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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 21, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 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 Ben Lawrence, 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 7:03 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Chairman Coon stated that due to the length of the agenda all items may not be able to be addressed at this evening’s meeting due to time limitations and asked the Planning Commission to come up with another evening prior to Tuesday, August 28, 2001 to continue this meeting to.  After general discussion it was decided that the Planning Commission would continue those items not addressed tonight to a meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 27, 2001.

Continue this meeting until August 27, 2001.

 

 

Review of the minutes of the July 17, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve the minutes was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Charles Malcom.  Motion carried 8 to 0.

 

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

 

 

Minutes of the August 7, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the August 14, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the July 31, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   There were none

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

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.

 

Bob Kaplan represented the applicant Debie Bush. Chairman Coon stated there will be no public comments received at this meeting, the purpose of this meeting is to review the application and additional information and make a recommendation to the City Council.  Chairman Coon stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission received the requested property value information and traffic study. 

 

Lynn Heath, John McEachern, Sheri Geisler, Quentin Coon and Charles Malcom all received ex parte communication telephone calls against the zoning change and also received a submittal from Ken Simms. 

 

Joe Robertson stated he feels that the information that was received is what the City Council requested. 

 

There was general discussion regarding drainage and traffic issues.  Mr. Mangus reminded the Planning Commission that these issues are getting confused.  The issues regarding traffic and drainage are engineering issues, not zoning issues. 

 

There was additional discussion regarding drainage and the Flood Plain.  There was also additional discussion regarding the traffic.

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.

 

 

 

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 plain.

 

* 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:

Services are available but not on the property

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Platting

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

This will be grouped multi-family and will be required to go before the Site Plan Review Committee.  This will definitely need 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, however there are lots already developed, existing and available in Andover Estates.

 

 

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:

N/A

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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:

Meets the intent of the first paragraph in MH-1 zoning, it does fit the district applied for

 

 

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:

It is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan but does not enhance the plan. (Yes 5-3, Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson and John McEachern NO)

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition – Drainage, traffic, flood plain, concern for property values, compatibility to neighborhood, density

 

 

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:

Support the application contingent upon platting and satisfactory approvals from FEMA.                                                              

x

 

PLANNING:

Received traffic study, property value study and opinion by Bussart not in support. 

 

 

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:

Yes-John McEachern, Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson, Quentin Coon.  No- Charles Malcom, Charley Malcom, Ron Roberts and Lynn Heath

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charles Malcom, 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 Planned Unit Development, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 9, there is no vacant land available to develop mobile home property.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Lynn Heath made a motion to amend the motion to include item 12, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding property and 14, conforms and enhances the Comprehensive Plan.

 

The motion on the amendment passed 5-3 with Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson and John McEachern voting against the motion.

 

There was general discussion regarding the motion.  This included Les Mangus clarifying that the streets would be above the flood plain as would the property for the manufactured homes.  Quentin Coon asked for a point of order and asked that if a vote to approve the motion was denied if we have to vote on the disapproval.  Mr. McEachern stated that a tie vote was the same as disapproval.

 

Ron Roberts voiced concern regarding the traffic, number of lots using a single entrance and the speed of development and offered an amendment to the motion as follows:

 

To limit the maximum of 80 lots being developed before a second egress is made and traffic flow enhancements on Hwy 54 and 159th Street are made.

 

Les Mangus reminded the Planning Commission that this is a zoning hearing and the issues referred to by Mr. Roberts were platting issues.  Mr. Mangus stated that these could be conditions to the platting, but to require that this be done prior to a zoning change is not permissible.  Mr. Mangus stated that conditions can be attached at platting, not zoning.

 

Ron Roberts withdrew his motion. 

 

A new amendment to the motion was made as follows:    

 

Platting is required to be complete prior to the zoning change becoming effective.

 

The amendment to the motion carried 6-2 with Charley Lewis and Joe Robertson voting no.

 

The vote on the original motion  is 5-3 with Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Quentin Coon, Charley Lewis and Lynn Heath for the motion, Sheri Geisler, John McEachern and Joe Robertson opposed to the motion.

 

Jeff Bridges stated that this case would go in front of the City Council on August 28, 2001.

 

 

 

Quentin Coon called for a 5-minute recess at 8:55 p.m.

Recess

 

 

Quentin Coon reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.  Chairman Coon wanted to establish when the meeting would be stopped tonight due to the length of the agenda and recommended that the Commission work through item number 8 at least.  There was general discussion and then agreement that they would work through at least item number 8 on the agenda which is the public hearing to amend the Green Valley Planned Unit Development.

 

 

 

Recommendation on the annexation of Lot 5 in the Fortney Acres Subdivision, 2300 N. Andover Road.  Les Mangus stated that lot 4 is not in the City.  He stated that lots 1, 2 and 3 are in the City and across the street on the west side of Andover Road is in the City.  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 9:12. 

 

Nealy Stotler of 2342 N. Andover Road wanted to know which house was being annexed.  He was given the address and wanted to know if it was the stucco house, and he was told by Les Mangus it was.  Joe Robertson asked where he was in relation to this house.  Mr. Stotler wanted to know what type of business would be allowed in this place.  Mr. Robertson asked if he was further north.  Mr. Stotler stated he was two houses further north.  Mr. Stotler wanted to know why “he” went in there and started tearing stuff out and he didn’t see no permit.  Chairman Coon stated the

 

Committee is only considering the annexation at this time.  Mr. Stotler wanted to point out his driveway is washing away from water out of the ditch and coming off a field as well as a ditch.  Chairman Coon stated there was another agenda item coming up regarding the zoning application when he could address that.  Mr. Stotler stated maybe that was so but it’s still going to flood in that building and it already has.  Chairman Coon thanked him and asked if anyone that was available to present this case to the Planning Commission.  Tim McFadden, the applicant, 703 Dublin Drive, Andover presented the information.  He stated he submitted an application for annexation for 2300 N. Andover Road.  He stated this property is approximately 2 ½ acres and at this point the city has pretty much surrounded the property.  Mr. McFadden stated that there is city property across the street to the west, 500 plus acres.  He stated that to the east of the subject property there is also city property that adjoins this property.  He stated that property to the east is currently mini-storage units.  Mr. McFadden stated they are asking for annexation because of the closeness to the city and because of city amenities. 

 

Charles Hudson of 2258 N. Andover Road, between the College and Mr. McFadden’s lot.  He said there was no city stuff there for him at all, there is no sewer or water or nothing.  He stated that the city doesn’t do anything for him and he doesn’t see any reason for any property in that area to be annexed by the City of Andover.  He stated “There are no easements for city sewer or water, there so it is kind of a country living kind of place, we have all been out by ourselves for a long time and taking care of ourselves and I just don’t see any reason for it.”

 

Rod Buckley of 2332 N. Andover Road stated he was just listening to find out what it is all about and wanted to know what annexation has to do with him or Mr. McFadden and wants to see what type of business will be allowed.  He wants to know if the annexation will benefit him and stated that there is a big water problem and that needs to be looked at too.  Chairman Coon stated there are two items on the agenda addressing this item.  The first item is regarding the annexation and the second item is the change in the zoning district and we will get into the issues that are his concern in the second item.

 

Sheri Geisler wanted to clarify that only the 2300 N. Andover Road was being annexed.  Chairman Coon stated that that was right.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the annexation of 2300 N. Andover Road to the governing body.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

Nealy Stotler came to the podium and stated he saw the Planning Commission vote for annexation and he stated there is a water problem there and the Commission is voting more property in with a known condition and the Commission approved this.  Mr. Stotler stated he has a problem with the Commission voting in property so somebody else can have a business or whatever, he’s not worried about that but he is saying we don’t worry about the problem and then go ahead and allow a building.  Chairman Coon stated that those issues will be addressed in the zoning hearing.  Mr. Bridges stated there was not a public hearing on this case as this was an annexation at the request of the property owner.   Commissioner McEachern stated that in the last month property that has been adjoining to the City of Andover have been recommended for annexation into the City of Andover.  If the property is contiguous to the City or are in close proximity to the City these areas have been annexed recently.  Mr. McEachern stated that this annexation is not anything unusual.

Recommendation on the annexation of Lot 5 in the Fortney Acres Subdivision, 2300 N. Andover Road. 

 

 

Z-2001-02:  Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District at 2300 N. Andover Road.  The applicant, Tim McFadden, 703 Dublin Drive presented information regarding the zoning change.  Mr. McFadden stated this is an application to change the zoning from Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping.  Mr. McFadden stated that this application was submitted, it is within the Comprehensive Plan as just to the west of this property the city has zoned 29.99 acres of B-3 and further to the north the City has zoned 11.38 acres B-2.  To the east of this property is a mini-storage facility.  Mr. McFadden stated that this property has approximately 2 ½ acres.  Mr. McFadden stated that at this time the property has a structure on it.  He stated it is unknown at this time if this structure will be completely remodeled or if this structure will be bulldozed and the lot redeveloped.  Mr. McFadden stated that this existing structure may be completely remodeled and in this case that will not produce any more water out on the property.  Mr. McFadden stated that this property is not in a flood zone and when he obtained financing for this property there is a flood certification done on it and this property is not in a flood zone.  Mr. McFadden stated that the inside of the house has not flooded.  He stated that the structure is just as sound as the house anyone lives in.  Mr. McFadden stated that there has been water that accumulated in the crawl space, the area between the floor and the bottom of the crawl space is approximately 4 ½’ to 5’ deep and there are drain tiles in there, underneath that house has a drainage system.  Mr. McFadden stated that the drainage system wasn’t working properly but it has been fixed and all the water has been pumped out from underneath the house.  Mr. McFadden stated there is no evidence of water being inside the house.

 

Mr. McFadden stated that if this structure is bulldozed and this lot redeveloped then the applicant will provide engineering studies and submit drainage system plans to the City. 

 

Mr. McFadden stated that as of this time there has never been any flooding problem, no water in the structure but there has been water in the garage, which rain was blowing in under the garage door seals on the back of the house.  Mr. McFadden stated that nothing has been done in violation of any code either. 

 

Joe Robertson asked what was being planned for the use of the property.  Mr. McFadden stated he just is asking for B-3 uses which are the exact same zoning which is across the street from this property. 

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing to public comments at 9:28 p.m.

 

Nealy Stotler, 2342 N. Andover commented that water on the west comes to the east side and causes a bottle neck backing up water as well as the water coming down off of the hill not allowing proper drainage and feels that Mr. McFadden has not owned the property long enough to know this.  Mr. Stotler stated that the water in the garage is coming down the hill as well as coming up the hill.  Mr. Stotler doesn’t care if he has a business he is concerned with the drainage in the area that nobody is fixing.  He said that nobody notified him that the city approved anything to the west side and the west side drainage hasn’t been taken care of either. 

 

Charles Hudson, 2258 N. Andover Road commented that there are a couple of problems with having a business there.  He stated that first there is a race track from 21st to his driveway and this will make addition traffic.  He stated there is already a lot of B-3 zoning across the street, and build this up first and build the other up later.  Mr. Hudson is also concerned that there will be adequate parking available and is concerned that any new business parking will add to additional drainage problems.

 

Bill Shelton, 2301 N. Gilmore, right behind the subject property is opposed to the change in zoning because there is already ample B-3 zoning across the street.  Mr. Shelton stated it is also not a good idea to put a business in residential area.  He stated he would not want certain types of businesses at this location and is concerned with the hours of operation.  Mr. Shelton stated that this change in zoning will more than likely devalue the surrounding property values.

 

Chairman Coon stated this is an application for a B-3 Central Shopping District and there are no time limits attached to it.  Bill Shelton asked what would be allowed in the B-3 District.  Chairman Coon states some of the uses are:  Antique shop, apparel store, office supply store, dry good stores.  Charley Lewis stated hotel, motel. Bill Shelton stated it would be hard to have a hotel/motel at that location and there was ample B-3 across the street that is available.

 

Les Mangus stated there is actually 600’ between the east side of the applicant’s property and the Shelton property.  Mr. Shelton wanted to know when the rest of the area would be annexed in.

 

Chairman Coon stated that properties would be annexed as they come before the Commission.  Mr. McEachern stated that if the owners of the property request annexation it is normally done.

 

Mr. Bridges stated that Gilmore Street is in the plan for future annexation into the City but not at this time as the City is unable to provide sufficient water and sewer service to this area due to the distances from existing service lines.

 

Catherine Sheldon of 2401 N. Gilmore Drive asked the board if they could speak up as they cannot hear in the back of the room.

 

Charles Hudson stated the City was having sewer problems behind the homes because you can’t annex it in because there is no sewage for Mr. McFadden and asked if he was going to run a business on a septic tank.

 

Jeff Bridges stated it is not a question of capacity it is a question of extending the line.  Mr. Hudson stated there is no easement to extend the line to his property.  Mr. Bridges stated the easements will have to be worked out.

 

There were no further comments from the public or the applicant and Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 9:36 p.m.

 

Lynn Heath stated this area will become commercial someday in the future.  John McEachern stated that the property across the street is zoned commercial but the residential zoning sits back from it, whereas in this one he is concerned with the zoning change because it is in the middle of the residential area.  Mr. McEachern stated that perhaps the Commission could grant a lesser zoning, perhaps B-1 and update it at a later date.  Sheri Geisler asked the hours are limited to 11:00 p.m.   Les Mangus stated that the B-3 district has unlimited hours of operation. B-2 has limited hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Sheri Geisler asked if across the street, the development, done as a PUD could have limitations put on it, but this is not a PUD so we cannot put limitations on it.  Ron Roberts stated there are considerable setbacks in the commercial area across the street. 

 

Les Mangus stated that the options are to approve or disapprove the application or to approve a lesser zone, not a greater zone, a lesser zone.

 

John McEachern asked that the Commission go through the checklist.

Z-2001-02:  Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District at 2300 N. Andover Road. 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2001-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Timothy and Heide McFadden

 

REQUEST:

Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District.

CASE HISTORY:

Existing single-family residence on private water well and septic system.

 

LOCATION:

2300 N. Andover Road, Lot 5 Fortney Acres

 

SITE SIZE:

2 ½ acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Potential commercial tenants

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler County Rural Residential

South:

Butler County Rural Residential

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and mini storage.

West:

Decker-Kiser P.U.D. B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property used for agriculture.

 

Background Information:

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

 

* 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:  Butler County Residential.  South: Butler County Rural Residential.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini storage.  West:  Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property used for agriculture.

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  Butler County Residential.  South: Butler County Rural Residential.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini storage.  West:  Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property used for agriculture.

 

 

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:  Butler County Residential.  South: Butler County Rural Residential.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini storage.  West:  Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property used for agriculture.

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  Butler County Residential.  South: Butler County Rural Residential.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini storage.  West:  Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property used for agriculture

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

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:

Yes because the zoning change of the property across the street from this property.

 

 

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:

Public water and sewer are not extended to the property but they can be provided.

 

x

PLANNING:

Public water and sewer are not extended to the property but they 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:

Dedication of 50’ Andover road ½ right of way required

 

x

PLANNING:

Dedication of 50’ Andover road ½ right of way required

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Screening of adjacent residential properties would be required

x

 

PLANNING:

Screening of adjacent residential properties would be required

 

 

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:

Vacant B-1, 2, 3 properties are available in the Decker/Kiser PUD and Andover Heights reserve.

x

 

PLANNING:

There is vacant B-1, 2, and 3 zoning across the street._

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

More services and employment opportunities would be provided.

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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:

Yes, with adequate screening

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Case by case review of commercial cases

 

x

PLANNING:

John McEachern stated that we would not allow a B-3 in a residential neighborhood vote 6-2 with Joe Robertson and Charley Lewis voting yes.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Business between two rural residences, drainage, sewer system and traffic

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition – Drainage, sewer, traffic, flooding concern for property values, compatibility to residential neighborhood.

 

 

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:

Approval contingent upon dedication of 50’ Andover Road ½ Right-of-way.

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval contingent upon dedication of 50’ Andover Road ½ Right-of-way.

 

 

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?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived

x

 

PLANNING:

Late hours of operation, type of business that may go into the neighborhood, based on B-3 Zoning       

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Discussion regarding item 17.

 

John McEachern asked Les Mangus about the drainage on the Decker/Kiser property.  Mr. Mangus stated that as this property will be developed it will develop its own system of retention/detention ponds and whatever improvements are necessary to handle the water that crosses Andover Road.  Mr. McEachern asked if part of the problem was the structure that is underneath 21st Street.  Mr. Mangus stated there are several drainage problems.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Stotler lives north of this application and has water come off of a big agricultural field and across the corner of his property.  Mr. Mangus stated that water periodically crosses Andover Road at the box culvert at the community college and the structure under 21st Street is designed for a 100-year storm.  There is backwater that comes all the way from the turnpike bridge to that storm sewer.  Sheri Geisler asked if there would be something required in the Decker/Kiser property to handle the water.  Mr. Mangus stated they will be required to have a retention/detention system.  Mr. Mangus stated that the 1986 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) the flood plain stopped at 21st Street.  Mr. Mangus stated that with this newest revision the flood plain crossing 21st Street goes across the college property, Mr. Hudson’s property, just the corner of Mr. McFadden’s property and then ends at Andover Road.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Sheri Geisler, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-02, be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County Rural Residential to the B- 3 Central Shopping District at 2300 N. Andover Road based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 4, because it does not correct an error, Item 6, there is no right-of-way, Item 9 because there is suitable vacant land available, Item 11, as she feels B-3 is not suitable with residential right next to it., Item 14 because it is not appropriate for a B-3 within a residential district and #15 as it is not appropriate for a B-3 within a residential district. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.

 

Motion carried 7-1 for disapproval of the rezoning application with Charles Malcom voting for approval of the B-3 zoning.

 

There was an additional motion.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-02, be approved to allow a change in zoning district classification from the Butler County Rural Residential to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 2300 N. Andover Road based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 9, there is B-3 zoning available across the street but no B-2, Item 10 this would offer more services and employment and Item 14, these issues are decided on a case by case basis.

 

The motion died for a lack of a second.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-02, be approved to allow a change in zoning district classification from the Butler County Rural Residential to the B-1 Office Business District at 2300 N. Andover Road based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 9, there is B-3 zoning available across the street but no B-2, Item 10 this would offer more services and employment and Item 14, these issues are decided on a case by case basis.

 

Sheri Geisler read the first paragraph of the B-1 zoning regulations as follows:

 

This district is designed to provide for business and professional offices with compatible institutional and public building uses.   Such uses have limited evening activities and should be located along arterial streets and to serve as buffer areas between business and industrial districts and the residential districts.

 

 

Tim McFadden asked if he could address the Commission.  Mr. McFadden stated that Sheri Geisler stated this district is to be a “buffer.”  He stated that this property is on Andover Road and is our major arterial going through the City and there is nothing in back or before it to be acting as a buffer to.  Mr. McFadden stated that this Planning Commission took from the corner of Andover Road and 21st Street on the west side and went all the way north past the three properties that are now existing and put B-3 and B-2 zoning in.  Mr. McFadden wants to know how this would be a residential neighborhood as the entire frontage across the street from these homes is B-3 and B-2.  Mr. McFadden does not understand what this is acting as a buffer for and he would consider B-1 if the Planning Commission could explain what he was acting as a buffer for with nothing in back of it and B-3 in front of it.  Sheri Geisler stated that across the street was done as a PUD.  Mr. McFadden stated that across the street is 29 acres of B-3, a shopping center district, which may be within a PUD district but it is zoned B-3, which is what is at the Dillon’s center. 

 

He asked that someone explain what he is being a buffer for when he has B-3 in front of him and nothing but mini-storage facilities behind him.   He asked that the Commission explain how this is a residential neighborhood when almost 1000’ of frontage right across the street is B-3 and B-2 going from the south to the north.  He stated there are only three properties on the east side and doesn’t understand how this is a residential neighborhood. 

 

Mr. McEachern stated that across the street there are no residences there at all and as the PUD was planned, anybody who buys a house in this neighborhood will know where the businesses go.  Across the street, where we are talking about, it is not the same thing.  Mr. McEachern stated that if the land surrounding this was vacant he probably wouldn’t have a problem with the B-3 if there were no residents there. Mr. McEachern stated that in this case it is a residential neighborhood down to the college.  There is a residence to the south, to the north and to the north of that residence.  The only business there is only to the back of the property. Mr. McFadden thanked Mr. McEachern for defining residential. Mr. McEachern stated he makes a decision based on if he lived in the house and he is very sensitive to the fact when a business comes next to somebody that already owns that property, who is already there and established there, perhaps the greatest asset they have is in that house.  Mr. McFadden agrees with Mr. McEachern but reminded the Commission that mini- storage is behind his property and B-3 is a across the street from it and feels it is time for this property to be used as a commercial use.   Mr. Mangus stated that B-3 and B-2 is across the street.  Mr. Mangus stated that the B-1 does not have to act as a buffer it just says that it can.

 

The motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.

 

Vote for motion to rezone the property at 2300 N. Andover Road to B-1.  5-3 Nays being Quentin Coon, Charley Lewis and Joe Robertson.

 

Chairman Coon stated that the recommendation will go to the City Council on September 11, 2001.

 

Nealy Stotler, 2342 N. Andover Road stated that the Planning Commission alluded to a drainage problem coming from city property and he thinks that stands for litigation because nobody’s corrected that longstanding problem and a thorn in his side.

 

 

 

Z-2001-03  Public hearing on an application to amend the Green Valley Planned Unit Development Parcel 15 by changing a portion of the Parcel from B-4 Central Business District with various other permitted uses from the B-5 Highway Business District to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District with up to 16 dwelling units per acre.  Bob Kaplan represented the applicant Metro Engineering and stated this application seeks an amendment to the Green Valley Greens PUD by adding one use, which is R-4 Multi-Family Residential.  The applicant is changing parcel 15 to develop the north part of the existing parcel 15 to parcel 16 and change the zoning from B-4 to Multi-Family residential.  Mr. Kaplan brought Paul Fechner, Vice President of Metro Engineers, Paul McKinley, a Wichita based traffic engineer, Craig Hanson with Weigand-Omega, Eric Wolfe the architect with Metro Engineers, and Russ Ewy from Baughman and Company to answer any questions the Commission may have.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this is the right location if you are going to approve multi-family residential as there is commercial property to the south and single family to the north.  Mr. Kaplan stated this is a text book case for multi-family residential zoning.  He stated that the applicant is asking for a step down in zoning, with less intensive uses than already approved.  Mr. Kaplan stated this use will have less traffic, less strain on the infrastructure and also is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City.

 

Paul Fechner, Vice President of Metro Engineers, 732 N. 129th Street, Omaha, Nebraska described the apartment units.  He stated there are 168 units proposed, 16 dwelling units per acre.  60 units will be 855 square foot one bedroom apartments, 96 units will be 1150 square foot two bedroom, two bath apartments and 12 units will be 1260 square foot three bedroom apartments.  Mr. Fechner stated there would be 84 garages available.  Mr. Fechner stated that the upper floor apartments have vaulted ceiling and 2/3 of the units will have fireplaces.  Mr. Fechner stated the majority of the structure will be brick.  Mr. Fechner stated they have chosen Andover due to the great school district, proximity to Wichita, and the need for this type of property.  Mr. Fechner feels this property will be filled within 9-10 months of completion and will have an 8-9 month construction time.  Charley Lewis asked if there would be covered parking.  Mr. Fechner stated there was not but there would be two parking stalls per dwelling unit. 

 

Chairman Coon asked if the apartments would look like the picture they just presented.  Mr. Fechner stated they would.  John McEachern asked what the height of the building is.  Mr. Eric Wolfe, the architect, stated the units in Omaha are 27’ above grade, ceiling heights of the apartments are 8’ with some vaulted ceilings in the upper apartments.  Mr. McEachern asked what the top of center of the roofline is.  Mr. Wolfe stated it was 42’.  Mr. Wolfe stated that this is slab on grade, wood frame apartments with fire sprinklers and fire protection services.  There are also fireplaces and fully equipped kitchens, with washer and dryers.  Self contained separately metered and separate utilities.  Mr. Wolfe stated that all units have either a deck or balcony.  Mr. Wolfe stated that they would have pretty much all the amenities one would expect in a home.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that the photos presented tonight were from an actual project they are currently working on in Council Bluffs.

 

Charles Malcom asked if there were tornado shelters.  Mr. Wolfe stated that he is unfamiliar with our requirements but shelters can be put in central corridors, separate structures or even in a clubhouse basement and stated there are a variety of ways to deal with what is required by the City.

 

Gary Fugit, the broker for the transaction stated that this will be high quality and it will be well managed.  He feels this will help spur additional development of commercial on the south side of this land.  Mr. Fugit stated they have already had a contract come in for a small 40 unit motel, something Andover could use.  Mr. Fugit stated that there is another group interested in an auto plaza and a lot of this is contingent upon the apartments going in, when rooftops come in commercial business wants to further develop around it.  He feels it is a very nice plan and well buffered and thinks the residential developers and commercial land owners believe it will be good for the development of the homes to the north of it. 

 

Chairman Coon opened the public comment portion of the hearing at 10:44 p.m.

 

Brian Eidem of 419 Concord stated his property butts up to the proposed Parcel 16.  He stated that the homeowners in this area are taken aback.  He stated that the presenters have had a long time to get nice photographs and work through this and all they got was a little piece of paper saying a 18 dwellings per acre is getting put in and we have no idea what is going in and that makes it real hard to prepare against something like this.  Mr. Eidem thinks this is a little bit big.  Mr. Eidem stated that in Parcel 15 there are restrictions as to what can go in there and one of them is you can’t have something over 35’.  He stated there are different businesses that are in the B-4 but cannot come in even though it is B-4.  He asked if parcel 15 was going to be residential. 

 

Bob Kaplan stated that the original Parcel 15, the whole thing was commercial.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the south half will be commercial and the proposed parcel 16 is for the apartments.

 

Mr. Eidem stated that on the east side of 16 that butts up next to his property there was supposed to be a row of houses along there.  He stated that along next to his property 200’ past his property is supposed to be residential.  When he purchased his lot it was all residential, there wasn’t any commercial.  Part of the deal with putting in the commercial was bringing the residential on down so when he looked out his back yard he would see residential.  Mr. Edom stated that on the old maps and new maps it doesn’t show that and he feels that is a mis-representation.  Mr. Eidem stated he and some of the homeowners around the area would prefer that perhaps there are patio homes or town homes instead of the big monster buildings.   Mr. Eidem would like this put off to the next meeting so the presenters can sit down with the homeowners and hammer out some differences. 

 

Lynn Heath asked what was  35’.   Mr. Eidem stated “you can’t have a structure over 35’ ”.

 

Les Mangus stated that the original parcel #15 limited the height to 35’.  He stated it was negotiated down from the maximum allowed height in the B-4.  Mr. Mangus stated that to address Mr. Eidem’s concern that there were promises made that if parcel 15 was not developed residentially there would be a 200’ buffer along those lots in the Andover Village Addition. 

 

Charley Lewis wanted to confirm that old parcel 15 was changed to parcel 15 and 16 and the buffer strip was lost.  Mr. Mangus stated that the buffer was needed if the parcel was developed B-4 business and if it was not developed residentially there would be a 200’ buffer strip.  Mr. Mangus stated that new parcel 16 is approximately the north half of old parcel 15. 

 

There was general discussion as to what was done in the past regarding this property. 

 

Mr. Eidem is concerned with the layout of the proposed buildings and is concerned that the proposal was not shown to the nearby homeowners.  Les Mangus read the P.U.D. ordinance that Mr. Eidem referred to as follows:  “If the R-2 Single-Family Residential is not developed for residential purposes it will be retained as a buffer area which will require the installation of screening by way of trees, preferably evergreen, and a solid 6 foot screening wall.  If commercial construction occurs prior to the development of the Green Valley Greens residential areas, the developer will plant 6’ to 8’ evergreen trees along the property line between Andover Village Addition and Green Valley Greens.”  Mr. Mangus stated there was an option that a row of houses could extend down Nine Iron Street beyond the south line of Andover Village Addition adjacent to the east

 

and in lieu of dedicating that area as a buffer area to the commercial.  Mr. Eidem asked if there were specific businesses that were listed in that also.  Mr. Mangus stated that the ordinance lists all the permitted uses in the B-4.  Mr. Eidem also stated that the height is in the ordinance.  Mr. Eidem stated there were a number of things they tried to restrict down. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that the maximum structure height was reduced to 35’ and the maximum lot coverage increased to 50%.  

 

Mr. Eidem stated there was not much for him to see and all the homeowners know is there will be 18 dwellings per acre, the ones behind Dillons he was told are 14 per acre and that looks pretty heavy.

 

Carol Prucha, 338 Chippers Court, Lot #4 doesn’t really have an objection to the apartments coming in, however is concerned with buffer between her house and the apartments as they will be directly up against it and also the drainage.

 

Judy Welner, 340 S. Nine Iron, Lot 31 and is concerned with the traffic this will generate to the neighborhood and is also concerned with the height of the dwelling and would prefer a two level apartment complex as opposed to a three level.  Mrs. Welner agrees with Mr. Eidem that the homeowners in the area would like more information, as they feel taken back by the project.  She stated she is also concerned with the effect on home values.

 

Penny Hargrove, 334 S. Nine Iron, which is Lot 32.   She stated there is a drainage problem that the developer is trying to address.  When they moved into this area they were shown plans that all this property would be single-family dwellings and now a year later after being there they are being told it will be multiple family dwelling and they are concerned with the long range effect on the investment they have in their house.  Mrs. Hargrove feels that in 25 years her house value will go down due to the run down old apartments that will be near her home.

 

Lynn Heath asked Mrs. Hargrove if she was told that this was going to be R-2.  She stated she saw plans not more than a few months ago.  Lynn Heath asked who the plans were from.  Mrs. Hargrove stated that they saw the plans at the model home and it shows Nine Iron as a road that goes around and actually connects to Jamestown.  The plans show a cul-de-sac and single family homes. 

 

Charley Lewis asked if Mr. Kaplan or Mr. Fugit could address the issue of the model home still showing that property being residential.  Gary Fugit stated he will answer several questions at this time.  Mr. Fugit stated that if you look at the proposed plan you see on the far east there is a 90’ buffer in place.  Mr. Fugit stated he believes it is not required but it is in place.  A 90’ buffer with trees, berms and so forth to protect the homes on the east.  Mr. Fugit stated there was a question about water retention.  Mr. Fugit stated there is water retention designed on the west side of the property which will also buffer the existing homes.   Mr. Fugit stated that the existing homes will be buffered by green areas.  Mr. Fugit then put up a map showing the proposed site of the apartments.  It shows a buffer of garages along the north side of the proposed site.  Mr. Fugit stated that a lot of misunderstandings happen when people go into a sales office to look at a home and he thinks possibly the area on the plans is commercial and has been and believes the map shown in the sales office shows this as all commercial.  Mr. Fugit stated that in his opinion the R-4 use is a much better use for the property and much better for the long term values of the homes.  Mr. Fugit stated another issue is the number of units per acre.  He stated it is 16 units per acre not 18.  Mr. Fugit stated that Wichita goes up to 29 and 16 is not that dense and spread over 10 acres is really not a big deal. 

 

Chairman Coon asked how many buildings this project would be.  Mr. Fugit stated there would be six.   Mr. Fugit stated this will be a much better use of the land than B-4.  He asked someone to read the B-4 uses as he feels they are much more intense than what they are suggesting for a use.    Mr. Fugit stated that they want to cooperate with the neighbors and also stated that the owners of this property have a very large vested interest in developing, and having a good development as they are top developers.  Mr. Fugit stated there is a concern of financing timing on this project that comes into play on this project as in all projects and this one has some concerns and it is not an intention to spring anything on anyone but the normal process gives notices and this is the normal process we are in.  John McEachern read the businesses that this property is currently zoned for now.  Automobile accessory stores, automobile sales new and used, repair services include auto body repair, painting except no independent auto body repair, automobile service stations, car washes, commercial recreation centers such as bowling alleys and roller rinks,  garden stores, greenhouses, gifts, souvenir shops, motels, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, recreation vehicle sales and service.  Limited to the south 370’ by the highway, package liquor store, private club, restaurant, drive-in restaurant in the south 370’ self service laundry dry cleaning establishment, sporting goods stores, theater, indoor.  Mr. Mangus stated that all the uses in the B-4 are also allowed.  Mr. McEachern stated that these are the uses that were allowed from the B-5 plus all the businesses allowed in the B-4. 

 

Eric Wolfe of Metro Engineers wanted to clarify the height issue.  Mr. Wolfe stated the definition that would normally be used for height on a building that has a sloping roof would be the mean height between the eave and the peak, not the absolute peak height.  Mr. Wolfe stated that under most zoning ordinances and the Uniform Building Code, he is pretty sure that is what the local ordinance says.  Mr. Mangus stated that according to the zoning regulations a horizontal plane above and parallel to the average finished grade of the entire zoning lot the height shown in the district regulations.  No part of any structure shall project through such plane except chimneys, flag poles, steeples, etc.  Charley Lewis stated that 35’ is our maximum here.  Mr. Mangus stated that 35’ is correct.  Mr. Wolfe stated to comply with that would require a lower pitch on the roof; it would take a lower peak of the roof than what the buildings are currently designed for. 

 

Guy S. Boyson, 340 S. Nine Iron Drive.  Mr. Boyson stated that he has also seen plans that show Nine Iron Drive will go all the way through and connect to Jamestown.  Mr. Boyson stated that there is a model of all the homes in the proposed area where Nine Iron Drive would go through lot 16.  Mr. Boyson stated he is opposed to the apartments.

 

There was then general discussion about the different plans that were being looked at in the meeting and at the model home.

 

Mr. Fugit stated that this is a zoning issue; the issue with the plans is with the people at the model home, not the city.

 

Colin Rose, 409 Concord, stated that there are nice pictures and layouts and doesn’t feel the homeowners have been given enough time.  He heard someone say they have money tied up in this decision but they do not have the investment the people in this room have.  They do not have their own property tied up.  Mr. Rose stated we are all willing to work on that but stated there will be no justice in settling this tonight.  Mr. Rose feels that there are many issues to be settled and does not feel that a decision should be made tonight as there is not enough information to make a decision.  He asked that the Planning Commission continue the discussion at the next meeting.

 

Chris Brimminger just signed a contract for 329 S. Nine Iron, Lot 23 and is about one month from closing on his new home.  He stated they looked at the neighborhoods, the school district and decided this was the place they wanted to live.  He is concerned that this has happened very, very quickly.  He stated he was told there would be a buffer between their houses and the highway.  One of his biggest concerns is that now he will have an apartment complex within one or two houses from him and wonders what this will do to the property value.  He is also concerned with the fact that he will be looking out his back yard at an apartment complex and was looking forward to a relatively decent view.  He feels there may be some type of compromise reached if the parties get together.  He also commented there was not enough time to make a proper decision.

 

Mr. Bob Kaplan stated that his group never anticipated that people would prefer to live next door to a service station or RV sales lot or a heavy commercial use as opposed to an apartment.   Mr. Kaplan stated that this did not cross their mind that anyone would prefer heavy commercial to residential as a neighbor and are a little bit taken back by that.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he would let Mr. Fechner address the deferral of this project.  Mr. Kaplan stated that it is not that easy to have a meeting with the neighborhood, the logistics alone are difficult.  Mr. Kaplan stated that they would be willing to have meetings and listen to the neighborhood concerns.  Mr. Kaplan stated this needs to move forward.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this needs to be done on the basis of the record.  He stated that Mr. Mangus read the ordinance and stated that they are in compliance with that.  He stated the ordinance stated the buffer was to be there if the property was not residential and this is residential and so they are in compliance with the ordinance, in compliance with the record and in compliance with the past history of this.  He was concerned with the misinformation or old information that people were receiving but stated this happens all the time when people do not do research.  Mr. Kaplan stated that they had no idea that people would object to a down zoning.

 

Judy Welner, 340 S. Nine Iron, stated that they were under the impression that it was not commercial next to them so they don’t look at this as a down zoning and perhaps if they had known it was commercial it would look different.  Mrs. Welner stated the height of the building is an issue also.

 

Mr. Eidem stated that when he got his zoning notice he had to come up here and then after he sat down “they” gave him “this” and stated that this little blue print should have been handed out when they got the zoning notice on this.   He also stated that Mr. Kaplan is not in compliance with the zoning with the multi-family.  He stated they know something is going in there, no one came around, the City didn’t provide anything, he checked with Mr. Mangus a couple of weeks ago and he said some company out of Omaha, Metro something and he couldn’t give him any more information at all.  Mr. Eidem thinks something should have been handed out, something should have been made available and he would like the Planning Commission to table this discussion and let the homeowners talk with these people in the next few weeks, come back in a month and when everybody has the full information the Commission can make a fair and honest decision on this that will be suitable to everybody.

 

Quentin Coon closed the public hearing at 11:29 p.m.

 

Joe Robertson suggested that the meeting be suspended to the September meeting to allow the developers and the community to communicate a bit more.  He stated that we cannot do anything about what people are told by realtors, which is completely out of the hands of the Planning Commission, but he feels there is an issue as far as building height that needs to be resolved.  He stated we have not heard from the applicant whether or not they can figure out a way to shave 7’ off the roof.  Mr. Robertson stated he doesn’t even have the map of the property in his materials, showing the proposed building.

 

Mr. McEachern agrees that the public hearing should be suspended so that any information that is gained can be entered into the record in helping the decision making.  Mr. McEachern stated this would give an opportunity for the developer and neighbors to have further dialogue.

 

There was general discussion as to when the developers and neighbors could get together.  Mr. Kaplan stated they are willing to meet with the neighborhood.  Mr. Kaplan is concerned about the time table and asked the Planning Commission if they would consider a special meeting.

 

Quentin Coon asked Les Mangus how to handle this situation.  Mr. Mangus stated that this could be continued to the next regular meeting, take action tonight, continue indefinitely, to the recessed meeting on Monday or a special meeting could be set. 

 

There was general discussion about drainage and other issues brought forth in the subdivision meeting.  Mr. Mangus also commented about the plans submitted this evening and Mr. Eidem was correct that we those plans were not available to present to anyone.

 

Sheri Geisler wanted to reflect in the minutes that we want to remember to recommend putting a wall between the residences and the apartment.  Mr. McEachern commented that we want to make sure there is a buffer or screening.  Mr. Mangus stated that this wall can be a part of this with conditions in the motion.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to continue Z-2001-03 public hearing to amend Green Valley Planned Unit Development to the September 6, 2001 at 7:00 p.m

 

Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.

 

There was general conversation regarding the time for the meeting.

 

Joe Robertson withdrew his motion and made a motion to continue case Z-2001-03 public hearing to amend Green Valley Planned Unit Development to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Z-2001-03: Public hearing on an application to amend the Green Valley Planned Unit Development Parcel 15 by changing a portion of the Parcel from B-4 Central Business District with various other permitted uses from the B-5 Highway Business District to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District with up to 16 dwelling units per acre. 

 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess this meeting of the Planning Commission to Monday, August 27, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:45 p.m.