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. Chairman Coon reopened the continued hearing from the August 21,
2001 meeting at 7:10 p.m. Bob Kaplan represented the applicant Metro
Engineering of Omaha, Nebraska. Mr. Kaplan stated that the applicant is
requesting a change in Parcel 15 to change the zoning to R-4 Multi-Family
Residential, which they feel is a less intensive use than the current B-4
zoning. Mr. Kaplan stated that some of the people in attendance at the last
meeting indicated they had been told that Parcel 15 was zoned single-family
residential all the way to Kellogg, which is not and was not zoned for
single-family residential. Mr. Kaplan stated that at the last Planning
Commission meeting some neighbors to the property indicated a desire to meet
with Metro Engineering, which they did. Mr. Kaplan stated the meeting took
place at National Bank of Andover. Mr. Kaplan stated that the names of the
attendees are on the covenant. Mr. Kaplan stated that he thought that at
that meeting a resolution was made on the issues, which he put into a
covenant. Mr. Kaplan stated that he is concerned with the large group at the
meeting to address the issue he thought was resolved. He stated he did not
know until 3:30 the afternoon of this meeting that people were not in
agreement with the document. Mr. Kaplan stated that the applicant is
removing the B-4 and allowed B-5 uses and wants to build quality apartments
in the parcel.
Chairman Coon asked the
Planning Commission members if they all received a copy of the covenant Mr.
Kaplan referred to, and a letter from Sheila Martin and Connie Farbach. All
the members did receive the items. Chairman Coon asked if any members had ex
parte communications. John McEachern stated he talked with both Leslie Eidem
and Brian Eidem together and separately.
Chairman Coon opened the floor for public comments
Leslie Eidem, 419 Concord, stated she was not at the
previous meeting. She stated that in February of 1995 the owners of Green Valley asked to amend the zoning from R-2 to B-4. A portion of Parcel 15 was to be
a buffer between her property and the B-4 zoned property. She stated that
there was no request for R-4 zoning. Mrs. Eidem stated that the proposed
change has 16.2 dwelling units per acre and does not feel that is correct.
Mrs. Eidem stated that the open space of a P.U.D. is not to be used when
figuring the number of dwellings. Mrs. Eidem read parts of the Zoning
Regulations regarding excess in dwelling units and that the developer has the
burden to show that such excess will not have an undue and adverse impact on
existing public facilities from page 4-42 Section 2(a) and page 4-43 Section
2(b). Mrs. Eidem believes there should be no more than 13.3 or 14.7 dwelling
units per acre, which is 53% more coverage than the R-4 zoning allows.
Carrie McBride, 420 Concord stated that in the 17 findings reviewed by the Planning Commission one of the
findings references the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McBride stated that on page
6-12 the 1996 Comprehensive Plan states that multiple-family housing is at
the lowest priority for all potential City improvements. Ms. McBride then
comments that the Comprehensive Plan, page 6-13, that “the City may take the
position that they have their fair share of such housing in the region and
county for their size city and be very selective in any future proposals.
One area that could be considered is the undeveloped northwest corner of 21st St. N. and Andover Road near the off-campus college facilities.” Ms.
McBride stated that page 8-9 of the Comprehensive Plan states “Existing
multiple-family housing including duplexes, is recognized on Figure8-E. Some
guiding policies for their future location area” in carefully selected areas
with screening and site plan review is required for all multiple-family
developments. Ms. McBride stated that this land use is not part of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan states that there is more
suitable land for this type of use.
Judy Welner, 340 S. Nine Iron
had several points.
Green Valley is a P.U.D., which is not to have significant changes.
Ms. Welner stated that homeowners make decisions on the P.U.D. and no R-4 was
in this P.U.D.
There is a zoning error having B-4 zoning next to R-2 residential and
changing this zoning to R-4 will not correct the error.
Traffic; with 168 units will increase traffic by at least 300 cars per
day through the neighborhoods. She stated there are playgrounds in the areas
where the proposed traffic will flow.
She stated they met with the
developer and there was no commitment to a resolution, however they did
request certain items. They are encouraged by the cooperation of the
Ms. Welner stated that there
are two main issues, one being the 42’ height of the building and the wooden
fence on the north side of the property. They would also like a fence on the
east side, which is not in the covenant proposal and she thought it was to
be. Mrs. Welner stated she is concerned that if they won’t follow through on
the fence what else the developer won’t follow through on.
Jim McBride of 420 Concord stated that the previous presenters have done a good job. He stated he has 4
children between the ages of 4 and 14 and they will get on a bus on the
corner that will be deluged with traffic if this is allowed. Mr. McBride
stated there will be no other way to get to Dillon’s. Mr. McBride stated he will
have to build a high dollar fence to keep people from taking his things and
to protect his children from whatever. Mr. McBride stated that 300 kids from
there will ruin the yards in the neighborhood. Mr. McBride stated the
rezoning is not a good idea.
Colin Rose of 409 Concord has several concerns. His first concern is that he had kids and is concerned with
the additional traffic that would result. Mr. Rose stated that his son is at
Andover Central High School with a class of over 30 children and an apartment
would increase the number of children in that school. Mr. Rose does not feel
this is a good use of the land. He stated he does not feel this is required
for this area and that there is nothing like this north of Central and that
is where it should be. Mr. Rose stated he feels that all the apartments and
mobile homes are crammed on the south side of Central and that is not right.
Mr. Rose stated that the lot is too small for that many apartments. Mr. Rose
stated that the community would be better served if the apartments are built
at 21st and Andover Road. Mr. Rose stated that our kids will
suffer if the apartments are built here.
Charlene White of 912 Putter Circle addressed the Commission. Mrs. White stated she just moved into this
house. Mrs. White stated she doesn’t like the idea of adding that many more
people to the neighborhood. Mrs. White stated that there are too many
children from other neighborhoods coming into the neighborhood already to use
their pool. Mrs. White is concerned with the safety of the children in the
neighborhood. Mrs. White is concerned that the property values will be
Joyce Endicott of 239 S. Onewood Drive is moving into the home next week and was not aware of the requested
zoning change. Mrs. Endicott stated that the realtor did not let them know
there was a pending zoning case. Mrs. Endicott likes the small amount of
traffic in the area now and doesn’t want an entrance/exit on Onewood Drive or Kellogg. She stated it would be too much traffic and it already takes 5
minutes to turn right and go into Wichita at 7:30 a.m.
Gene Miller of 420 Jamestown stated he has talked to quite a number of people in the Green Valley Greens 8th
Addition that stated they bought their property on the basis that there was
no multi-family property in the area and he stated that the realtors based
that information on the approved P.U.D. Mr. Miller stated this is not
acceptable planning to change the zoning now. Mr. Miller stated there will
be too much traffic on Nine Iron and it is not an arterial street. Mr.
Miller is concerned with the lives of small children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Miller stated that the intersection of Nine Iron and Jamestown will be
subject to additional noise and people with undesirable activity. Mr. Miller
asked that if the Planning Commission and the City Council approve this
please require a collector street to another area.
Tammy Harris of 326 S. Nine Iron Drive stated she has a daycare in her home. Mrs. Harris is excited to see
the single-family growth but alarmed that it could be R-4 zoning. Mrs.
Harris stated she is concerned with traffic and crime. Mrs. Harris has
requested crime information from the Police Department but has not received
it yet. Mrs. Harris believes it will increase the crime in the neighborhood
and asked that the Planning Commission deny the request.
Jay Russell, one of the
developers of Green Valley stated that Metro Engineering is the contract
buyer. Mr. Russell stated that before they bought Green Valley there was multi-family already in the P.U.D. Mr. Russell stated that his group
eliminated a lot of multi-family and went for single-family residential
zoning. Mr. Russell stated it is difficult to sell single-family residential
backed up to Kellogg. Mr. Russell stated that in 1995 they requested a
change in the zoning. Mr. Russell stated that they met with the Eidem’s at
that time and agreed to a buffer with residential to “protect them.” Mr.
Russell knew there would have to be traffic in order to get from the
residential area to the commercial area. Mr. Russell stated that Onewood Drive was done at the request of the City of Andover. Mr. Russell stated that the
development from 1995 to 1998 was concerned with the 5th and 6th
Addition of Green Valley. Mr. Russell stated the street was designed to get
the traffic right on to Kellogg. Mr. Russell stated that as everyone knows
the Warren Theater contract didn’t pan out. He stated he has heard a lot of
discussion about traffic. Mr. Russell stated that there is less crime, noise
and late night traffic in an R-4 zoning than would be if a theater was in
that location. Mr. Russell stated zoning this as R-4 would be a better
buffer between the single-family residential and the business district. Mr.
Russell stated that Onewood Drive was recommended by the City and now people
are treating it as a liability.
Mr. Russell stated that the
developers just want to soften the uses allowed today. As far as information
from the realtor, Mr. Russell stated that it is difficult as a developer to
talk to the homeowner directly. He stated that the developer usually sells
the lot to the contractor and the contractor hires a realtor, who deals with
the potential homeowners. He stated that they filed a notice to the title company
in September, 2000, called a Developer Disclosure Statement. Mr. Russell
stated that this deals with land use in the vicinity of the subdivision and
this statement has to be signed by the homeowner at the time of closing. Mr.
Russell stated that the title company does this. Mr. Russell stated that
this is a protection by the Developer for the landowner.
Charley Lewis asked why the
realtors were not telling about the parcel that is zoned for business. Mr.
Russell stated he cannot control what the realtors say but the homeowners
must sign this statement before the house can be closed on.
Charley Lewis stated that the
purchaser can get this information prior to closing so they can read it and
Mr. Russell stated that his
firm now requires this document get signed at the sale of the lot, which is
usually to the contractor. Charley Lewis stated that Mr. Russell should make
sure the contractors are getting this signed. Mr. Russell stated he works
with over 40 contractors and that is why he is requiring this be signed at
Carol Paruka of 338 Chipper Court stated that the realtor they talked with stated this was to be a gated
community. Ms. Paruka stated that the R-4 would soften the area and she does
not want commercial at that location. Ms. Paruka stated that the wooden
fence doesn’t fit into the area and it should be a solid fence.
Brian Eidem of 419 Concord stated his property backs up to this proposed R-4 and he was originally given a
200’ buffer but the current drawing only shows a 100’ buffer and he is
concerned about that.
Gene Miller had a question
for Mr. Russell. He asked if the developer would be willing to route the
traffic to Onewood Drive instead of Nine Iron. Mr. Russell had Russ Ewy from
Baughman Company answer the question. Mr. Ewy stated that there is no access
from the proposed apartments to Nine Iron, only to Onewood Drive. Mr. Ewy
stated that there is a right-of-way for a frontage road to the east and a
right-in, right-out onto Kellogg. Sheri Geisler asked which frontage road.
Mr. Ewy stated it was the frontage road system that will ultimately run along
frontage over to Andover Road. Mr. McEachern asked if Nine Iron will just be
stopped and left as it is. Mr. Ewy stated that in his meetings with the City
of Andover it was proposed that this would be a turn around and eliminate the
dead end. Mr. Mangus stated that the developer proposed a hammerhead turn
around and that Mr. Thompson, the City Engineer, is reviewing this proposed
Chris Bremminger of 329 S.
Nine Iron doesn’t see how a frontage road would be possible. He is concerned
with the property values. He stated there must be a buffer but perhaps it
could be duplexes, he does not want to see a 3-story apartment complex at
this location. Mr. Bremminger is also concerned with the proposed density.
Mr. Bremminger is also concerned with the amount of traffic and the safety of
the children in the neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission to use a
different type of buffer to satisfy the City and the homeowners.
Chairman Coon thanked the
public for their input.
Mr. Kaplan rebutted by saying
this is not a traditional zoning case as they are not asking for zoning. He
stated that this is a request for an approved P.U.D., which currently
dedicates the subject property to B-4 zoning with some B-5 uses. Mr. Kaplan
also stated there won’t be anything else to use as a buffer if the R-4 is not
allowed. Mr. Kaplan stated the neighbors must be prepared to accept the B-4
and allowed B-5 uses if this zoning request is not approved.
Mr. Kaplan stated that a
notice is filed that states the property is subject to a P.U.D. Mr. Kaplan
stated that he cannot do anything about the fact that people do not read
their paperwork, which they get prior to closing and he cannot control what
realtors say. Mr. Kaplan stated that if there was a problem with the
covenant someone should contact him and let him know. Mr. Kaplan stated that
a traffic analysis was done and it said there will be a reduction of 5000
trips per day if this property is changed from commercial to the R-4
Residential. Mr. Kaplan stated that the Planning Commission is to find the
best use for the property. He reminded the Planning Commission that the
feeling of the neighborhood is only one of the 17 factors that is to be
Gary Fugit of 219 Bent Tree Court stated he was brokering the land transaction. Mr. Fugit stated that the
sale signs have been up for 3 – 3 ½ years. Mr. Fugit stated that there were
500 to 550 notices sent out for this zoning case and only 20 to 30 people
showed up with concerns from all the notifications sent. Mr. Fugit asked
Mr. Fechner from Metro Engineering if they still wanted to go forward with
the project or stop this project and go elsewhere. Mr. Fugit did say the
project would have a good impact on assessed values.
Mr. Fechner of Metro
Engineering stated that currently the area around the parcel is mostly
empty. Mr. Fechner wanted to stress that his company builds a quality
product, with large units that are well landscaped. He feels this project
would be an asset to the City of Andover.
Guy Boysen of 340 S. Nine
Iron, stated that he has heard only heavy commercial or R-4 zoning discussed
and wanted to know if there was another option or another type of zoning that
can be used with this property. Chairman Coon stated there could be another
use if a zoning change was applied for.
John McBride of 420 Concord stated he was offended at the implication that money and tax money are more important
than the lives of his children and commented that big money always wins with
the additional comment of “this sucks.”
Leslie Eidem of 419 Concord
stated that their property was surrounded by R-2 zoning and within two months
of moving in the zoning was changed to B-4 and no allowance was made for a
buffer although they did have an agreement for one which is apparently now
Jay Russell, one of the
developers states he would rather all the traffic be directed out to
Kellogg. He stated that they took ground away from commercial development to
allow residential access to Kellogg. Mr. Russell stated that he sees that
traffic is an issue.
Chairman Coon closed the
hearing to public comments 8:25 p.m.
Chairman Coon asked if they
were using Exhibit “C” for this case. Mr. Mangus stated that we are using
Exhibit “C”, which is a sketch of the proposed plan and access road. Mr.
Mangus stated that the application for zoning is the shaded area on Exhibit
“C”. Mr. Mangus stated the road is not in the application area it is in the
remainder of the B-4 Parcel 15.
Joe Robertson asked if some
day there will be a stop light at Onewood and Highway 54. Mr. Mangus stated
that when the traffic volumes warrant there will be. Mr. Robertson asked why
there would be a light that close to Andover Road and Highway 54. Mr. Mangus
stated there is a 3 stage agreement with KDOT that allows traffic signals at
the intersection at grade at the ½ mile line in the City, and a traffic
signal could be installed until Highway 54 is upgraded to a freeway. There
was general discussion regarding the street. Mr. Mangus stated that the only
full function street would be at Onewood and that KDOT would not allow a
crossover median anywhere else between 150th Street along Highway 54.
Joe Robertson stated there
appears to be an issue with the density and the roof height. Les Mangus
stated that the applied for R-4 zone allows for a 45’ maximum height. Mr.
Mangus stated that the 35’ height limitation in the P.U.D. is for the B-4
zoning but the B-4 district regulations allow for 45’ height limitations.
Mr. Mangus also pointed out that the covenants are only between people listed
on the covenant, and does not include in any way, the City of Andover. Charles Malcom asked if the applicant wasn’t willing to go to a 42’ height
restriction. Mr. Mangus stated there was a lot of discussion with the
engineering and stated that our zoning regulations state that the highest
point of the roof is the peak. Mr. Mangus stated that the UBC and the
Wichita zoning regulations state that maximum height is half way between the
peak and the eve, our regulations stated the maximum height to the peak is
Mr. McEachern stated that he
drove through other towns in the area and did not see any three-story
Lynn Heath is concerned with
the dwelling units per acre. Mr. Heath asked if our regulations call for 14
dwelling units per acre. Mr. Mangus stated that 14 dwelling units per acre
is correct. Mr. Heath stated that the applicant is asking for 16 dwelling
units per acre. Mr. Heath asked what the height of the Andover Crossing
apartments, behind the Dillon’s, was. Mr. Mangus stated they are
approximately 30’ in height.
There was general discussion
about the buffer area. Mr. Mangus stated that when this area was zoned B-4
the following was stated in the amendment ordinance that changed the zoning.
“If the area on the east side in Parcel #15 retained as R-2 Single-Family
Residential District 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, six foot screening wall. If
commercial construction occurs prior to development of the Green Valley
Greens residential areas, the developer will plan 6 to 8 feet evergreen trees
along the property line between Andover Village Addition and Green Valley
Greens.” Mr. Heath stated it looks like the buffer is 88’ instead of 200’ on
the proposed apartment site plan. Mr. Mangus stated part of the buffer area
is in the application. Chairman Coon asked if this will become R-4 zoning.
Mr. Mangus stated it will be if it is approved.