s Animal World to see if they could do anything jointly regarding the flooding problem.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no public comments.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

There were no written communications.

 

CLOSING THE HEARING:

The public hearing was closed at 11:07 p.m.  There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.

 

DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:

Joe Robertson asked if the applicant was going to drive out the north end of the building.  Les Mangus stated that the site plan shows the exit out of the northwest corner and out the south end.  Mr. Kaplan stated Mr. Lyon has to make arrangements to exit to the west in case the highway is ever improved; he will lose the frontage and will close the front access to Kellogg.

The Board of Zoning Appeals then went through the checklist as follows:

PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-V-2001-03:  Application by Darrin Lyon, 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover, for reduction of the rear yard setback of 20’ to 10’ in the B-3 Central Shopping District.  Variance from 20’ to 15’ granted March 20, 2001 by Andover Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTION

Publication Date

 

April 19, 2001

VARIANCE

 

 

Hearing Date

 

May 15, 2001

 

Case No. BZA-V-2001-03

Zoning District

 

B-3 Central Shopping

A.

Variances from the provisions of the zoning regulations shall be granted by the Board only in accordance with the standards in Section 10-1077(d), and only in the following instances and NO others:          (A through G).

 

 

 

1.

To vary the applicable lot area, lot  width, and lot depth requirements, subject to the following limitations

 

 

 

 

 

a.

The minimum lot width and lot depth requirements shall not be reduced more than 25%.

 

 

 

b.

The minimum lot area for a single or two-family dwelling shall not be reduced more than 20%.

 

 

 

c.

The minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements for multiple-family dwellings shall not be reduced more than 10%.

 

 

Dimension of lot            164’ x 301’      Variance requested      Reduction of required 20’ rearyard to 10’

                                                                                                                                   

 

 

 

B.

To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements:

 

 

1.

The bulk regulations for this district are: __20’ rear yard___

 

 

 

2.

Variance would change bulk regulations as follows:___10’ rear yard__

 

 

 

 

C.

To vary the applicable off-street parking and off-street loading requirements. (Must establish time schedule for compliance)_____NA______

 

 

 

D.

To vary the sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding nonresidential district regulations:___NA______

 

 

 

E.

To vary certain provisions of the FP Flood Plain District as provided for in Section 4-114(L):___NA_____________

 

F.

 

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

 

 

 

False/ No

 

 

 

 

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

 

__xx___

 

_______

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

xx

__ ___

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

 

_______

 

__xx___

 

 

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

 

_______

 

__xx___

 

 

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

 

_______

 

___xx__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

 

 

 

___xx__

 

 

 

_______

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

 

_______

 

___xx__

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

 

 

__xx___

 

 

_______

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

 

 

 

__xx___

 

 

 

_______

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Ron Roberts as follows: Having considered the evidence at  the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance I, Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

 

1.

Platting

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was no discussion. Motion passed 7-0.

 

 

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Lynn Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission.

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Commission reconvened at 11:10 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Charles Malcom to adjourn.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Adjourn

 

 

 

 

Member items.  There were no member items.

Member items.