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

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.

 

 

 

Review the Reflection Lake at Cloud City Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan.  Randy Johnson of Savoy, Ruggles & Bohm presented information on behalf of the applicant, A & O Investments.  Mr. Johnson stated that there is not a lot to review as most points have been covered during the last item on the agenda. Mr. Johnson stated that there are several items he wants to comment on regarding Reflection Lake.  He stated that the infrastructure is all in place for Reflection Lake. Mr. Johnson stated that this development is about two years old; it has been sitting without much activity.  Mr. Johnson stated that the new developers are coming in and are very excited about this development.  Mr. Johnson stated that this amendment is to change the lots sizes to smaller sizes to accommodate the market.  Mr. Johnson stated that the reserves have not changed and the streets are already in place.  Mr. Johnson stated that there were 74 lots in the original First Phase Final PUD, now there are 82 lots. 

 

Richard Brown asked how the specials were figured on the lots.  Mr. Bridges stated that the lots are all equally assessed by lot size. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that the comments on the checklist will be satisfied by the time this will go to the City Council for approval.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend approval of the Reflection Lake at Cloud City Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan with the following items being cured prior to going before the City Council:

 

C3.      Show the revised 100 year flood plain boundary.

C9.      Number Block 1, Lot 1-23 on Westview.

C11.    Dimension Westview and Sunset R/W width.

C15.    Indicate minimum low opening elevations on all lots adjacent to the flood plain in Reserves E & F.

D1.      Provide plat binder policy.

 

Dedication is misspelled in the Governing Body Certificate.

Revise the title:  “An amendment to a portion of the First Phase of the Cloud City Subdivision.”

 

Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Review the Reflection Lake at Cloud City Amended Final Planned Unit Development Plan. 

 

 

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

 

The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

 

Recess

Review the Final Plat of the Course at Green Valley Greens 9th Addition.  Kenny Hill, civil engineer, with Poe and Associates represented the applicant.  Mr. Hill stated this is a 63 lot single family residential subdivision, which fills in those pieces that had already been approved in Green Valley Greens 8, 9, and 10 in preliminary form.  Mr. Hill stated that the name of Douglas Avenue will be changed to Onewood Drive.  Les Mangus stated that KG&E asked for additional easements and forwarded the request to Poe and Associates. 

 

John McEachern asked where the land for the park was in this plat.  Mr. Hill stated that in the Green Valley PUD the developers gave the land to the City for the golf course and that provided the open space for the addition.

 

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. 

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Anna Addition.  James McFadden of 10361 SW 54 Highway, Augusta from McFadden Development presented information on the plat.  Mr. McFadden stated that on August 14, 2001 the Subdivision Committee approved the plat.  He stated that this is a housekeeping matter that should have been taken care of in 1995 and was not so they have agreed to bring a final plat before the Commission.

 

Mr. Mangus stated that this is a cleanup of two lot splits from the last 50 years and a cleanup of an old zoning case and stated that this plat is to bring this property into compliance with the Zoning Regulations.  Les Mangus stated that all the comments on the checklist have been satisfied and KGE asked for no additional easements.

 

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. 

 

 

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.  The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m.  Les Mangus stated this is due to a revision of the Flood Plain maps by the Federal Emergency Management agency.  Mr. Mangus stated that the new map was produced and to stay in compliance with the Federal Flood Insurance Program we must adopt this map.  Mr. Mangus stated that as we adopt this map we also adopt the latest version of the flood plain district standards that are set by state standards.  Mr. Mangus stated when these are recommended for approval he will send these changes to the regulations to the State for their approval and then this will go before the Governing Body.   Mr. Mangus stated that it seem there is a lot in front of you but very little has changed in the 26 pages.  Mr. Mangus stated this map will be adopted with the Ordinance that adopts the change to the district and FEMA has assured us that within the next year they will initiate another change to the map to address those concerns that we raised to them and asked they address over a year ago that were not included in this map revision.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

The pubic hearing was closed at 9:21 p.m.  There was general discussion regarding the changes, which include the required cap on the maximum size of storage units.  There was general discussion regarding the flood plain where Cottonwood Point is located.  Les Mangus stated that a 100 year flood plain is a 1% chance of flood in any given year; the name 100 year flood is just a name.

 

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. 

 

 

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.  The public hearing opened at 9:24 p.m.  Ben Lawrence from the City Council presented information on the change.  He gave a brief case history and stated that a few months ago some members of the City Council desired a little more input regarding the membership or input to the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Lawrence stated that the idea is not to weaken or abolish the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Lawrence stated that the Ordinance that was drafted did not exactly do what the Council desired and that the Council would like to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend disapproval of the proposed Ordinance.  Mr. Lawrence stated that the Council is still discussing the process and will want to change the proposed Ordinance.  Mr. Mangus stated that this proposed Ordinance is a reflection of discussion at the City Council level.  Mr. Mangus stated that what you see tonight reflects a motion that was made by Gary Fugit, but since that time there has been a lot of discussion including the continuity of Site Plan members.  Chairman Coon asked about the survey regarding the Site Plan Review Committee process and what happened with it.  Mr. Lawrence stated that the majority of the data was favorable to the Site Plan Review Committee. 

 

There was general discussion about the Site Plan Review Committee and their function, the perception of the Committee by the community and the role of the Site Plan Review Committee in the future.  Mr. Lawrence stated that it is the consensus of the Council that some changes of some sort do need to happen, not abolish the Committee, and nothing that would weaken the power structure.  The Council just wants to fine tune the process.

 

Charley Lewis stated that the Planning Commission has received several letters that basically all state if it isn’t broke don’t fix it and she agrees with this.

 

Carol Roberts of 505 Allison, Andover, stated that she appreciates the Site Plan Review Committee and the work they do.  She stated that she appreciates all the businesses that comply with the Site Plan Review Committee.  She stated she feels the city looks nicer with the Site Plan Review Committee and does not feel the Site Plan Review Committee needs to be changed.

 

Dennis Bush, the Mayor, of 726 S. 159th Street stated that he sent a letter to the editor which was in favor of the Site Plan Review Committee and what the Committee tries to accomplish.  Mr. Bush stated that his concern is the integrity of the Committee and stated it is very importation that this committee be supported by the City Council, Planning Commission and the City at large.  Mr. Bush stated that the Council feels that they have not had enough input into the appointment process and he suggested a compromise that the Council members have the opportunity, with a super majority of the City Council to be able to remove a Site Plan Review Committee member, if it is necessary, if there is that kind of support at the Council level to remove somebody.  Mr. Bush is not sure he is willing or feels that he wants to put this Committee into any potential jeopardy as far as the political process.  Mr. Bush feels this may give the Council members input they desire.  Mr. Bush stated that the one year term limit is a bad idea and feels that we should continue on the way it is.  Mr. Bush would like to make sure that an applicant, usually a professional, can submit the Site Plan to people who are qualified to understand the application.  Mr. Bush would like the members of the Site Plan to have the same level of competency as the applicant.

 

Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 9:46 p.m.

 

There was general discussion regarding the Site Plan Review Committee and past history and future for the Committee.  Sheri Geisler received information from Aaron Huslig, who favors term limits for the Committee members.

 

Joe Robertson made a motion that based on the public hearing and information from Ben Lawrence that the City Council no longer support the direction that they were going with the current wording of the Ordinance, he recommended that this Ordinance be disapproved.  John McEachern seconded the motion. 

 

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. 

 

 

There was then a motion by Sheri Geisler to strongly recommend to the City Council that they maintain the Site Plan Review Committee in its current form. Ron Roberts 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.  Les Mangus stated that this amendment is because Wichita Area Builders Association brought it to the attention of the City Council that the current zoning regulations precluded residential temporary signs including banners for the Wichita Area Builders Association Parade of Homes signs.  Mr. Mangus stated that WABA is asking that these signs, maximum gross surface area is to be no larger than 21 square feet, be a temporary use for 30 days 4 times a year.

 

The public hearing opened at 10:06 p.m. and closed at 10:07 p.m.  No one from the public spoke to the issue. 

 

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. 

 

 

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.  Les Mangus stated that there is a gray area in the definition of application to amend a planned unit development.  Mr. Mangus stated that he has drafted a revision to that portion of the notification section that puts some standards on how far that notification would reach.  Mr. Mangus stated that he based those standards on the Wichita procedures for amending their CUP (Community Unit Plan) or PUD and found that their regulations require that all those within a PUD are notified when there is an occasion to amend the PUD or CUP.  Mr. Mangus stated that after talking with Bob Kaplan and Kenny Hill that may be what the regulations read but that is not what they do.  Mr. Mangus stated they only notify that parcel of the PUD that is being amended; they don’t notify the entire constituency of the PUD.  Les Mangus stated that the proposal before you is an amendment.

 

Bob Kaplan stated this is a difficult subject.  He stated he likes the Wichita plan except the notification on the original CUP and the notification on an amendment to a CUP.  The original CUP notifications depend on acreage within the CUP.  He stated that the purpose of notification is notification, people who have a substantial interest in the matter at hand need to be notified so they can be present and be heard on the issue.  He feels notice should be to people within a reasonable area in the CUP.  Mr. Kaplan suggested that the greater the size of the application area the greater the size of the required notice.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the problem is really with an amendment.  Mr. Kaplan thinks the legal issue with the amendment that bothers him is he does not like having to notify everybody within the CUP; he would prefer to notify only from the parameters of that parcel being amended. 

 

The public hearing was closed at 10:31 p.m.

 

Les Mangus stated that our PUD regulations are a reflection of a state statute that, prior to 1993 were 15 pages long, and in 1993 were changed to one page.

 

The public hearing was opened by Chairman Coon at 10:19 p.m. 

 

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. 

 

 

Motion to adjourn.  Motion was made by Charles Malcom for adjournment.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0. 

 

Meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.

Adjourn