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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

September 18, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met September 18, 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 Bob Ruth, 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 7:05 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Review the minutes of the August 21, 2001 and August 27, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meetings.    Sheri Geisler stated that in the August 21, 2001 minutes on page 22 in the second to last paragraph, the zoning was referred to as B-2 Neighborhood Business and should be B-3 Central Shopping District.  Motion was made to approve the August 21, 2001 and August 27, 2001 minutes of the Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, as corrected, by Charles Malcom.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Review the minutes of the August 21, 2001 and August 27, 2001 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the September 10, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the August 28, 2001 City Council meeting were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  Les Mangus stated that case Z-2001-02 was sent back to the Planning Commission by the City Council.  Mr. Mangus stated that the applicant is out of town and the applicant requested this case be heard at the October 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.  Sheri Geisler made a motion to continue case Z-2001-02 to the October 16, 2001 meeting.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  The motion carried 8-0

Committee and Staff Reports. 

 

 

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.

 

1.                  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.

2.                  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.

3.                  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 developer.

 

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 lower.

 

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 they should.

 

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 closing.

 

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 turn around. 

 

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 considered. 

 

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 gone.

 

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 45’. 

 

Mr. McEachern stated that he drove through other towns in the area and did not see any three-story apartments.

 

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.

 

 

Z-2001-03:  Public hearing on an application to amend the Green Valley Planned Unit Development Parcel 15

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2001-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Metro Engineering Inc. /Robert Kaplan, agent

 

REQUEST:

Green Valley P.U.D. amendment of a portion of Parcel 15 from B-4 to R-4.

CASE HISTORY:

This area was originally zoned for low to mid-rise apartment for the elderly, until amended to B-4 in 1995.

 

LOCATION:

North of U.S. Highway 54/400 and east of Onewood Drive.

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 10.5 Acres

PROPOSED USE:

Multi-Family apartments

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-2 P.U.D. Green Valley 8th & 9th Additions under construction

South:

B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. - undeveloped

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residences and undeveloped property

West:

B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. - undeveloped

 

Background Information:

 

 

* 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:  R-2 P.U.D. Green Valley 8th & 9th Additions under construction. South: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residences and undeveloped property.  West: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  R-2 P.U.D. Green Valley 8th & 9th Additions under construction. South: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residences and undeveloped property.  West: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – 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:  R-2 P.U.D. Green Valley 8th & 9th Additions under construction. South: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residences and undeveloped property.  West:           B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.

 

 

PLANNING:

North:  R-2 P.U.D. Green Valley 8th & 9th Additions under construction. South: B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – undeveloped.  East:  R-2 Single-Family Residences and undeveloped property.  West:           B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. – 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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

4.   Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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:

Can be provided

x

 

PLANNING:

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:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Site plan and screening required

x

 

PLANNING:

Site plan and screening 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:

No R-4 property is available

 

x

PLANNING:

No R-4 property is available

 

 

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:

Multi-family residences would provide a buffer between single-family residences and B-4 business activities.

x

 

PLANNING:

With a recommendation for a permanent concrete fence, not wood, by Mr. McEachern. Mr. Lynn Heath and Mr. Quentin Coon voted no.

 

 

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:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

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:

Yes._Would provide a variety of housing types and provide a buffer between R-2 and B-4 .

x

 

PLANNING:

Mr. McEachern, no, as he feels it would not enhance the Comprehensive Plan because of the traffic issues.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposition- traffic, noise, density, property values.

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition- traffic, noise, density, property values, safety, overcrowding of schools.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval contingent upon platting

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Multi-Family would be a lesser detriment to the surrounding residences than B-4 Business uses permitted.

x

 

PLANNING:

Multi-Family would be a lesser detriment to the surrounding residences than B-4 Business uses permitted.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

MOTION:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charley Lewis, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-03 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-4 District to the R-4 Multi-family Residential District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation.  

 

CONDITIONS:

 

1.                  The maximum height of the dwellings is two-story not to exceed 35’. 

2.                  There will be a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre.

3.                  There will be a permanent 8’ textured concrete fence on the east and north sides of the property.

4.                  There will be a 150’ buffer to remain on the east side of the property.

5.                  There is a turn around put on Nine Iron.

6.                  The land for the Nine Iron turn around will be dedicated.

 

The finding numbers to support the motion include Item Number 9, no R-4 property is available for development in the area; Item Number 12, multi-family residences would provide a buffer between single-family residences and B-4 Business activities; Item Number 13, the change in zoning as requested would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification intent and purpose of these regulations; Item Number 14, the request for the zoning change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and it further enhances the implementation of the plan with these conditions.

 

Motion seconded by Lynn Heath.

 

John McEachern made a motion to amend the motion to include an additional 20’ buffer on the south and west side of Lot 8 on Nine Iron Drive, with the 8’ textured concrete fence to be provided by the developer.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  After general discussion the amendment was approved 6-2 with Ron Roberts and Charles Malcom voting no.

 

After general discussion, the motion passed 8-0.

 

Chairman Coon stated that this item is to go to the City Council on October 9, 2001.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Coon called for a recess at 9:40 p.m. and thanked the public for their participation.  The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m.

Recess

 

 

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, continued from the August 27, 2001 meeting.  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 9:51 p.m.  Les Mangus stated that he talked to the City of Wichita regarding their policy of notification.  Mr. Mangus presented the members with a copy of the City of Wichita regulations in this week’s packet.  Mr. Mangus stated that in the case of amendment the property owners in the amended parcel and a radius based on acreage are notified even though the regulations require notification of the entire P.U.D. 

 

Brian Eidem of 419 Concord feels that the notices should go to the people in the area affected.  He recommends that the Commission leave the notification as it currently is.

 

Jim McBride of 420 Concord stated he feels that zoning impacts people more than just in the 200’ required notification area.

 

Gary Fugit of 219 Bent Tree Circle stated that from a development standpoint a very large development would pose a problem notifying an entire P.U.D.  Mr. Fugit stated this would be a very large cost to the developer and would like a more reasonable notification area.

 

Colin Rose of 409 Concord stated that a lesser notification area would only be a benefit to the developer and feels the Commission should go the extra mile in the notification.

 

Chairman Coon read the proposed change in the notification area as follows: 

                       

200 ft. for application areas 5 acres or less.

 

500 ft. or 200 ft. from the perimeter of the PUD District, whichever is the lesser, for application areas between 5 and 20 acres.

 

1,000 ft. or 200 ft. from the perimeter of the PUD District, whichever is the lesser, for application areas greater than 20 acres.

 

1,000 ft. for all owners of real property in the unincorporated area.

 

After general discussion, a motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Regulations Section 4-116 Planned Unit Development District, establishing a method of notification for amendments to planned unit developments as follows:

 

1.                   An application to amend a Planned Unit Development District and a preliminary or final PUD shall be signed by the owner(s) or authorized agent(s) of all land that will be directly affected by the amendment (i.e., the parcel(s) being amended).

 

2.                   An application for amendment shall be accompanied by a legal description of the area in the application as well as the name of the owner(s), and shall include the names and mailing addresses, including zip codes, of all owners of real property within the PUD District and all property owners within the following prescribed distance measured from the perimeter of the application area:

 

500 ft. or 200 ft. from the perimeter of the PUD District, whichever is the lesser, for application areas of 20 acres or less.

 

1,000 ft. or 200 ft. from the perimeter of the PUD District, whichever is the lesser, for application areas greater than 20 acres.

 

1,000 ft. for all owners of real property in the unincorporated area.

 

Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0 with John McEachern abstaining. 

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, continued from the August 27, 2001 meeting.

 

 

Discussion regarding function and format for satisfying the factors and findings for Planning Commission recommendations on zoning district change applications.  Mr. Mangus stated that this is in response to the Planning Commission questions regarding the factors and findings.  Mr. Mangus stated the he presented to the Commissioners the 8 factors and findings required by the Kansas Supreme Court.  Mr. Mangus stated that Bickley Foster, the City Planner, has expanded the 8 requirements from the Golden case to provide more clarity.  After discussion, Mr. Mangus stated he also provided the Commissioners with a City of Wichita staff report, which contains the 8 requirements from the Golden case.  Mr. Mangus stated that there are two ways to adopt a change in the function and format and they are to revise the policy statement of the Planning Commission or provide an amendment to the Zoning Regulations of the City of Andover to state the 17 questions. 

 

After general discussion, Joe Robertson made a motion to continue this item until the October 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional time to study the information.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Discussion regarding function and format for satisfying the factors and findings for Planning Commission

 

 

Additional Agenda Item.  Letter of support for the City of Andover, Community Development Block Grant, Community Capacity Building Grant Program, FY 2002.  Mr. Bridges explained that the additional item is a request for the Planning Commission to authorize the Chairman of the Planning Commission to sign a letter stating the Commission supports the City of Andover’s effort to obtain a Community Capacity Building Grant from the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing for an update to the Comprehensive Plan.  This is a request for $25,000.00 to match $25,000.00 from the City funds. 

 

Chairman Coon read the letter of recommendation as follows:

 

September 18, 2001

 

Mr. Douglas Reed

Community Capacity Building Program

Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing

700 SW Harrison Street, Suite 1300

Topeka, KS  66603-3712

 

Dear Mr. Reed:

 

The City of Andover Planning Commission strongly supports the City’s efforts to obtain a Community Capacity Building Grant from the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing for an update to Andover’s Comprehensive Plan.  This plan provides the foundation upon which all land-use decisions in the Andover Area are made.  Although the plan was recently revised, the tremendous growth and change in this community has experienced was not anticipated.  An updated and complete comprehensive plan is an essential tool for the Planning Commission to help shape the future of the Andover Area. 

 

Thank you for your consideration of this grant application.

 

Sincerely,

 

Quentin Coon, Chairman

Andover Planning Commission

 

Joe Robertson made a motion to recommend  the Planning Commission Chairman sign proposed letter of support.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  The motion carried 8-0.

Additional Agenda Item

 

 

Member Items.  Charley Lewis stated that there are street lights out on Highway 54 on the south side of 159th Street and Highway 54.  Jeff Bridges stated that the lights at Willow Road and Andover Road are always on.  Pam Johnson will let KGE know. 

 

Charley Lewis asked about the law regarding Jake Brakes.  Jeff Bridges gave a brief history stated there was a law against using Jake Brakes, a sign was put up, truckers got much worse after the signs, so the signs were removed. 

 

Joe Robertson stated that people are still crossing the ditch west of Red Mesa onto Daisy Lane.

 

Sheri Geisler asked what progress of compliance to the Site Plan is happening at the Presto on 21st Street.  Mr. Mangus stated that we are working on the enforcement.  He stated he has received numerous promises for compliance and nothing has been done and we will have to take this property owner to court.

 

Ron Roberts asked when the sidewalk would be repaired by Cottonwood school and when the curb on Church Street would be done.  Mr. Mangus stated that this is has been turned over to the contractor on their punch list.

 

Charley Lewis asked what the status was of Coastal Mart and Braum’s.  Mr. Mangus stated we did not know about the Coastal Mart and we know nothing new about Braum’s.

 

John McEachern asked why Aaron Huslig’s building is not done.  Mr. Mangus stated that he is working on it.

Member Items. 

 

 

Motion to adjourn was made by Charles Malcom.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

Adjourn