|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August
27, 2001
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met to continue a
recessed meeting from August 21, 2001. on August 27, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. 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; and Pam Johnson, Administrative
Assistant.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin
Coon at 7:33 p.m.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
|
|
Z-97-05 Public hearing on
an application to amend the Cloud City Planned Unit Development Parcel 5 to
increase density in the portion Final Platted as the First Phase, and
changing the remainder of Parcel 5 to Parcel 6 with a change in zoning
district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential to R-3 Multiple
Family Residential District. Randy Johnson with Savoy, Ruggles &
Bohm represented the applicant. He stated that this is a revision of
existing P.U.D. Mr. Johnson stated that before they started the project,
this whole parcel that now consists of Parcels 5, 6 and 7 was Parcel 5. Mr.
Johnson stated that the changes are basically taking the west ½ of Parcel 5
and reduce the lot sizes to gain a few more lots; and also taking the east ½
of the Parcel 5, the eastern portion from the reserve line to the property
line, which was described as Parcel 6 but is now Parcel 6 and 7, and changing
to Single-Family Residential at a later phase and also R-3 Multiple-Family
Residential with the intention of never developing anything greater than
duplex units. He stated that at the subdivision meeting a couple of weeks
ago there was great conversation regarding what to do with this property and
there was a compromise as to the use of the property therefore creating the
new parcel 6. Mr. Johnson stated that they feel duplexes would be a great
buffer zone between the heavy commercial B-4 zoning to the north and the
single family proposed on the south part of the eastern half. This change
basically leaves all the R-3 zoning adjacent to or abutting the north
property line of the residential and the southern property line of the
existing B-4 so that a buffer is created. Lynn Heath stated that in Parcel 5
they are making smaller lots. Quentin Coon thought the lots in Parcel 6
looked too small for duplexes. Mr. Johnson stated they are a minimum of
10,000 square feet. Mr. Mangus stated this meets the Zoning Regulations and
the Subdivision Regulations. Quentin Coon asked how much the frontage of the
lot was. Mr. Johnson stated it would be approximately 83’ frontage. Les
Mangus stated the Zoning Regulations would allow the size to go to 75’
minimum on a 2 family lot. Joe Robertson asked if all 22 lots in Parcel 6
would be duplexes. Mr. Johnson stated that everything within from the
centerline of the street to the north, all of parcel 6 will be duplexes.
Jeff Bridges arrived at 7:43
p.m.
Randy Johnson stated there is
no change to any street alignment. Minneha Avenue will not be changed. The
street alignment on Parcel 5 was not changed and the reserves were not
modified. Sheri Geisler asked about the houses already there. Randy Johnson
stated that these are builder spec homes and the builders currently own these
homes.
John McEachern is concerned
with having a nice recreation area and remembered that the Planning
Commission required the commercial area to have at least two picnic tables
also. Mr. Johnson stated he will check with the partners and see what can be
done. There was general conversation regarding benches and picnic tables.
There was then conversation regarding sidewalks. Chairman Coon stated that
the general thinking about the sidewalks was to provide a flow path for the
residential people to get into the commercial area without having to go out
on the main thoroughfare. Mr. McEachern stated that the developers on the
commercial side, to the north, are putting in benches near the sidewalk that
is required for the commercial side.
Chairman Coon opened the
public hearing at 7:35 p.m
Richard Brown of 815 Highland Drive, Andover, spoke to the Commission. Mr. Brown stated he has the first
house that was built in the First Phase. Mr. Brown stated he has no problem
with this change in zoning if this R-3 zoning is going to be limited to
duplexes.
Bill Otten, 6444 Bedford, Wichita, was representing A & O Investments. He stated they own 26 lots and
are not opposed to the zoning change. Mr. Otten stated he feels this is a
good buffer between the R-2 and the commercially zoned property.
There were no further comments from the public.
Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m.
|
Z-97-05 Public hearing on
an application to amend the Cloud City Planned Unit Development Parcel 5
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 9
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-1997-05
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
A & O Investments, 4A Investments,
Randy Johnson, Savoy Ruggles & Bohm agent.
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Amend Cloud City Parcel 5 to increase density and
create Parcel 6 with R-3 Multiple-Family Residential zone.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
That portion of Parcel 5 already contained in the
First Phase Final PUD would remain single-family but have more lots. At
Subdivision Committee the applicant revised the request to lessen the area
for R-3 Multiple-Family Residential.
|
|
LOCATION:
|
East of Andover Road between U.S. 54/400 and Stanton Road
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
+/- 88.4 acres.
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Single and multiple-family development.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
Cloud City
PUD Commercial Properties, B-2, 3, 4 - undeveloped
|
|
South:
|
R-1
Lakeview Heights Subdivision and Butler County Agriculture
|
|
East:
|
Butler County
Agriculture
|
|
West:
|
R-1
Single-family across Andover Road, B-2 Cloud City Parcel 4 – undeveloped.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
New development partnership wishes to increase
density to create more lots to lessen the amount of special benefit district
assessments levied to each lot.
|
|
|
|
* 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: Cloud City PUD Commercial Properties, B-2, 3, 4 – undeveloped, South: R-1 Lakeview
Heights Subdivision and Butler County Agriculture. East: Butler County Agriculture. West: R-1 Single-family across Andover Road, B-2 Cloud City Parcel
4 – undeveloped.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: Cloud City PUD Commercial Properties, B-2, 3, 4 – undeveloped, South: R-1 Lakeview
Heights Subdivision and Butler County Agriculture. East: Butler County Agriculture. West: R-1 Single-family across Andover Road, B-2 Cloud City Parcel
4 – undeveloped.
|
|
|
|
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: Cloud City PUD Commercial Properties, B-2, 3, 4 – undeveloped, South: R-1 Lakeview
Heights Subdivision and Butler County Agriculture. East: Butler County Agriculture. West: R-1 Single-family across Andover Road, B-2 Cloud City Parcel
4 – undeveloped.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: Cloud City PUD Commercial Properties, B-2, 3, 4 – undeveloped, South: R-1 Lakeview
Heights Subdivision and Butler County Agriculture. East: Butler County Agriculture. West: R-1 Single-family across Andover Road, B-2 Cloud City Parcel
4 – undeveloped.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes,
special assessments are unusually high per lot.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes,
special assessments are unusually high per lot.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The
housing market demands are for more affordable homes
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
The
housing market demands are for more affordable homes
|
|
|
|
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:
|
All
public facilities are in place or can be provided as needed.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
All
public facilities are in place or can be provided as needed.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Replat
the First Phase and plat the remaining parcels as needed.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Replat
the First Phase and plat the remaining parcels as needed.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Multiple
Family buffer between Single-Family Residential areas and Cloud City
Commercial use.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Multiple
Family buffer between Single-Family Residential areas and Cloud City
Commercial use.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Multiple-Family
Residential development near existing Single-family homes. Increased traffic
on Andover Road.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
The two builders already in the area are in support of
the change.
|
|
|
|
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 of increased
density in Parcel 5 and Multiple-Family north of Minneha Avenue only.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Presentation
by applicant
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was discussion as to
placement of tables and benches. There was also general discussion about
timing of installation of sidewalks, benches and tables.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-1997-05, be modified
and approved to allow a change in zoning from the R-2 Single-Family
Residential District to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District and only
allowing two family dwellings in Parcel 6 and increase the density allowed in
Parcel 5, at Cloud City Planned Unit Development, based on the findings of
the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which
include item #5, the housing market is changing and the market is demanding
more affordable housing, item #12, Changing to R-3 Multiple-Family, duplexes only,
will be more compatible with having multiple family between business and R-2
zoning, item #13, having a buffer falls into line with the Zoning
regulations, item #14, this meets and enhances the Comprehensive Plan, item
#15, everyone that presented information today was in favor of the change.
The conditions are as
follows:
1.
Developers will provide 3 Benches and 3 tables in the reserve
area and is not restricted to any particular area, when Parcel 6 and 7 are
developed and when the commercial to the north is developed.
2.
Developer will work with the Developer of the commercial
property to the north to connect the 8’ sidewalk to Reserve E when 51% of all
the residential dwelling units are developed.
3.
The benches, tables and sidewalks will be done prior to the
turning over of the upkeep to the Homeowners Association.
John McEachern seconded the motion. The motion
passed 8-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lynn Heath
seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Review the Reflection Lake at Cloud City Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recess
|
|
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval
of the Final Plat of the Course at Green Valley Greens 9th
Addition with the name of Douglas Avenue being changed to Onewood Drive at
Onewood Court and additional easements as requested by KGE. John McEachern
seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Course at Green Valley Greens 9th Addition.
|
|
|
|
|
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval
of the Final Plat of the Anna Addition to the governing body. John McEachern
seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Anna Addition.
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Malcom made a motion to recommend approval
of the Flood Plain District adopting the Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map and
general standards required by FEMA. Sheri Geisler seconded the motion. The
motion carried 8-0.
|
ZA-2001-03 Public hearing
on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Section 4-117 Flood Plain District
adopting the Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map and general standards required
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
|
|
|
|
|
There was general discussion. The motion carried
8-0.
|
ZA-2001-04: Public hearing
on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Section 3-105B Site Plan Approval,
changing the method for appointing members of the Site Plan Review
Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
Motion carried 8-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval
of the zoning amendment to the Sign Regulations. Charles Malcom seconded the
motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
ZA-2001-05: Public Hearing
on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Section 7-104 Signs – District
Regulations to allow temporary signs not to exceed 21 square feet in the
residential districts.
|
|
|
|
|
After general discussion in which the Commission decided
that we need to define the notification area to the area of the amendment, a
motion was made by Sheri Geisler to continue this item until the next meeting
of the Planning Commission, with the City Attorney and the City Planner
looking over the ordinance. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion
carried 8-0.
|
ZA-2001-06: Public hearing
on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations Section 4-116 Planned Unit
Development District, establishing a method of notification for amendments to
planned unit developments.
|
|
|
|
|
Member items.
Joe Robertson asked where the City was in the process of getting lapel mikes.
Jeff Bridges stated that he has contacted a consultant and they will have a
bid for us in the next few days. This bid will be for 18 microphones with 8’
cords.
|
Member items.
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
|
Adjourn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|