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



July 17, 2001



The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Sheri Geisler, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts and Charlene “Charley” Lewis.   Others in attendance were Gary Fugit, 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 Quentin Coon at 7:00 p.m.

Call to order



Review of the minutes of the June 19, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Charley Lewis asked about the letter in the minutes from Mr. E. B. Lyda where he refers to 159th and Andover Road.  She thinks he meant 159th and Kellogg and wanted to see if the minutes were correct.  Pam Johnson had looked at the original letter and it states 159th and Andover Road.  Motion to approve the minutes was made by Joe Robertson, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 8 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the June 19, 2001 Andover Planning Commission



Minutes of the July 3, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.


Minutes of the June 26, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.





Committee and Staff Reports. Jeff Bridges had no comments.  Les Mangus stated that at the last meeting the Commission had set two public hearings, one for the way members are selected for the Site Plan Review Committee and one regarding the Flood Plain, for this evening’s meeting.  Due to the timing of the meetings, the notice would have had to been to the paper the day before last month’s meeting to give proper notice, therefore these items are set for public hearing at the August Planning Commission meeting.

Committee and Staff Reports



Z-2000-05.  An application for amendment of the Village Crossing Preliminary Planned Unit Development to allow a drive-thru restaurant on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, returned to Planning Commission by the City Council for reconsideration.  Gary Fugit, City Council liaison stated that the City Council is asking that the Planning Commission review this issue again, due to the location and original issues such as speakers.  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.  Joe Robertson asked if this was a rehash of all the issues or just part of the issues, as last time. 


Bob Kaplan, representative of the applicants Dr. Reed and Dr. Howell, stated that this P.U.D. has previously been discussed and approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this property is located at the northwest corner of Village Road and Andover Road.  A two page conceptual site plan was presented to the Commissioners.


Mr. Kaplan stated that this comes back to a single issue.  He stated that the P.U.D. as presented was previously approved.  He stated that this consists of two parcels.  Parcel Two is limited to B-1 Neighborhood Business District which are business office and excludes special or conditional uses.  Parcel One, the southern parcel was approved as B-2 Neighborhood Business District but contained a number of uses usually found in the B-3 Central Shopping District. One item was a drive-thru service such as restaurants or banks or other services, which have drive-thru uses.  The only exception by the Planning Commission was for drive-thru restaurants.  Restaurants were okay, but drive-thru or drive-in services were excluded.  That is what the Planning Commission approved.  Mr. Kaplan stated that as the market developed, Spangles looked at this location; they obviously have drive-thru restaurants, so Mr. Kaplan came back in on behalf of the property owners for Spangles for an approval of a drive-thru.  The Planning Commission denied the request so Mr. Kaplan stated he took his case to the City Council, which in turn requested that the Planning Commission look at the case again.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he felt the problems with this case is that the Planning Commission felt that a drive-thru could or would be intrusive in the neighborhood with the order board noise and all the traffic.  Mr. Kaplan stated that in the approved P.U.D., they were allowed a curb cut and access onto Village Road;, however, there was a concern that Village Road would be inundated with traffic and would overflow into the neighborhood which the Planning Commission and the neighborhood didn’t want.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the access currently approved is directly across from the Braum’s driveway, which was approved with drive-thru services.  He feels that the Planning Commission is not opposed to the drive-thru but feels that this property needs to be reconfigured.  There is an alternate access that could be used, further west on Village Road, which would make it impossible to go through the pick-up window and then out the alternative access.  The traffic would have to flow out onto Andover Road instead of Village Road.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Bill Blair owns the adjoining property, at which point a member of the audience stated “Mr. Blair does not own this property.”  Mr. Kaplan went on to say that the west side of the building would be plain and the property owners would extend an 8’ masonry wall on the rear property line with heavy, mature landscaping.  Mr. Kaplan stated there would be no order board on the west side of the building.  Mr. Kaplan stated that they are committed to the alternative driveway and proposed concrete wall.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Spangle’s has a “50’s” motif.  He stated, and he hopes he didn’t misquote Mr. Heath, that Mr. Heath stated that “Spangle’s is not exactly what I had in mind for this area.”  Mr. Kaplan stated his clients feel the same.  He stated that the Doctors do not have an overall architectural style but will try to do what the neighborhood likes, which is smaller buildings, not necessarily duplicates, but uniform, consistent and compatible throughout the center.


Quentin Coon stated that there was a public hearing held previously on this issue and that by state statutes, we would not be required to reopen the public hearing, nevertheless, in the interest in getting all the information that is available to the Commission, we will take public comments relating to this issue.  He asked for a show of hands from the public as to who wanted to speak to the issue.  After the show of hands he stated that there is a time constraint and he would allow for about 20 minutes of comments and then draw the public hearing to a close. 


Mr. Dale Hansen of 216 Willow Road, was representing his mother Anna Hansen.  He stated that his mother owns the property at 356/352 Village Road, which Mr. Kaplan stated was owned by Bill Blair.  Mr. Hansen stated his mother has owned the property for two years.  He also stated she is not for the drive-thru restaurant.  Charley Lewis asked if his mother resides at this location.  Mr. Hansen stated she did not.  He also stated that he spoke to his mother and she never received any notices regarding this hearing.


Jo Schreiber of 216 Village Road, who has lived there for 14 years, stated that when they bought the property originally, they knew the property was zoned multiple family residential.  She stated that since that time the zoning has changed.  She stated that Braum’s was voted in on a Saturday and they didn’t know about the Goodwill until it was too late and they don’t want a Spangle’s.  She stated that they supported the idea of boutiques and offices and that the owners originally had their support but are now changing what they said they would do.  Mrs. Schreiber stated that Village Road is extremely difficult to get in and out on when traffic was heavy.  She stated that there are a lot of small children in the area.  She stated that lots of parents let their kids walk over to Taco Bell or Blockbuster or for haircuts.   She stated that her children are 15, 18, 19, and 20 and in the morning it is hard for them to get out into traffic, and there are a lot of traffic tie ups.  Mrs. Schreiber stated that she has asked the Police Department how many accidents have occurred in this area and she will have that information in 2-3 days.  She also commented on the smells that will be there.  She stated they already smell Taco Bell, Applebee’s, Red Mesa and other restaurants.  This will add additional smells.  She also stated that this type of business will be around 7 days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Other businesses would only be open during the days, there would be some break.  She stated there are other areas in Andover for Spangles or fast food restaurants.  Other places to go to are 13th Street or 21st Street.  Livingston’s was destroyed in the tornado, nothing has been built there, and that is a good location for a restaurant.  She stated it is a shame that no one has thought about how the residents feel about this, the big bucks are trying to speak, and the residents are only trying to live there.  She also had a letter from her husband. A copy was placed in the case file and handed to each Commission member.  She also stated she represents her neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Kline of 322 Village Road.  She stated they are deaf.  She stated they do not like the idea of the increase in traffic, they feel that crime will increase.  Mrs. Schreiber stated that they are a household of 6 and has 5 voting members in this household.  She also stated that the housing in this area is not being sold at the rate it should be because of this development.


John Fernandez of 314 Village Road stated his problem was that he never knew this was going on.  He stated his concern is traffic.  He stated that we will be putting 3 high volume businesses at that corner and that is too many.  He stated there are lots of kids and young drivers in this area.  He stated he is also worried about property values.  He stated he won’t like the lights from the place either but is most concerned about the traffic.


Shena Martin of 224 Village Road spoke.  She stated they bought their house in 1990.  Since then the house has been flooded twice with raw sewage.  They have had to replace everything in the basement twice and there is still an odor.  Her neighbors on both sides have also had flooding like this.  She stated that the City told her that this was a result from grease being dumped into the sewer and clogging the pipes.  She stated there was no way to turn off the sewage, there was damage and lots of it.  She said that her insurance pays for most of it but when you have claims her insurance rates go up and that is coming from her pocket.  She asked what would happen with the sewer when another business would come into the area.  She stated there is still an odor in the basement and who is responsible to stop this.  She asked if she tries to sell her house what she can tell people about this.


Gene Miller of 420 Jamestown spoke.  He stated that three restaurants in this area is not good planning and zoning.  He stated he did not feel this was in the best interest of the neighborhood or the City.  He stated this will cause too much traffic and the traffic is horrendous there.  He used to walk across that intersection but doesn’t anymore.  He has lived in the neighborhood for 5 years and stated it used to be a quiet neighborhood but now it is like a big metropolitan area.  He is concerned about the additional traffic, the noise and the pollution in the area.


Judy Sauer of 210 Village Road spoke.  She asked that the Planning Commission stop this because they are turning our neighborhood into a bad place to live.  She hoped the Planning Commission can stop this. 


Clarence Martin of 332 Village Road spoke.  He stated that he can sit on his deck and see what goes on on Andover Road.  He stated he can hardly turn on to the road now and can’t believe that the Planning Commission would even consider having something like this come out on Village Road.  He has nearly been hit several times at this corner. 


John Cash of 306 Village Road spoke.  He stated this is the third time he has been here in the past 6 months.  He stated he was given no notice that this was going to happen again.  He also stated that he is concerned with traffic and he has almost been hit several times at this location.


Bob Kaplan’s rebuttal included his stating that appeals from the neighborhood residents are difficult to resist but the Planning Commission is a Planning Commission and must look at land use within specific parameters and guidelines.  He stated the Commission must look at the hard facts and the land use.


Mr. Kaplan stated that in response to Mr. Hansen, he was told that Bill Blair owned this property.  He stated he is concerned that Mrs. Hansen was not notified.  He stated that they used a title company for addresses for notification.  Mr. Kaplan also stated that he never participated in any Saturday meeting and all the meetings he participated in were normal meetings at normal times. 


Mr. Kaplan stated that we must face the fact that Andover Road is business and commercial.  He stated Andover Road is not going to be Single-Family Residential any more, it will be commercial.  He stated that Andover Crossing is commercial.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the restaurant is already approved, the issue is the drive-thru service.  He stated that traffic on Andover Road cannot be avoided and stated that Andover quit being a bedroom community years ago.  Mr. Kaplan asked the Commission not to close their ears to the wants of the people but also recognize the commercial nature of Andover Road.  Mr. Kaplan stated there is just one single issue to discuss, debate, and decide. 


Les Mangus stated that notice was sent to Mrs. Hansen in December, 2000, when the public hearing began.  He also stated that this went to the City Council and then came back to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mangus stated that per Kansas law once the notice is given there are no additional notices required.  He stated that this is a process and people just need to follow the process through to the end.  Mr. Mangus also stated that Bill Blair owns the office property to the north of the applicant property.


Quentin Coon closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.


Quentin Coon asked the Planning Commission members if any of them need to disqualify themselves.  Charley Lewis wasn’t a member when this previously was discussed but feels she can make a qualified decision.  Joe Robertson stated he was not at the meeting when the Spangles information was presented but he was when the P.U.D. was done.  Mr. Robertson feels there was a good rehash of the information at this meeting.  Les Mangus asked them if they had read the minutes from the original case.  Joe Robertson and Charley Lewis both stated they had read the minutes.


Quentin Coon then asked if any Planning Commission members have received any ex parte verbal or written communications.  John McEachern stated that he got a number of phone calls and Jo Schreiber came by with a handout.  Chairman Coon asked him what the handout was.  He stated it was a notice regarding this meeting.  Sheri Geisler stated she had several phone calls from people who were against the drive-thru and questions as to why there was no notification for this meeting. 


Les Mangus stated that state law requires a notice on the first hearing and that is the only notice required.  Mr. Mangus stated the first hearing is the beginning of the process and people need to just follow the process through to the end. 


There was general discussion regarding the outdoor speakers and it was the memory of the Planning Commission that they were always opposed to outdoor speakers thinking they were intrusive to the neighborhood.  John McEachern stated that the vote was only 4-3 to allow speakers.  Mr. McEachern stated that the speakers at Taco Bell are different because they have business behind them, not residences. 


There was general discussion regarding the traffic issue and it was the memory of the Planning Commission it was close vote to allow a restaurant to have the traffic pattern open onto Village Road.  Lynn Heath stated it was a 4-3 vote to allow the traffic.   Mr. McEachern reminded the Planning Commission that they approved a restaurant, not a drive-thru or drive-in. 


Les Mangus gave the Planning Commission a copy of the motion from the January 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.  Chairman Coon read it.  It is as follows:


Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the application, Quentin Coon moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that the application to amend the Village Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow drive-in and drive through restaurant facilities on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, located at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Village Road be denied based on the findings that this wasn’t the original intent of the P.U.D. and the increased traffic concentration on Village Road.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0. 



John McEachern stated that nothing presented has changed his previous opinion.  Joe Robertson made a motion to reapply the same motion as before and after discussion, added specific reasons.  The motion is as follows:


Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the application, Joe Robertson moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that the application to amend the Village Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow drive-in and drive through restaurant facilities on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, located at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Village Road be denied based on the findings that this wasn’t the original intent of the P.U.D., there would be increased traffic concentration on Village Road, there would be an increase in the noise level, light level and activity level in the residential neighborhood.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion. 


There was discussion regarding the motion.  Charley Lewis stated that we need to remember Mr. Kaplan’s comments stating that Andover Road is a commercial property.  She also stated there would be problems if this project was on 13th Street or 21st Street.  She stated that we cannot make everyone happy, and we do need to consider the quality of life for current and future residents.  She stated she feels this was set aside due to public comments.   Ron Roberts stated that the Commission had spent a lot of time balancing the rights of the homeowners and business property owners.  Mr. Roberts also stated that he doesn’t feel anything has changed. 


Motion carried 7-1 with Charley Lewis opposed.


Gary Fugit commented that he now has a better understanding of what the Commission meant with their denial and will take this information to the City Council.  He also stated he appreciated the Planning Commission’s reconsideration of the case. 

Z-2000-05.  An application for amendment of the Village Crossing Preliminary Planned Unit Development to allow a drive-thru restaurant on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, returned to Planning Commission by the City Council for reconsideration.



Chairman Coon called for a recess at 8:23 p.m.


Chairman Coon called the Planning Commission back to order at 8:35 p.m.




Z-2001-01.  An 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, returned to the Planning Commission by the City Council for reconsideration.


Bob Kaplan represented the applicant.  He stated that it has been difficult to pull the demographics and other information requested by the Planning Commission and City Council.  He stated that he doesn’t plan on going over the previous information; he will just be presenting the requested information.  He stated there were two issues, one being the traffic at 159th and U.S. Hwy 54 and the impact of a manufactured home subdivision on this intersection.  The other issue is a comprehensive study and analysis of the effect manufactured homes have regarding the devaluation of single-family homes contiguous, and adjacent to the parcel, and in the notice area of the zoning case.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the Commission wanted hard facts with no opinions from realtors or appraisers.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the Commission wanted facts and figures taken predominately from the County Assessor’s records, data which is not subjective, which are hard facts that cannot be disputed.   Mr. Kaplan stated that Bill McKinley, a licensed traffic engineer, who had worked for the City of Wichita for 25 years, would present the traffic information.  He stated that Mr. McKinley talked to Les Mangus to make the Green Valley area used was a representative subdivision, where he machine counted traffic.  Then Mr. McKinley went to Andover Estates, the manufactured home park in Andover and did a traffic count.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Mr. McKinley’s study will show that the traffic would be the same if the R-2 District or Manufactured Housing Park is at that location.


Mr. Kaplan stated that they went to L.E. Gardner, Inc and asked him to extract from the records, assemble, sort, identify and analyze the effect of a manufactured home park insofar as devaluation of adjacent properties in proximity to a mobile home park.  Mr. Kaplan stated that you will not find that it will devalue a contiguous, adjacent property. 


Chairman Coon reopened the public hearing for Z-2001-01 at 8:50 p.m.  He asked that people keep the comments concise.


Grant Gardner of L.E. Gardner, Inc., 932 N. Water, Wichita, Kansas.  Mr. Gardner stated that Mr. Kaplan asked if the proximity to a manufactured home park had a tendency to effect the value of homes in the neighborhood.  He asked the County Appraiser’s office to provide information to him from 1995 to now.  The records he received are exclusive from 1996, the Appraiser’s office could not locate them.  Mr. Gardner stated he used this information because this is what the County uses to certify the taxes to the State.  Mr. Gardner then explained how he got the records and how he interpreted the data.  He stated that he limited the records to four sections surrounding Andover Road and Kellogg.  He presented his report to the Commission and reviewed it with them.  A copy of this report was put in the case file.  Joe Robertson stated that he finds the analysis what he was looking for.  He also stated that the facts are what is needed for the consideration of this case.


William McKinley of Alpha/Omega CCI Inc. presented a traffic impact study.  He reviewed it with the Commissioners.  A copy of the report was put in the case file. 

Debi Bush, 726 S. 159th, Wichita, Kansas, the applicant, spoke to the Commissioners.  She stated that at past meetings the members expressed concern that the MH-1 would develop more rapidly than the R-2 District.  She wanted to let the members know that the development of the MH-1 District would be in three phases of equal proportions, just as the R-2 District was to have been.  Mrs. Bush stated that another issue is the best use of the land.  She stated that the adjacent property has changed since the R-2 zoning was given.  She stated that there are now storage units which allow outside storage, existing businesses which have no restriction on outside storage and a Wholesale Fireworks business, all which have caused perception and marketing problems.  Mrs. Bush stated that a cell tower was added on the west side of the property in October of 2000.  Mrs. Bush stated that immediately adjacent to their property Flint Hills Motor Sports uses this area for a test drive area.  Mrs. Bush stated that the property on U.S. Hwy 54 is zoned B-5 and allows for the sales of manufactured housing as a special use.  She stated that the adjacent business added 220 parking spaces.  Mrs. Bush stated that she asked the Planning Commission to look at the traffic and was told that at that time traffic was not a concern in zoning for R-2.


Mrs. Bush stated that in a report prepared monthly by the City, currently there are 668 platted lots and 1776 unplatted lots available in the R-2 District.   At this time there are approximately 135 houses built per year.  This means there are roughly 14+ years worth of lots available at this time.  Mrs. Bush stated that there is no MH-1 available on this report.  Mrs. Bush stated that lot sales are slowing and feels she must choose another alternative housing market.  She stated there is a need for a MH-l District.  Mrs. Bush addressed Mr. Gene Miller’s comments from the prior meeting and stated that he surely must know that hydrology reports and site work must be done prior to the site being used.  She also stated that this land was purchased in 1994 by the Bush’s, prior to Mr. Bush becoming the Mayor.  She commented that Mr. Miller’s letter referred to a study on Manufactured Homes and asked the City for a copy of the study, which was not found.


Mrs. Bush commented about the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lyda and stated she has attended 5 meetings and has never seen Mr. and Mrs. Lyda at a meeting yet.


Mrs. Bush stated that the individuals who live in the mobile home park eat in Andover, shop here, vote here and some work here and are not second class citizens.


Mrs. Bush stated that Mr. Stark to the west has no opposition and neither does Dr. Downing. 


Mrs. Bush stated that they have provided the information that was requested and respectfully requested approval of their application.


Les Mangus stated that when the Commissioners came to this meeting there was information marked Z-2001-01 on the desk that came from Ken Sims.


Lynn Heath stated that he had a phone call from Mr. Sims and Mr. Heath asked him to submit the information to all the Commission members.  Charley Lewis, Charles Malcom, Sheri Geisler, Ron Roberts, John McEachern and Quentin Coon received phone calls from people regarding this issue. 


Ron Smith of 1201 S. Brookhaven addressed the Commission.  Mr. Smith stated he lives just outside of Andover.  He stated he brought an appraisal report from Bussart Realty, which is an impartial opinion, not skewed facts as previously shown earlier in the meeting. 


The letter from Mr. Bussart is as follows:


July 12, 2001


Mr. Ron Smith

1201 S. Brookhaven

Wichita, KS  67230


Re:  Proposed zoning change from R-2 Single Family Residential to MH-1, Manufactured Home Park District, Parcels A & B consisting of 43.6 acres. (Case No. Z-2001-01)


Dear Mr. Smith,


As per your request, the following comments relate to my opinion regarding the feasibility of a proposed zoning change of the above captioned property. 


First, I feel I should state my qualifications.  I have been involved in the real estate business since 1951 and have owned my own company since 1970.  During the past 31 years, I have been the owner of, or have been instrumental in the development of seven residential subdivisions in Southeast Sedgwick County and Western Butler County.  All have had restrictive covenants to promote and protect the character of the neighborhood.  I am also an appraiser and a member of the Appraisal Institute, with the SRA designation.  I am licensed with the Kansas State Appraisal Board and am qualified to appraise all types of real estate. (Lic.# G-322)  Attached, is a more detailed list of my qualifications.


I inspected the subject property on July 8, 2001, as well as the surrounding area.  Your inquiry, is what effect the zoning change would have on nearby single family residences and unimproved land planned for residential development.   Just to the north of Kellogg are two existing prestigious subdivisions, Green Valley and Bellagio.  Across the street to the west is unimproved land, which I estimate would be appropriate for future single family building sites.  A quality built home with out-buildings is located adjacent to the south, and an existing residential subdivision is around the corner to the southwest along Brookhaven.


One of the Principles of appraising is the Principle of Conformity.  This means there should be a reasonable degree of social and economic homogeneity within a neighborhood.  In other words, it is not favorable to own the most expensive home in the neighborhood and have lesser value properties nearby.  A definite loss in value to the expensive home would exist.  There is no way to determine exactly how much diminutive value unless there is a “before and after” instance with two appraisals or two sales being made.  It has been my experience that prospective home buyers of “stick built” homes do not want to live near a mobile home park.


The development, as proposed, having 169 pad sites, would definitely create a higher density of land use, which would also increase traffic conditions along 159th Street.  It is my understanding that up to seven sites per acre is permissible by the county. 


It is my opinion, based on my experience as a Realtor and appraiser, the proposed zoning change from R-2 (Single Family Residential) to MH-1 (Manufactured Home Park District), would be very detrimental to the neighborhood.


Respectfully submitted,


Dean L. Bussart, SRA, GRI




A list of his qualifications and a copy of his Appraiser’s license were attached to the letter. 


Mr. Smith then commented on the Department of Revenue property valuations in regards to double wides and single wides that Ken Sims gave him.  He stated he has never seen a mobile home 30 years old that he would say is in excellent condition, only fair or average a lot of them are way below fair.  He stated that these are concrete numbers as to what happens to the value of a mobile home.  He stated the value always goes down, always have and until they mirror stick built construction, always will. He stated that the information from Mr. Gardner is comparing values throughout the City of Andover over last 5 or 6 years, which there has been a substantial construction boom.  Those prices of those new houses have gone up steadily as construction costs have increased which has helped the appreciation.  Mr. Smith stated that what we see in the City of Andover is you need the houses that are in the $70,000,  $80,000, $90,000 price range have been pulled up substantially in value because of the high rise in the new construction and he feels that skewed the numbers.   Mr. Smith commented that where the current mobile home park is located in commercial and that 159th Street is residential in nature and have quality stick built homes being built there.  He stated he felt putting in a mobile home park would substantially reduce the value of the stick built homes. 


In regard to the trip generation, Mr. Smith stated that he looked at the existing mobile home park and everyone has two or three cars and doesn’t believe the national statistics for traffic would apply to our area. 


Mr. Smith was also concerned about the improvements to 159th Street and where it goes to the south and asked how the single lane low water bridge between 159th Street and Brookhaven on Lincoln, how is that traffic and how is that  infrastructure going to be dealt with and who is going to pay that cost. 


Mr. Smith stated that Mrs. Bush said Mr. Stark is not opposed to this project.  Mr. Smith stated that he called Mr. Stark and he stated that Mr. Bush is his banker and he could not be opposed to this project. 


Mr. Smith stated that he does not feel that the MH-1 is an appropriate use for the property, R-2 is the appropriate use


Winette Alexander of 1249 S. Brookhaven stated she lives close to the proposed mobile home park.  She stated she thinks the Bush’s and their appraisers are comparing apples to oranges.  She stated the homes in the area are $100,000 to $300,000 homes and you want to bring mobile homes into that environment.  Mrs. Alexander feels a mobile home park will affect their property values and the quality of life.  Mrs. Alexander stated that you can’t make a left turn to go west on Kellogg now when it is busy.  Traffic will then go south and people will speed down the road, like they do now.  She stated she will dispute the trip generations.  She stated that Mrs. Bush commented on the type of property around her property, the tower, storage facilities, fireworks stand but didn’t speak to the issue of their green and white tent and asked why she used that as justification for a mobile home park.


Richard Pugh of 245 S. Lakeside, the vice president with the Green Valley Greens 5th & 6th Addition Homeowner Association stated that the Commission’s previous decision was well founded.  He stated that what he heard tonight was proving statistically that the County Appraiser’s office doesn’t believe that proximity to a mobile home park effects valuation when people buy their houses knowing that the mobile home park is there.  He stated he did not see the matter addressed for what happens to existing home values when a mobile home park is dropped in next to your community, like what would happen to us, and we do vote in Andover.  He stated that perhaps proximity doesn’t affect the value of surrounding property but he doubts that the other is true.  He stated that he heard there were no MH-l lots planned for Andover and given that we already have the highest concentration for mobile homes units per population in Butler County that may well be a good thing.


Ray Gulaskey of 306 S. Fairway Circle stated that he has a big interest in this so he had done a lot of research in talking to realtors in the Green Valley area.  A lot of them are actually afraid to necessarily get involved because they are afraid of any impact it would have on themselves and their sales of homes in the area.  He stated that also some of these realtors representing developers in Andover state that they do believe the developers have a negative opinion of this whole ordeal with the mobile home park saying it will effect their area but they are afraid to step forward because of the interest they would have in possible developmental dollars coming from the City Council that they might not be allotted in the future, so there are developers out there that do not want this to happen.  


Mr. Gulaskey stated that the intersection of 159th and Kellogg, he is concerned with the amount of new traffic at that intersection both with stick built and mobile home park traffic and we don’t want to turn that intersection into a collection of memorial crosses. 


Mr. Gulaskey stated that in his opinion Mr. Kaplan may also have a financial interest in this due to the fact that much is being paid by the Bush’s but the fact that he is also part owner of NBA where he thinks a lot of these dollars are going to be directed through his bank which he will then benefit from, whether houses or mobile homes.


Mr. Gulaskey stated that he hoped that through all this stuff that is happening that during the next election of Mayor that we can get Dennis Bush out of power and president of National Bank and get him out of the power he has in the Andover area.    Mr. Gulaskey stated he has too much power.  There are too many people that are afraid to step up and speak about the Mayor.


Dick Krehbiel, 108 St. Cloud, Wichita.  He also contacted Mr. Stark for quite a while over the weekend and if the Commission would recall, his son was here at the first meeting and he opposed the mobile home park quite vividly.  Mr. Krehbiel stated that in talking with Mr. Stark he never once said hat he favored it, he did say it was a conflict with his banker and that it would be hard for him to come up here and speak against it because of that.  Mr. Krehbeil stated that Mr. Bush was able to pick who he wanted to do these researches for and he has a lot of influence in this area and so does Mr. Kaplan and the fallacy of the whole process in his opinion is that Mr. Bush got to pick who he wanted to do the research and had a great influence on the outcome and if he didn’t like the outcome he was able to go and get somebody else to get something in favor.  Feels it is a one sided evaluation and research.


Jerry Jones, 642 Ruth stated he owns property on Verna that adjoins this.  He stated he wanted to comment on the impact on property values and he has owned property in Butler County in excess of 20 years and has yet to see an evaluation from the appraiser go down so how could the figures come out except that way.  He stated there have been a lot of arguments, and a lot said, and he wants to remind the Commission that the decision should be for the appropriate land use.  He asked that the Commission should keep in mind the economic benefit of the applicant or the impact of zoning changes around the property that the applicant owns is no reason to consider their request for approval. 


Gene Miller, 420 Jamestown stated that he strongly is behind everything that is in his letter, it is based on facts.  He stated he did not write the letter earlier because he had looked at the flood plain maps and couldn’t believe there could be a mobile home even being proposed there until he talked with Mike Thompson, the City Engineer, who advised him there were some changes being made to the flood plain map.    Chairman Coon asked him what letter he was referring to.  Mr. Miller stated he is referring to the letter he wrote to the Commission at the last meeting.  Mr. Miller stated he has lived here 46 years and his informal polls indicate that the vast majority of people are opposed to further mobile home parks.  Mr. Miller stated he would like to see it come to a vote.  Mr. Miller stated that mobile homes have a property value with the same square footage of 18.9% of a stick built home.  Mr. Miller stated that if we are going to have another 169 mobile homes in Andover and they are only going to pay 18.9% of the taxes of the equivalent stick built homes, how many of these can we stand. 


Chairman Coon stated he was going to close the public hearing at this time.  Mr. Kaplan asked if he could make a rebuttal.  Chairman Coon stated not at this time.  John McEachern stated that normally after the public hearing the applicant was given a chance for a rebuttal and he would like to give the applicant a chance for a rebuttal.  Joe Robertson and Ron Roberts agreed.  Chairman Coon allowed a rebuttal.


Mr. Kaplan stated that he and his client were given a specific request for information with no individual opinions.  He stated the information presented cannot be disputed as it is all data.  He stated he can determine from this data that there is no devaluation of site built homes built near mobile home parks.  Mr. Bussart is a reliable assessor but the Planning Commission asked for facts not opinions or assessments.  Mr. Kaplan stated it was the same for the traffic counts, facts not opinions.  Mr. Kaplan asked that the case be decided on the basis of facts not opinions.  Mr. Kaplan stated that in the data presented by L. E. Gardner there was no impact of the appreciation rate by proximity to a mobile home park.  He stated that he is not talking about the depreciation of the mobile home park, he is talking about the value of the surrounding property.


Mr. Kaplan stated that he gave the Planning Commission what they requested, no talk of infrastructure or flood plain, that should be another meeting.  He stated that he did not deliver opinions only the empirical data requested. 


Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 10:25 p.m.


Chairman Coon asked the Planning Commission how much time they needed to digest the information that was presented tonight.  Lynn Heath stated that he feels he has received adequate explanations and doesn’t feel a delay will give any further understanding of the information.


Ron Roberts had a question for Mr. McKinley.  He asked Mr. McKinley if in his opinion this intersection can safely carry 1,000-1,500 cars a day as it exists today without any additional traffic controls.  After discussion, Mr. McKinley stated that if this intersection was in Wichita and he was still the City of Wichita traffic engineer he would be hard pressed not to signalize this intersection.


John McEachern asked Mr. McKinley if they knew the number of people who used different entrances in the mobile home park.  Mr. McKinley stated that he only used one street in the park. He stated that the traffic count in the neighborhood was on a cul-de-sac. He stated that they put a counter on both ends of Stephanie in the mobile home park and calculated the trip generation rate based on that.  There wasn’t a cul-de-sac in the mobile home park to use.  They counted the number of homes in the cul-de-sac and the number of homes on Stephanie.  Mr. McKinley stated that a retirement park will generate fewer trips.  Mr. McKinley also stated that the more money in the home the more cars there will be and the more trips that will be generated. 


There was general discussion regarding the valuations given by Mr. Gardner.  John McEachern stated that valuations are always going up and asked if when he threw out some valuations that went up an unusual amount, how it would change the values on table.  Mr. Garner stated it does not appear to make any measurable difference in the regression analysis.  Lynn Heath stated the raw and adjusted information is on A-35 and A-35 of his report.  Les Mangus stated that around this same time Green Valley 5, 6 and 7 were platted but the information from ’96 was probably construction data, which would be unfinished, unoccupied, new construction. 


Joe Robertson stated he is anxious to conclude discussion but on the other hand is wondering if there is any benefit to more thoroughly reading and going over the notes from the past to come to his conclusion.   Mr. Robertson asked if the panel could sequester themselves from any ex parte communication and look at this again next month.  He feels he would like to have some more time but additional time can also cause a problem.  Mr. Robertson stated there was a lot of information to cover however our request for information was requested by the City Council and he feels this information represents the due diligence we sought to have done and the information that was received at the meeting needs to be looked at and digested before he makes a decision.  Mr. McEachern agrees with Mr. Robertson.  Lynn Heath stated that he was briefed on some of this in a 30 minute phone call.  Sheri Geisler would like more time.  Joe Robertson asked City staff’s opinion.  Jeff Bridges stated a deliberative decision is always better than a hurried decision. 


Motion by John McEachern to table case Z-2001-01 until the August meeting of the Planning Commission.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.


Mrs. Bush asked the Planning Commission is she would need the experts at the next meeting.  Chairman Coon stated they would not be needed as there would not be a public hearing.


Chairman Coon called for a recess at 10:45 p.m.


Chairman Coon called the meeting back to order at 10:50 p.m.

Z-2001-01.  An application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential District with the Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development District Overlay



Review the Final Plat of the Reed Addition.  Russ Ewy of Baughman Company, 315 Ellis, Wichita, Kansas presented information on behalf of the applicant.  The Subdivision Committee recommended some changes and Mr. Ewy stated they are in agreement with the changes.  Mr. Ewy also stated that the name of the Addition has been changed to Prairie Star Addition. 


Les Mangus stated that the items addressed by the Subdivision Committee were as follows:


B1        Temporary access control by KDOT on U.S. Hwy 54.

C12     Change name to U.S. 54/400

D1       Provide Title Report

D2       Provide final drainage plan

C17I    Change name to Ron Roberts, County Clerk

C17e    Change name to Quentin Coon, Chairman

C17e    Change name to Sheri Geisler, Secretary

C17b   Explain temporary access control


Mr. Mangus stated that the only issue with substance is how the plat would provide a temporary access control until such time as KDOT revokes the access to U.S. Hwy 54.  Mr. Mangus stated he has not received any information back from Chris Huffman with KDOT Corridor Management.


Mr. Mangus stated that the closest access to the intersection of Andover Road and U.S. Hwy 54 will be closed and the other two would have a temporary status and will be KDOT’s call and when they make some improvement later the access on U.S. Hwy 54 will be revoked. 


Ron Roberts asked if any consideration was being given to close the crossover the highway at Daisy Lane.  Les Mangus stated it was being considered by the City of Andover and KDOT to be done in the near future. 


John McEachern asked what the little hook on the end behind the Braum’s property was, on the plat.  Mr. Ewy stated it is just a little left over from the other platting.  Les Mangus stated that it is just a remnant.  Mr. McEachern asked if this was one lot only.  Mr. Ewy stated this is a two lot plat.  Les Mangus stated there is a joint access agreement with the Goodwill Addition to the north.  Mr. McEachern asked if there was a joint access between lots 1 and 2.  Mr. Ewy stated there is a cross lot access.  Mr. McEachern stated it is not on the plat anywhere.  Mr. Ewy stated that this is traditionally done as a separate instrument recorded with the plat guaranteeing that access.  The general consensus of the Planning Commission was that they want the cross lot access on the plat. 


Lynn Heath stated that the further west access is also a dual access to the other area that is not on this plat.  Mr. McEachern thought that information should also be put on the plat.  Les Magus stated that vacant area has its own joint access to Highway 54.  Mr. McEachern was concerned there would be no access to the lot to the west.  Mr. Mangus stated that the highway access may disappear but it would be KDOT’s responsibility to provide access whether it be through condemnation of a right of way.  Mr. Mangus stated that this is a little beyond the scope of the Commission right now because we don’t know what the configuration of the highway will be, right now that property to the west has access directly to the highway.   Mr. Mangus stated that if anything it’s a joint access with the southwest corner of this property.  He could see a note to that effect but not that it had 100% cross lot access agreement.  Mr. Mangus stated you may want a note stating the joint access on the plat but to force them to have 100% cross lot circulation is going a little bit too far.  Lynn Heath did not have a problem with putting a statement on the plat stating that lot 1 will have a cross lot agreement with the lot to the west when it is developed.  Les Magus stated if you say cross lot access that means for the full length of the property.     Mr. Mangus stated you can accomplish what you want with a 50’ box at the property line, don’t bind the whole property line.


Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the Final Plat to the Reed Addition, with the following clarifications: 


1.         Add cross lot agreement between lots 1 and 2.

2.         The driveway at the southwest corner onto U.S. Hwy 54/400 is a joint access driveway.

3.         That there be an area in front of the lot 1 and the lot to the west that will have a 50’ box access agreement,


For property now known as the Prairie Star Addition with the corrections requested by the Subdivision Committee, which are as follows:


B1        Temporary access control by KDOT on U.S. Hwy 54.

C12     Change name to U.S. 54/400

D1       Provide Title Report

D2       Provide final drainage plan

C17I    Change name to Ron Roberts, County Clerk

C17e    Change name to Quentin Coon, Chairman

C17e    Change name to Sheri Geisler, Secretary

C17b   Explain temporary access control


Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Review the Final Plat of the Reed Addition



Recommendation on the annexation of portions of the Bales Acres, Bob White Addition, and Green Acres.  Lynn Heath and Joe Robertson live in the subject area and stepped down from the Planning Commission for this discussion.


John McEachern commented about the mill levies analysis that stated 28 mills and he felt that doesn’t represent the exact cost because 11 mills needs to be deducted as that is what they are currently paying to the township, just a net increase of 17 mills.  Mr. Bridges stated that the analysis showed the difference in mill levy not dollars.   Les Mangus stated that on page 6 of the information it showed the mill levy of 149.212 after annexation and 132.346 before annexation.


Jeff Bridges stated that in accordance with K.S.A. 12-520(a) the City Council has transmitted this annexation and certification plan to the Planning Commission for your consideration  and recommendation to the City Council for the annexation of the areas known as Bob White Addition, Bales Tracts and Green Acres.   Mr. Bridges stated this is the same situation as Mecca Acres last year as they are surrounded by the City limits or contiguous to the city limits on three sides and in order to provide utilities annexation is necessary.  There have been some requests for various utilities including water, sewer and streets in the additions.  The public hearing is set for August 14, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council.


John McEachern stated that there are two properties to the west of this proposed annexation that use the street and he thinks they should be annexed.  Mr. Bridges stated that when the City does the benefit district, once the annexation of this area is complete, if those people want to be included in the benefit district for any improvements we will present them with an annexation petition and include them in the benefit district.  They were not included in the annexation plan for this addition but they have the same access to the services that everyone else does upon annexation. 


Motion was made by John McEachern to recommend annexation of Bales Tracts, Green Acres and the Bob White Addition.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion. 


Sheri Geisler asked if when this is annexed will this Commission lose the two members that live in this area.  Les Mangus stated that we would need two new members from the extraterritorial jurisdiction.   


Motion carried 6-0. 


Motion was made by John McEachern that the City Council considers the annexation of the two properties whose driveways are adjacent to Allen Street.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0.

Recommendation on the annexation of portions of the Bales Acres, Bob White Addition, and Green Acres. 



Lynn Heath and Joe Robertson rejoined the Planning Commission. 




Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations regarding temporary signs in the Residential Districts to allow placement of the “Parade of Homes” banners requested by the Wichita Area Builders Association.  Les Mangus stated that a few weeks ago WABA brought to the City Council a request allowing temporary banners in a residential neighborhood, specifically for the “Parade of Homes.”  Lynn Heath asked how long these signs are up typically.  Les Mangus stated they are up for about a month.   Mr. Mangus stated that our current regulations allow for banners up to four times a year once every quarter for one week in all but the Residential zoning districts.


Gary Fugit stated that these people are trying to develop this town.  He feels this is a simple request.  Mr. Fugit stated that this has been going on for years and feels this is a reasonable request and would like to accommodate this.  Charley Lewis asked if this would allow a big banner like at Terradyne for a church.   Les Mangus stated that commercial zoning allows for certain types of signs for limited times.  Charley Lewis asked if this amendment was for residential zoning only.  Mr. Mangus stated that it was for residential only.  John McEachern asked if it could be any message.  Mr. Bridges stated we cannot regulate the message only the size of the sign.


Motion was made by John McEachern to authorize a public hearing at the August 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting regarding temporary signs in the residential districts to allow banners.   Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0. 


Motion was made by John McEachern to have the signs affixed to the face of the principal structure. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations regarding temporary signs in the Residential Districts to allow placement of the “Parade of Homes” banners requested by the Wichita Area Builders Association



Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to clarify the notice area when amending a Planned Unit Development.  Les Mangus stated that the P.U.D. section of the City Zoning Regulations follows the state statutes originated in 1968 it wasn’t considered that a P.U.D. might need to be amended.  At that time the statute didn’t address who would be notified in the event of an amendment to the P.U.D.  Mr. Mangus stated that Bickley Foster, the City Planner, has the opinion that all owners of land in a P.U.D. and should be notified in the event of an amendment to a P.U.D.  Charley Lewis asked if this cost was paid by the City.  Mr. Mangus stated there is an application fee for a P.U.D. and the applicant provides the ownership list.  There was general discussion about notification area.  Bob Kaplan commented that reasonable notification is desired as everyone effected should be notified.  Mr. Mangus stated it is fine if we exceed the notification area in the state requirements.  Discussion was held about a progressive notification area that gets larger as the size of the application area gets larger.


Motion was made by Joe Robertson to hold a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2001 on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations concerning the notification area in a P.U.D. amendment.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to clarify the notice area when amending a Planned Unit Development.



Member items.


John McEachern asked about the gate at the car wash on Andover Road.  Mr. Mangus stated that he will talk to Kirk Crisp about it.  Mr. McEachern wanted to know if there was to be addition landscaping on the southeast corner between the Subway and the car wash because you can see the houses there.  Mr. Mangus stated that what is there today was what was approved by the Site Plan Review Committee.


Mr. McEachern stated he wants to know about the dead trees at the Andover Journal Advocate.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is a large amount of dead trees in various areas and has turned this over to Lloyd Clements to work on.


Charley Lewis stated that at the corner of 159th and Kellogg, where the fireworks stand is, there are still blue trash containers on the site, they have no lids and the grass is very high toward the Green Valley Subdivision.  Mr. Mangus stated he would turn the high grass information over to the Code Compliance officer and call about the trash containers.


Joe Robertson asked when the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign was going to be repaired.  Mr. Mangus stated it was repaired earlier today.  Mr. Robertson asked if there was a length of time allowed for repairs.  Mr. Mangus stated only if there is an immediate health or safety issue.


Quentin Coon stated there are a lot of portable signs on Central Avenue.  Mr. Mangus stated that they will have to be gone by August 17, 2001. 


Joe Robertson asked if the issues with Bill King have been resolved.  Mr. Mangus stated that they have not.  Mr. Robertson asked how this can be resolved.  Mr. Mangus stated that this can be pursued as a zoning violation which is a long and tedious process.  Mr. Mangus stated he will write letters to the parties again.


Joe Robertson stated that Quentin Coon is a natural chairman. 


Sheri Geisler stated that we need a new library.  Gary Fugit stated that he would like to see a new building however overall revenues are down and expenditures are not.  Plans are being looked at to provide an additional building but the Police Department really needs to be looked at first. 


Sheri Geisler stated she read the paper about the lack of a pool in the Tuscany addition.  Mr. Mangus stated that there was nothing in the P.U.D. plan in the 1st phase for a pool.  He stated it was in the 2nd Phase and Mr. Cox picked up his permit today for the pool, he had been working with Les on the permitting for a few weeks.  Sheri Geisler stated we need to specify cement pools and not liner pools in the future P.U.D.s.  Les Mangus stated it is probably pushing our luck on requiring which materials to use. 


Sheri Geisler noticed that people are painting their addressed on curbs and she knows that is against the City Ordinances.  Mr. Mangus stated it is defacing of public property.


Joe Robertson wanted to know the status on Cloud City.  Mr. Mangus stated he is expecting an application from the new owners to make changes in the existing residential and add multi-family residential in the north east section.


Sheri Geisler wanted to ask about the extraterritorial seating for the Planning Commission as she doesn’t want to lose the two members that would be annexed into the City, and wondered if we could increase the number of Commission members.  Mr. Mangus stated we cannot reduce the number of members.  State statute governs the number of members from the extra territorial area.

Member items



Motion made by Charles Malcom to adjourn.  Motion seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion passed 8-0.


Gary Fugit commented that he was glad to be at this meeting tonight and he received a lot of helpful information.


Meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight.