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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 19, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Quentin Coon, Sheri Geisler, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts and new member Charlene “Charley” Lewis.  Charles Malcom was absent.  Others in attendance were Gary Fugit, 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 John McEachern at 7:00 p.m.  He welcomed new member Charlene “Charley” Lewis.

Call to order

 

 

Review of the minutes of the May 15, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve the minutes with corrections as follows:  Page 6, 8th line from the bottom of the page the word “is” change to “if”, Page 7 2nd paragraph 4th line the word “town” should be changed to “down,” Page 19, 6th paragraph 4th line, “one phone call” should be changed to “several phone calls,” and Page 32, the heading “Disqualification declared” should be changed to “Disqualification declared,” was made by Quentin Coon, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the May 15, 2001 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the June 5, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the May 29, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   Les Mangus had no comments.  Jeff Bridges stated that the retreat scheduled for June 23, 2001 has been postponed.  When Chairman McEachern asked why it was postponed, Mr. Bridges stated that it is to be postponed until a decision on the status of the Site Plan Review Committee was determined.

 

Council liaison Gary Fugit stated that in the Site Plan Review Committee minutes on page 4 the 3rd paragraph Don Kimble stated that in the last 4 years he could count on one hand the number of times a City Council member has attended a Site Plan Review Committee meeting.  Gary Fugit wanted to tell the Planning Commission that Gary Israel was on the Committee and was the liaison from the City Council.

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

Election of officers.  Chairman McEachern stated it is time to elect officers again.  He stated that he feels the Chairmanship should change.  He stated that his wife is retiring in January and in the coming months he may not be available to be the Chair.  Chairman McEachern also stated that it is not a good idea to have the same person in charge for a long time and it is time for a change to someone else.  Joe Robertson nominated Lynn Heath for the Chairman, John McEachern seconded the motion.  Mr. Heath stated that he was just elected president of the Kiwanis and has many other commitments and he said thank you but he is not able to be Chairman.

 

Lynn Heath nominated Ron Roberts, nomination was seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Mr. Roberts stated he appreciated the gesture but is not sure he will be a long-term member of the Planning Commission and he would rather see Lynn Heath or Joe Robertson be the Chairman.  Joe Robertson stated that he was recently layed-off of his job and may be moving out of town and cannot accept the Chair.  Lynn Heath stated he has no time and is unable to be Chairman.

 

Sheri Geisler nominated Quentin Coon for Chairman.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion. 

 

Jeff Bridges made a comment that the Commission should go by what they know this evening instead of what may happen, as vacancies occur and there is always a vice-chair. 

 

John McEachern made a motion that nominations for Chairman cease.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Vote for chairman as follows: 

Lynn Heath                 0

Ron Roberts                 0

Quentin Coon              7. 

 

Jeff Bridges stated this would go into effect at the next meeting. 

 

There were then nominations for vice-chairman. Joe Robertson nominated Lynn Heath with Ron Roberts seconding.  Motion was made by Joe Robertson to cease nominations, Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.  Vote on Lynn Heath for vice-chairman was 7-0 in favor.

 

There were nominations for secretary.  Nomination was made by Ron Roberts, seconded by Lynn Heath that Sheri Geisler be secretary.  There was a motion by Lynn Heath, seconded by Joe Robertson to close nominations.  Motion carried 7-0.  Vote for secretary was 7-0 for Sheri Geisler as secretary. 

 

There were nominations for Subdivision Committee members.  Jeff Bridges stated that currently Lynn Heath is the Chairman, Ron Roberts is the Vice-Chairman and Quentin Coon and Joe Robertson were on the Committee.  Joe Robertson nominated Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, Charley Lewis and Charles Malcom.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Joe Robertson was asked by Lynn Heath to take Charles Malcom off the nomination list as he is so busy and put Sheri Geisler on the list.  Joe Robertson agreed.  Motion to approve Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, Charley Lewis and Sheri Geisler to Subdivision Committee was approved 7-0.

Election of officers

 

 

Z-2000-05:  An application for amendment of the Village Crossing Preliminary Planned Unit Development to allow a drive-thru restaurant on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, returned to Planning Commission by the City Council for reconsideration.  Bob Kaplan, representative of the applicant, asked that this item be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting as there were a number of things requested by the City Council that, were not finished yet. 

 

Motion to table this item until the July meeting was made by Lynn Heath.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

Z-2000-05:  An application for amendment of the Village Crossing Preliminary Planned Unit Development

 

 

Z-2001-01:  An application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential District with the Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development District Overlay to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District on 43.6 acres South of U.S. Hwy 54 and East of 159th Street, returned to the Planning Commission by the City Council for reconsideration.   Chairman McEachern stated that in the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 12, 2001 they stated a reason why they referred it back to the Planning Commission.  Lynn Heath stated he did not understand Mr. Lawrence’s comment which was “I don’t think they were granted due process from our Planning Board”.  Mr. Heath stated that the City Council discussed  what the Planning Commission had discussed in detail, such as traffic, flooding and he is not exactly sure where that statement is coming from.  Mr. Heath stated that he does agree that some of the supporting facts need to be explained better rather than go by number.  Gary Fugit stated that he thought the question on the Council’s part was when they got into some of the details whether that should be discussed for zoning.  He stated they understand these are important issues certainly from a Planning standpoint they are vital, the question in Zoning itself was there was some question on the Council’s part after reading the application, particularly Item 17.  Council is asking for further clarification before it comes back. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if he meant that when the Commission explains a decision spell it out in more detail why we may have voted in that direction.  Mr. Fugit stated that would be helpful.  Chairman McEachern stated that the second item the Council asked for a property value impact on adjoining property from a neutral party such as the County Appraiser or other neutral party, perhaps a realtor or appraiser.  Mr. Fugit stated the Council is looking for, a question came up as far as how this effects the surrounding properties.  Chairman McEachern stated that is one of the questions on the Planning Commission checklist. 

 

Mr. Fugit asked that a report be done to shed some light on manufactured housing and how they might effect property values in the surrounding area.  Chairman McEachern stated that the third item requested is a traffic study be provided by the applicant as part of the deliberation.   Mr. Fugit stated that he didn’t feel the Council was wanting the traffic study prior to the change in zoning, he didn’t feel that was the intent.  He thinks if the zoning is passed they will ask the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to do a traffic study.  There was then general conversation regarding a traffic study and a traffic impact analysis.  Les Mangus stated that he thinks the Council desires a traffic impact analysis.  A traffic impact analysis shows daily trips and that a traffic study is much more detailed showing the alignment of streets, activity in surrounding neighborhoods, trip end studies and that is a study that is done by a traffic engineer.  Mr. Mangus stated that a traffic study is done at a considerable cost.  Mr. Mangus stated that during talks with KDOT they are ready to make improvements that are justified but they are not in a position to spend the money in advance. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked for a clarification of a traffic impact analysis and a traffic study.  Mr. Mangus stated that a traffic impact analysis which is a quick opinion of a traffic engineer.  A traffic study is much more involved.  A traffic impact analysis will pin down the specifics of trip generations of a stick built house in this location verses what a manufactured house would generate in this location and it would bring in some of the local environmental factors.   Mr. Mangus stated that a traffic study is done after zoning is done and you are in the platting process, the engineers recommend, at that time, specific improvements such as left turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, and signals.  Mr. Mangus stated that these types of improvements would be covered during platting.  Chairman McEachern asked about the property valuations in the Council’s request.  He stated that Norman Manley, City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission could make the determination that an effect could be city wide or within 200 feet.  Les Mangus stated that in the hearing the Planning Commission heard no factual evidence from a qualified appraiser or real estate broker that would substantiate that claim.  Mr. Mangus stated that the City Council is asking the Planning Commission to go out and find that information.  He stated they want the applicant to bring those things to you so you can have that information.  Chairman McEachern asked if it was allowable to have the Planning Commission make that a condition of the case.  Mr. Mangus stated yes.  Quentin Coon asked if we could close this issue tonight.  Charley Lewis stated we will have to request that the applicant bring this information to the Commission if that is what the Commission wants.  Chairman McEachern stated that the Commission does want to comply with what the Council wants.  Charley Lewis asked if we requested these studies what kind of cost will the applicant be incurring to deliver this information to the Planning Commission for the Council.  Who will pay to do the studies?  Les Mangus stated that these are things you will ask the applicant to bring to you and he is sure there will be costs involved but he cannot put a cost on it, but can give a range of $500 for a traffic impact analysis to $5000.  The appraiser will be another cost also; it could be a simple project or a very complex report. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked what the ITE stood for as we got information about trip generations from this source at the last meeting.  Mr. Mangus stated that ITE is the Institute of Transportation Engineers.  Mr. Mangus stated that these are general rules for trip generation based on studies by the ITE.  Mrs. Geisler stated that this information is for adult manufactured home parks and knows that most of her trips are because of her children.  Mr. Mangus stated that local information is available for these trip generation numbers. 

 

Bob Kaplan, representative of the applicant, asked that this issue be deferred to the next meeting in order to assemble the requested information.  Mr. Kaplan stated that his client has retained the services of a traffic engineer.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he believed the Council wants a traffic impact study, not a traffic survey.  He stated that in the event of the zoning being permitted the applicant can detail the traffic flows.   Mr. Kaplan stated that he felt that the Council was suggesting that we start with the County Assessors and look at tax assessments and tax valuations single-family subdivision and the proximity to manufactured housing parks and that can be done.  Mr. Kaplan stated that they will try to have that for the next meeting and the cost will be substantial.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he has retained the services of Mr. William McKinley to do a traffic impact study.  Mr. McKinley is a degreed, certified traffic professional engineer, licensed as a traffic engineer, who has been the traffic engineer for the City of Wichita for the past 25 years.  Mr. McKinley will work with staff and Mr. Les Mangus to be sure we are on track as to what information the Council wants you to look at. 

 

Charley Lewis asked if a traffic study was done when Wholesale Fireworks went in, it hasn’t been in that long, and asked if there was information from a prior study that would help the Commission glean some insight as to what is being asked for.  Mr. Mangus stated that no traffic study was done for any of those commercial businesses, that is apples and oranges, comparing commercial and residential.  Charley Lewis asked Mr. Mangus’s opinion of the private consultant.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. McKinley is well qualified and he knows the area.  Mr. Mangus stated that there are background studies that have been done over the last five years that will help him in that study.  Mrs. Lewis stated that if there is anything that we have available that may help or alleviate some of the time or costs associated with that study she would like to see that made available.

 

Ron Roberts stated that he would like to see the traffic study address the time frame that the traffic counts are going to be generated in.  He stated that the stick built subdivision would gradually build up whereas a modular home subdivision will probably be at full occupancy in a lot less time.

 

Joe Robertson asked if there was going to be a scope document or requirements document made to Mr. McKinley so that the Planning Commission could see that document at the next meeting or whenever the study is addressed.  Mr. Robertson stated that is fine for the Council to suggest these items but when we ask the applicant for information it must be neutral and accurate to the best of our abilities and feels the Council should also approve the consultant.  He does not want a biased study.  He is trying to protect the decisions and he is surprised that City Council did not want to approve who the consultant was. 

 

Mr. Fugit stated that Councilman Orr, who made the amendment, is looking for fair results and fair information.  Mr. Fugit thinks that Mr. Orr wants the consultants to be neutral parties for fair results.

 

Mr. Robertson is certain that whoever is chosen to do the work will be licensed and ethical but he stated that if there is not a scope document that spells out what exactly is being looked for, the Planning Commission may only get part of the information that is wanted.   Mr. Fugit stated that if there were questions about the study he would be glad to address it at the next Council meeting for clarification.  Mr. Robertson just wants to make sure that all the requirements are listed and all expectations known.  Mr. Robertson just wants to make sure that we don’t expect the applicant to do the studies again with someone that all parties agree with.   Les Mangus agrees with Mr. Robertson regarding the scope and expectation of the requested studies.   Mr. Mangus feels that is a good idea and feels there should be an analysis of the impact of the change from R-2 to MH-1 as pertaining to trip generation based on local information and also the impact of scheduling of like projects as Mr. Roberts suggested.  The report could be that simple.  Mr. Robertson stated the request should be clear to avoid further delays.  He also stated that the motion is asking for a traffic study and we are talking about a traffic impact analysis.  He feels the Council should clarify the definition.

 

There was discussion regarding the differences between traffic study and a traffic impact analysis.  Mr. Fugit stated that the Council just wants to know the impact on the traffic in that area and Council is concerned with property values.  Jeff Bridges stated that the Commission needs to deal with the appropriate use of the land and these issues of traffic and flooding and those issues are to be done at the time of platting. Mr. Bridges stated that he feels that the Planning Commission based on your understanding of what the City Council wants should set the scope of the study.   Mr. Fugit says he thinks there is some confusion on what the Council has asked for. 

 

Lynn Heath stated that on the request to explain criteria for the decision in more detail he agrees that just putting the numbers for the criteria can be confusing and we should explain better our reasoning.  Les Mangus thinks that he thinks the concern is that some of the same factors were used for motions, the motion to approve and the motion to deny.  He feels that there should be reasons stated for approval or denial along with the reasons.

 

Lynn Heath reminded the Commission that they are concerned with land use.  He stated that the flooding and the traffic would be adjusted to fit the use of the land.  He stated we are just to look at the land use.  Jeff Bridges stated that one of the Cottonwood Point issues was to resolve the flooding issue and they have submitted their application to FEMA to have all their flood plain work issues resolved. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if the Commission was clear on what they wanted regarding the traffic issue.  The general consensus was no.  Lynn Heath and Joe Robertson are not sure that the traffic is a relative issue.  Ron Roberts stated that in the minutes from the Council meeting Mr. Manley stated that these are legitimate issues for the Planning Commission.  Les Mangus stated that traffic in general, no matter how you improve land, you are going to have an effect on traffic in the area and one of the things the Commission should look at is how that fits into it’s environment.  In this case you have 30,000 plus cars a day up and down that highway.  If this land use generated 10,000 cars a day that is a factor to use in the decision making, if this land use generated 3 cars a day that probably wouldn’t be a factor in the decision.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Commission must be comfortable with the effect that this land use is going to have on traffic.  Lynn Heath stated that the Commission does indeed have to consider other things besides just the land use.  Chairman McEachern stated that we always consider traffic when doing a zoning change. 

 

Lynn Heath stated he would like further clarification from the City Council on the following two statements.  “I don’t think they were granted due process from our Planning Board” and “I think they got off on a tangent that did not necessarily pertain to the zoning.”   Mr. Heath stated that that the statements are not explained and he is confused.

 

Gary Fugit stated that Dan Eilert is also at the meeting and thought he might be able to shed some light on it.  Dan Eilert stated as he recalls the meeting and stated that the Council looked at the 17-question checklist.  He stated basically all the questions were answered.  Mr. Eilert stated he attended the subject Planning Commission meeting and once the public hearing was complete the Planning Commission went through the checklist.  It appeared to him that the Commission answered the questions but there was a lack of consensus on several of the questions.  There was then discussion, a motion to approve, which was denied, a motion was made to deny and then the Commission picked out statements to support that motion.  He stated the answers to those questions were not changed from what they were.  He stated he feels like when the Commission was discussing it they were changing some of the answers to some of the questions.  The confusion the Council has is concerning general welfare of the community.  He believes that what the Council is looking for is a traffic impact analysis because even though whether you put turning lanes and so forth, which is a platting issue, however the impact to the safety of that general area as to the number of vehicles coming, not east - west traffic, but south -  north traffic.  The property is already zoned R-2.  He thinks that what the Council wants to know is what change in zoning to MH-1 is going to have relative to R-2.  Mr. Eilert stated that as far as Mr. Lawrence’s comments he is not sure that is what he really meant.  He feels that Mr. Lawrence used that for lack of a better term. 

 

Jeff Bridges asked for a recess.  Chairman McEachern called for a recess at 8:25 p.m. and asked that members of the audience not talk to the Planning Commission members since we are in a hearing.  Chairman McEachern called the meeting back to order at 8:30 p.m.

 

Mr. Eilert stated Mr. Lawrence will have to speak for himself.  Mr. Eilert stated that basically the Council was confused somewhat as to where the Commission was heading with the questions and stated if the Commission wanted to deny for specific reasons have the questions match.  He stated he is not sure that they did.  Mr. Eilert stated that the traffic impact study can be addressed from a zoning standpoint, what impact does the change in zoning have on the safety of surrounding, which is where he was coming from.

 

Chairman McEachern asked if we needed to open a public hearing.  Les Mangus stated that if there was new information a public hearing should be held to take in new information.  After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that there was no new information at this time and a public hearing could be opened at the next meeting when there is additional information to receive.  Les Mangus stated that this issue should be continued to the next meeting and ask the applicant to bring back new information.  There was general discussion about traffic studies and traffic impact analyses. 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to have the applicant provide to the Planning Commission a traffic impact analysis at the next meeting. Ron Roberts stated that we must assume that the maximum of whatever can be put there will be put there. Mr. Heath stated that the scope should include the comparison of R-2 Single Family Residential District traffic to MH-1 Manufactured Housing District traffic and also a comparison as to how R-2 and MH-1 would be developed, developmental phases. Joe Robertson asked that an analysis on day of week and time of day be included in the motion. Mr. Heath was in agreement to add this item to the motion. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked that the analysis not be restricted to Manufactured Home development with adults only, as the ITE study did.  Mr. Heath did not feel we could restrict that. Mrs. Geisler feels that will be part of the traffic.  Mr. Heath feels that the analysis will point that out.   Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Mangus if the traffic study could potentially include if the makeup of this Manufactured Home Park is different than any other neighborhood in Andover.  Mr. Mangus stated that the analysis needs to be based on local information and other local studies.   Chairman McEachern asked that Mr. Heath restated his motion. Lynn Heath made a motion to have the applicant provide the Planning Commission with a traffic impact analysis at the next meeting. Mr. Heath stated that the scope should include the comparison of R-2 Single Family Residential District traffic to MH-1 Manufactured Housing District traffic, a comparison as to how R-2 and MH-1 would be developed and traffic as it is developed, an analysis of day of the week and time of day be included, and the analysis should be based on local area information.  Charley Lewis seconded the motion.  Several members asked if there was to be a motion for the property values.  Mr. Heath stated that would be a separate motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that the Council asked for a property value impact on adjoining properties from a neutral party such as a County Appraiser or other neutral parties.  Chairman McEachern asked if Mr. Kaplan knew who might do this analysis.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he did not know at this time but his client could certainly provide information.  Mr. Kaplan stated he did not think we would be able to get a County Assessor over to testify, but Mr. Kaplan could certainly access and present those records in an understandable form, and his client will be happy to do that.  Mr. Kaplan stated they will probably provide the tax assessment and he may have an individual retained for the purpose of presenting additional information.  Chairman McEachern is concerned that if there is a consultant that he may be biased for his client.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this will be their consultant and they will pick up the tab and they could limit this for tax valuations and have an explanation solely based on tax records research and leave opinion evidence out of it if that is the desire of the Commission.  Chairman McEachern stated that he believes that at the last meeting there was previous information presented that stated the manufactured housing started out fairly close to what stick built houses were but after a period of time stick built homes were increased in valuation and the manufactured housing depreciated in value, this was just opinion, there wasn’t anyone qualified like a realtor or appraiser that gave that information.

 

Chairman McEachern read part of a letter from Mr. Eugene Miller, who is not an appraiser, just an ordinary citizen, as follows:  “…several years ago when our largest park for manufactured and mobile homes wanted to expand, I did considerable research with the County Appraisers Office.  They were asked to compare taxes on a conventional “stick-built” home and a manufactured home the same age, same square footage and similar neighborhood.  They used an average one thousand square foot home 5 years old and made the best “apples and apples” comparison possible.  They concluded that the manufactured home paid 18.9% of what the conventional home would pay.  In other words for each $100.00 the conventional home would pay in taxes the manufactured home owner would pay $18.90. To me this illustrates another significant reason why Andover should not be encouraging this type of development.”  Chairman McEachern stated this is from a homeowner not a qualified realtor.  There was general discussion as to the scope of the study. Mr. Kaplan stated that this board has the obligation to define the minimum information that you want to receive and that will be provided. 

 

Quentin Coon suggested that the Commission needs a neutral study and perhaps City Staff could provide a neutral study.  Lynn Heath and Chairman McEachern stated that the City Staff does not have the time or qualifications to do this study.   There was general discussion as to who would be qualified to provide this information to the Planning Commission.  Jeff Bridges asked Planning Commission to see if the applicant would be okay with the applicant sitting down with the City attorney and picking somebody they could both agree on.  Chairman McEachern thought that was an excellent idea.  Gary Fugit stated that the Council requested either Appraiser or neutral party.  Mr. Fugit thinks real estate agents would be a good source.  Mr. Fugit thinks the applicant, Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Fugit and maybe the City could come up with several commercial or residential real estate people to offer opinions on it.  He believes neutral is the key.  Charley Lewis stated that opinion of different people is not the issue; the issue is the true value.  Mrs. Lewis stated it has been stated that the tax records are available the applicant can bring that information to the Planning Commission and wondered why we would want to spend time with opinions instead of facts. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that question 16 asked if there are any informational materials or recommendations available from professional persons knowledgeable on this request which would be helpful in it’s evaluation.  He feels that that #16 tells him he needs informational materials but he probably needs some information from a professional person and that is the reason he is asking for a realtor or appraiser.  Les Mangus stated there are certified appraisers just like there are certified traffic engineers.  He stated that those of us who wouldn’t understand just data call on these experts to pull it all together and tell us what we have and give his opinion based on the local factors.   Mr. Kaplan stated that he is willing to meet with Mr. Manley and discuss the matter with him, but he stated that he is not willing to suggest that Mr. Manley says that I like this particular realtor that Mr. Kaplan would be committed to using that realtor. 

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that he bristles just a bit at being told that the Commission is going to select his expert witness for him.  Chairman McEachern stated that he didn’t believe we were trying to tell him to meet and the two of you agree but he didn’t believe we were going to choose but we were going to have you two agree on the person.  There was general discussion.  Chairman McEachern stated that he is under the guidance of the City Council to get additional information and make the information a little more detailed.  Chairman McEachern stated that Mr. Manley stated that the Commission does have the power to request a study that would be beneficial in the decision at the expense of the applicant.  He stated that the Commission is looking for someone to bring professional credence and knowledge to the Board.  

 

A motion was made by Joe Robertson that the scope of the information will include property value impact on adjoining properties from a neutral party to include the following:  A trend analysis over a 20 year cycle, year by year, comparing property valuation for Manufactured Home property (MH-1), a property valuation of the MH-1 for the land on which the MH-1 sits, a property valuation of R-2, based on the number of units from the earlier platting of the property, property valuation on the land on which the R-2 sits as well as the valuation of the R-2 units, and the adjacent property valuations of MH-1 verses R-2 as well as overall city.  There was general discussion about the motion.   John McEachern seconded the motion.  There was additional discussion regarding the points of the motion.   Mr. Robertson amended the motion to include that a neutral party, such as the County Appraiser, should do the work.  John McEachern seconded the amendment.  

 

There was concern about the 20 year cycle requested.  Les Mangus stated that there is another factor to consider and that is the changes in that industry in the last 20 years and he didn’t know if there would be a true reflection in that industry because of the criteria for the Residential Manufacture Home adopted in 1993 and it’s acceptance in the state statues that require that it is accepted as code for a city.  Chairman McEachern offered Mr. Kaplan a chance to speak to the issue.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he feels the requested information is impossible and can’t be accurately and meaningfully done.  He feels his client will spend a tremendous amount of money for data that is going to have so many variables and subjective factors in it that it is going to be worthless.  He thought the issue was what effect does a Manufactured Home subdivision have on either an adjacent site built property or upon site built values in the city at large.  He doesn’t understand why tax values, the amount of tax that is paid on a lot or on a manufactured home, what that has to do and how that relates to what effect that Manufactured Home has on the value of the neighboring site build home.  What a person pays on taxes is not going to have any relationship to whether or not that is going to impact the marketability or salability or the price for a site built home. .  He feels that the Commission should leave the evidence to the applicant and to the opponents.  He is not sure you are considering the impact and stated that this is one tremendous research product.  He stated this will be an expensive project and there will be a large amount of data and the Commission will not be able to come to any conclusions.  Mr. Kaplan feels this project that is requested is virtually impossible and does not see how the Commission, based on this analysis, will be able to tell how manufactured housing affects the value of site built housing or doesn’t affect it.  It is not a question of taxes paid on the unit it is a question of the proximity to the unit or the proximity of the park to a site built home and does that have a relationship.  He stated he can address that issue and will address that.  He can bring in tax values of modular homes verses stick built homes and that is the type of study he would anticipate doing.  Mr. Robertson said he is trying to come up with a way for the Commission and the City Council to be satisfied that when we come back with another decision that it carries enough merit and clarity that it doesn’t get misunderstood or turned back to the Commission again. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that regarding item #11, is the subject property suitable for the current zoning to which it has been restricted and he thinks he heard members of the Planning Commission say that R-2 was suitable for that land and they would prefer to see it being utilized as R-2 but this Commission is under the direction of the Council to give a better clarification of what was thought by the Commission. 

 

Lynn Heath asked that item #12 be discussed.  Chairman McEachern read Item 12 and it states that if the change of zoning was approved would the uses which would be permitted on the subject property be compatible with the uses compatible with the uses permitted on other properties in the neighborhood.  Chairman McEachern stated that brings a discussion of the definition of how far out in the neighborhood you want to go.   

 

Vote for the motion showed Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson, Charley Lewis and John McEachern voted for the motion with Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts and Quentin Coon voting against the motion. 

 

Motion by Joe Robertson that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City Council or its designee concur with the study source on the items of traffic impact analysis and property value study for neutrality purposes.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Lynn Heath commented that when the Commission goes through the checklist we need to explain the criteria for our decision in more detail so we have everything in a row.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Charley Lewis to record the letters from Richard Peckam dated June 7, 2001, E. B. and Cheryl Lyda dated June 7, 2001, and Eugene Miller dated June 14, 2001 into the record of this meeting.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

From Richard Peckam

June 7, 2001

 

To Bob Ruth

210 E. Douglas

Andover, KS  67002

 

Re:  Mobile Home Park Plan – Bush

 

Dear Bob,

 

            As President and General Counsel of Mobile Manor, Inc., the company that owns and operates the Andover Estates Mobile Home Park, this letter urges you to give favorable consideration to the Mobile Home Park plan put forward by Dennis Bush and his wife, to be built on 159th Street. 

 

            I have not spoken to the Bush family about their proposal, nor do I have any financial interest in the plan.  To the contrary, the plan would actually be in competition with Andover Estates.  Nonetheless, a sense of justice and fairness, to both the community and the developer requires a careful look at the facts and the issues:

 

The Andover City Planning commission hearing included the unfounded statements by Mr. Dick Krehbiel, owner of the Wholesale Fireworks business, located just north of the proposed park at the corner of Kellogg and 159th Street.  Krehbiel asserted that mobile home parks decrease in value over time.  Apparently he did not examine the county records and tax appraisals for the Andover Estate Mobile Park on Andover Road.  Our family purchased the park in approximately 1988 paying one million dollars.  Today, thirteen years later, the market value is in excess of three million dollars.  Assuming Mr. Krehbiel’s concern is property taxes,

 

it is clear that the taxes we pay on the appreciating mobile home park, in combination with the personal property taxes paid by the mobile home owners in the park, verify that the park system pays it proportionate share of community services.

1.                  Mr. Krehbiel further stated at the Planning Commission hearing, that “I’ve never seen a trailer park add value to the adjoining property.”  Apparently he is unaware that neither law nor municipal regulation require that new developments “add value” to surrounding properties.  That is simply not one of the conditions relevant to the City Commission’s decision in such a matter.  Krehbiel’s statement is all the more curious in view of the fact that if there were to be any form of property devaluation (and there would clearly not be), the devaluation would be expected to go in the other direction, that is, any residential community would be potentially considered less than advantageous due to the potential for catastrophe imposed by a fireworks depot.

 

Modern manufactured housing is now built according to federal specifications and standard building codes, making them as safe and dependable as site built homes.  Further, the interior and exterior designs of such homes are now designed by architects, and have the same aesthetic value as site built homes.  Kansas State law, in conformity with the state laws of most other states, now forbids unreasonable discrimination against the industry.

 

Another so-called “concern” rose at the Planning Commission hearing was the issue of traffic.  Traffic is an issue to be managed by state and local transportation regulations.  In the case of the Bush project, state and municipal regulations provide for appropriate traffic routing, signage, signaling and lighting.  This is certainly no obstacle to the development of the project, but rather another red herring suggested by opponents.

 

Another red herring that was raided years ago as a defense to expansion of the Andover Estates Mobile Home Park was “crime.”  However, at that time the Andover Police records showed clearly that the number of police calls and incident reports for the Green Valley subdivision (site built homes) was substantially higher than calls and incidents in the Andover Estates mobile home park.

 

One of the opponents of the Bush project mentioned to me that residents of Green Valley may be able to look across Highway 54 and see the manufactured homes.  If they do, they will see appropriately pitched and shingled roof, attractive and stylish external design, and good families adding substantial value to our community.

 

Therefore, I urge you to look at the facts of this case, not the political emotions or the arrogance of a few, and that you treat the developer and the broader communal interest with fairness.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Richard J. Peckham

President/General Counsel

Andover Resident

 

Cc:  Les Mangus

        Norman Manley

 

From E. B. Lyda and Cheryl A. Lyda

 

June 7, 2001

 

To Gary Fugit

219 Bent Tree Ct.

Andover, KS  67002

 

Dear Councilman Fugit:

 

As residents of Andover, we’d like to express our opposition to any consideration of changing the zoning at the southeast corner of 159th and Andover Road from R2 to MH1.  The Planning Board carefully considered this proposed zoning change at the May meeting and voted to recommend not changing the zoning.  It is our sincere hope that the Andover City Council will abide by this recommendation for the following reasons:

 

First, traffic at the intersection of 159th and Andover Road is already heavy nine accidents at that intersection from 97-99 according to the KDOT report dated April 23, 2001.  The only other intersection within the Andover area along Kellogg having a higher rate was the intersection of Andover Road and Kellogg.  Adding 169 homes to that intersection will only compound the problem many times over. 

 

Secondly, a mobile home park will have a negative impact on property in the surrounding area.  According to the depreciation schedule for manufactured housing used by the County Appraiser’s office, appraised value of double-wide manufactured houses after five years are as follows:  Excellent condition 85% of their original value; Average condition – 76%; Poor condition – 56%  Single wide manufactured housing has slightly greater depreciation levels.  This is bound to have a negative impact on surrounding property value and will also lower the tax base for that area over time as the homes depreciate even more. 

 

Thirdly, there is a severe flooding problem in that area that makes the advisability of putting nay sort of housing there very questionable.

 

Finally, mobile home parks tend to have a higher crime rate than stick housing.  This is confirmed by reviewing the police calls in the Andover Estates, Andover Village, Andover Heights and Green Valley areas for the past three years.  After gleaning out the more serious calls (theft, burglary, domestic disturbance, battery and rape), we discovered 24 calls in the Andover Heights addition, 24 in the Andover Village addition, 52 in the Green Valley Addition and 73 at Andover Estates.

 

For these reasons, please follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the request for a zoning change as submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Bush.

 

Sincerely,

 

E.B. Lyda

 

Cheryl A. Lyda

134 Elm Court

Andover, KS 67002

 

 

From Eugene Miller

 

June 14, 2001

 

To:  Lynn Heath

722 Daisy Lane

Andover, KS  67002

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

The proposed manufactured home development on 159th Street South of Kellogg causes me a number of concerns. 

First, I was in the process of buying the land in question shortly before the present owner purchased it.  I was told very directly by the responsible Andover City official that this land was virtually all in the flood plain so that it was not reasonable to plan any building project on it.  Consequently, I cease to pursue it.  What has changed in this regard? Either I was given erroneous information by Andover City personnel or it is still subject to flooding. 

 

Didn’t we just finish spending many thousands of tax dollars bailing out flooded home owners about a mile south of this location?

During my approximately 20 years as a councilman, mayor and planning board member in Andover we were led to believe any rezoning needed to seriously consider several things which included:

1.      If it is in the best interest of the city.

2.      Will it benefit or degrade the environment of surrounding and nearby residents/property owners.

3.      Its effect on traffic, noise and other similar factors on nearby neighborhoods.

4.      The effect if any on land values of nearby Property Owners.

5.      The overall desirability of the rezoning of this type of property when considering such factors a s the flood plain.

Another major factor to consider is the limited tax revenue that the proposed area would produce.  Many of us retired conventional home owners have watched our appraisal rise almost Every year thus raising our property taxes substantially even thought he city levy has been fairly stable.  When the new schools fully go on the tax rolls it is bound to rise further.  I bring this to your attention because several years ago when our largest park for manufactured and mobile homes wanted to expand, I did considerable research with the County Appraiser’s office. They were asked to compare taxes on a conventional “stick-built” home and a manufactured home the same age, same square footage and similar neighborhood.  They used an average one thousand square foot home 5 years old and made the best “apples and apples” comparison possible.  They concluded that the manufactured home paid 18.9% of what the conventional home would pay.  In other words for each $100.00 the conventional home would pay in taxes the manufactured home owner would pay $18.90. To me this illustrates another significant reason why Andover should not be encouraging this type of development.

 

My family and I appreciate your willingness to serve on the Planning Board and your consideration will be appreciated.

 

Respectfully,

 

Eugene Miller

420 W. Jamestown

Andover, KS  67002

 

733-0117

 

Chairman McEachern called for a 5-minute recess at 9:45p.m.  The meeting reconvened at 9:55 p.m.

 

Motion by Joe Robertson, seconded by Sheri Geisler to recess the planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried 7-0.

Z-2001-01:  An application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential District with the Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development District Overlay

 

 

BZA-CU-2001-01.  Public hearing on an application for Conditional Use to permit an off-premises real estate sign on property zoned as the R-l Single-Family Residential District at the northwest corner of Andover Road and 13th Street.  Angie George is the Director of New Home Development for Plaza Real Estate, her address is 133 N. Fountain, Wichita.  Ms. George stated that Linda Mason has previously presented information on behalf of Plaza Real Estate but she is on vacation.  Ms. George stated that the conditional use is for a development sign at the northwest corner of Andover Road and 13th Street.  Ms. George stated that Plaza Real Estate is trying very hard to sell these properties in Cedar Park but they have no signage out for this subdivision.  Ms. George stated they have been trying to get a sign for a while.  Ms. George stated that the only part of the road that is paved is from Andover Road west to Cedar Park.  Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus if proper notification was given.  Mr. Mangus stated that the notice was published in the paper on May 24, 2001 and notices were mailed on May 21, 2001. 

 

Chairman McEachern summarized this case thus far as follows:  The applicant applied for a sign permit, while they were in the process of leasing property for the sign location, the sign regulations were changed.  At that point an off site development sign was not allowed.  The applicant then came to the Planning Commission and asked that the zoning regulations concerning signs be amended to allow off site development signs.  The regulations were amended and off site development signs were allowed as a Conditional Use.  The applicant is now before the Planning Commission asking for a Conditional Use. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus if there were any issues with the sign as requested.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is only one small concern.  He stated that the regulations for the district allow for a sign with a maximum height of 15’, which can be up to 100 sq. feet in size.  He stated that this sign is in a vision triangle and will have to be 8’ off the ground allowing for the vision triangle, which will only leave 7’ for the height of the sign.  There was general discussion regarding the vision triangle and the height of the sign.  Mr. Mangus stated that the sign could be up to 14’ wide but no higher than 15’.   Angie George stated that she would be willing to have a 7’ sign with the bottom 8’ off the ground.   Ms. George asked if the sign could be 10’ wide. Ron Roberts stated that the Board can set any parameter it chooses they feel are applicable or reasonable as this is a conditional use.

 

Chairman McEachern read the following:

Publication date:                       May 24, 2001

Hearing Date:                           June 19, 2001

Zoning District:             R-2 Residential

 

BZA-CU-2001-01.  Public hearing on an application for Conditional Use to permit an off-premises real estate sign on property zoned as the R-l Single-Family Residential District at the northwest corner of Andover Road and 13th Street. 

 

DOES THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT:

 

1.                  The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable regulations, including lot size requirements, bulk regulations, use limitations and performance standards; unless a concurrent application is in process for a variance.

       Quentin Coon thought that the applicant did not comply with the regulations.  Les Mangus stated that the applicant made no reference to a specific size for the sign, they did not ask for an 8’ x 8’ size.  The consensus of the Commission is yes/true.

 

 

2.                  The proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.

                        The Commission voted yes/true

 

 

3.                  The location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the conditional use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to:

 

a.       The location, nature, size and height of building, structures, walls and fences on the site; and the Commission voted yes/true.

b.      The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site. the Commission voted yes/true.

 

4.                  Off-street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 5 of these regulations. Such areas will be screened from adjoining residential uses and located so as to protect such residential uses from injurious effects.

            The Commission voted yes/true.

 

5.                  Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees. The Commission voted yes/true.

 

 

 

6.                  Adequate access roads, entrance and exit drives and/or access control is available or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees and shall be so designed to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and roads. The Commission voted yes/true.

 

DECISION:

 

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on the findings, Chairman McEachern called for a motion and any restrictions that might be imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations, Section 108-D (Conditions).  Chairman McEachern asked if the sign was lighted. Les Mangus stated that the Board could put whatever restrictions the Board feels is necessary such as lighting, size of sign, time duration. Angie George stated that it was not to have lighting.  After discussion the following motion was made:

 

I, Joe Robertson move to approve the conditional use application of BZA-CU-2001-01 to permit an off-premises real estate sign for Cedar Park on property zoned as the R-l Single-Family Residential District at the northwest corner of Andover Road and 13th Street with the following conditions.

1.                    The sign will have no lighting.

2.                    The sign will be 8’ from the ground, not to exceed 8’ wide, 7’ tall on the text board, not to exceed 15’ overall.

3.                    Time limit – Review in 3 years from date of approval

4.                    Sign shall be removed when 75% of the subdivision lots have been sold.

 

           Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants in this hearing.

 

A motion was made by Quentin Coon, seconded by Lynn Heath, for adjournment of the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

Z-SU-2001-01:  Public Hearing on an application for a change of zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District, with a special use for an indoor boarding kennel and parking lot.  Mr. Mangus apologized that this was not on the agenda but it was advertised for this meeting.  Dr. Kevin Cedarburg of 1936 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas presented, as agent, information on behalf of the applicant, Butler County Community College.  Dr. Cedarburg stated that he is trying to purchase the property for the purpose of building an indoor boarding kennel and parking lot directly in the rear of his existing veterinary clinic.  Les Mangus commented that the B-1 Office Business District does not allow special uses that are not specifically listed.  He stated that B-2 Neighborhood Business District and B-3 Central Shopping Districts do allow special uses which are not specifically listed.   Dr. Cedarburg stated that this is to be a free standing building.  Mr. Mangus stated that it must be zoned B-2 or B-3 to be a stand alone building rather than an accessory to the veterinary clinic.   There was general discussion as to special uses and zoning districts.  Dr. Cedarburg stated that the animals will not be housed outdoors at night.  Les Mangus stated that only B-5 Highway Business or I-1 Industrial allows for outdoor dog runs and that is why Dr. Cedarburg has asked for B-3 Central Shopping zoning.

 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.  There was no one to speak to the issue.

 

Z-SU-2001-01:  Public Hearing on an application for a change of zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

ZSU-2001-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Butler County Community College/Dr. Kevin Cederberg.

 

 

REQUEST:

R-2 Single-Family Residential to B-3 Business District with a Special Use for an indoor boarding kennel and parking.

 

CASE HISTORY:

R-2 currently used for Agriculture

 

LOCATION:

1900 Block of North Andover Road on the East side of the street.

 

SITE SIZE:

125’ x 330’ = 0.9 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

 

 

Parking lot and indoor boarding kennel.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Vacant R-2 Property owned by Butler County Community College

South:

Vacant R-2 Property owned by Butler County Community College

East:

Vacant R-2 Property owned by Butler County Community College

West:

B-1 Office Business District

 

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 and East:  Vacant R-2 Residential District owned by BCCC. West B-3 Office/Retail strip center.  South:  B-1 Office Business District, Countryside Pet Clinic

 

 

PLANNING:

North and East:  Vacant R-2 Residential District owned by BCCC. West B-3 Office/Retail strip center.  South:  B-1 Office Business District, Countryside Pet Clinic

 

 

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 Residential District owned by BCCC, South R-2 Residential District owned by

 

 

PLANNING:

North: R-2 Residential District owned by BCCC, South R-2 Residential District owned by

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

5.   Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

No- Ron Roberts, Sheri Geisler and Charley Lewis.  Yes, expansion of business, John McEachern, Lynn Heath Joe Robertson, and Quentin Coon.

 

 

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Platting required

x

 

PLANNING:

Platting required

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Site Plan Review required.

x

 

PLANNING:

Site Plan Review 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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A Special Use

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A Special Use

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

More services and employment would be provided

x

 

PLANNING:

More services and employment would be provided

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

11.   Is the subject property suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No, the traffic and development of businesses along North Andover Road makes this an undesirable residential site

 

x

PLANNING:

No, the traffic and development of businesses along North Andover Road makes this an undesirable residential site.  This narrow strip is between the current building and a flood plain

 

 

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:

Expansion of existing business

x

 

PLANNING:

Two sides of this business are adjacent to nearby businesses

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13.   Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Currently the area around this is vacant and in a flood plain

 

 

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:

The Comprehensive Plan provides for a case by case evaluation for development on Andover Road

x

 

PLANNING:

The Comprehensive Plan provides for a case by case evaluation for development on Andover Road

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

PLANNING:

None at this time

 

 

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:

Approval contingent upon platting

 

 

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:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Sheri Geisler, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2001-01, be approved to allow a change in zoning from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a Special Use of indoor boarding kennel and parking lot, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include the following factors:

 

Item 5.             The conditions are changing due to the expansion of the business.

Item 6.             The water, sewer and street are already in place.

Item 10.           More services and employment will be provided for the area.

Item 14.           There is a case by case evaluation for projects on Andover Road.

Item 15                                                                                 There is no opposition at this time.

Item 17            There is no detriment to the public perceived.

 

Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  The motion carried 7-0. 

 

 

 

Review the revised map and set a Public Hearing for July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on the adoption of the Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. 

 

Les Mangus stated that about three years ago FEMA hired a contractor to re-evaluate all of the Flood Plain Maps.   This is a process that has taken a long time.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Butler County Commission heard public comments about a year ago and then there was a period set aside for comments from other people.  Mr. Mangus stated that the procedure was tedious and stated that we made several recommendations for changes to the map.  Mr. Mangus stated that FEMA produced a map that we disagree with, however to stay in compliance with the National Flood Insurance program we have to adopt their map as it becomes effective.  Les Mangus stated that after numerous hours on the telephone and letters back and forth between the City and FEMA, they have agreed that if we will adopt their map, they will revise the map to include the things we asked for, which are some letters of map revision that were promised to be on the new map and update the 1980 base map for the City of Andover, which is very outdated.  FEMA has agreed to these changes.  Mr. Mangus stated we need to set a public hearing to change our zoning regulations to incorporate the Flood Insurance Rate Map dated July 19, 2001, and then come back in a few months or a year when they do the physical revision to the map and adopt it again. 

 

Lynn Heath asked if this will take another 10 years.  Mr. Mangus stated it will probably take a year.  Charley Lewis asked if we have anything in writing saying they will do the changes.  Les Mangus stated that we have a letter from them which spells out the changes.  Jeff Bridges stated that we finally got action after the last letter he wrote, which he copied to Todd Tiahrt.  Jeff Bridges stated that we received notice in January that we had to adopt this by May 25.  Then Mr. Bridges stated that they sent us a letter moving the date back to July 19 because of an error on their part.  At that point Mr. Bridges asked what map they were referring to as the maps that we had received were wrong.  They stated we would receive a map later in the spring, which we received May 22, which had to be adopted by July 19, which was still wrong. 

 

There was general discussion about what the map was to have on it.  Mr. Mangus stated that we will provide them with a base map, to incorporate in the boundary and base flood elevations.  Mr. Mangus stated that there are more areas in the flood plain that have been added to the new map than there were on the current map.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to set a Public Hearing for July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on the adoption of the Revised FEMA Map to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  There was no discussion.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review the revised map and set a Public Hearing for July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on the adoption of the Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. 

 

 

Review the proposed amendments and set a Public Hearing for the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on amendments to the method of appointment of the members of the Site Plan Review Committee.   Jeff Bridges stated that the City Council requests the Planning Commission undertake a review of how appointments are made to the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Bridges stated that because that process is set out in the zoning text it will be an amendment to the Zoning Regulations.  Mr. Bridges stated that the language presented this evening is not verbatim what the City Council wanted but is a summary of what was discussed by the City Council.  Mr. Bridges stated that Councilman Fugit was in attendance and would be able to give additional information to the Planning Commission.   Mr. Bridges stated that in the current process the Mayor recommends appointments, with the City Council approval of his recommendations.  Mr. Bridges stated that in the approval presented, Section 1 is the same with one sentence added.  That sentence is “Not more than two members of any one field shall be appointed to serve at the same time.”  Mr. Bridges stated that section 2 is an entirely new section replacing the existing section on appointments and section 3 is verbatim of the current ordinance.

 

Joe Robertson asked what the cycle of the current council members is.  Jeff Bridges stated that current cycles are 4-year terms.  Les Mangus stated that the Council are in groups of 3 in 4 year terms and the mayor is on the same year as one of those groups of three.  Mr. Robertson stated that there is a potential that there could be 4 vacancies in one year because of the change in Council.  Les Mangus stated a vacancy wouldn’t occur unless somebody leaves.  He also stated that if there is an un-appointed position, that member who is in that position stays until there is a new appointment made.  Joe Robertson asked if under the new regulations if a Council member leaves that person leaves.   Mr. Bridges stated yes.  Les Mangus stated that there could be turn over every two years of three members in one year, and four in another.  Mr. Robertson asked if that would render the Committee somewhat moot for a month or so maybe.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Council’s original request was to make this an annual appointment and they asked that not be done due to the learning curve that couldn’t be complete in a year.  Gary Fugit stated that there was kind of an assumption that some of the current members would be re-appointed too.  He stated some people assumed there would be all new people.  Mr. Fugit stated that to him the policy they are asking to change is for more input into how it is done.  Mr. Fugit would like to see a change in the appointment process and wants the Planning Commission’s input along with how those appointments are set up and how they are staggered or how it is set up, that could be done a number of ways. 

 

Lynn Heath stated “I did not like the way this change is worded now because to him you could end up with a person serving on that Committee as a lap dog to a City Council member.  It goes right hand in hand with a City Council member and I don’t think that’s the type of people we want on the Committee and I don’t think that’s the type of impression that we’d want to put out there.  I’m not insinuating that would happen but it could and any time something could there’s a good chance it will.”  Gary Fugit asked what his concern was.  Lynn Heath replied “That the person on the site committee is just a shadow of the Council member, that the Council member is going to tell him what to do and what to say and all that kind of stuff.” 

 

Gary Fugit asked what the difference is between the Mayor appointing that person and having them all be what the mayor wants.  Gary Fugit stated that you have a better chance of a more balanced group if we have every council member appoint a person instead of one person appointing all the people.  Chairman McEachern stated that when the Planning Commission was formulating the Committee, Bickley Foster was guiding them and said that this Board should be kept free from the political process and certain factions.  Chairman McEachern also stated that the Planning Commission made a point of saying that they didn’t want just citizens and homeowners on the Committee but that they be qualified people in the area and that was more the consideration than anything else. .  He also stated they wanted architects, designers, landscape people, and they said they didn’t want just an average joe, they also wanted business people, which they did.  Chairman McEachern stated he has the same concern as Lynn Heath and if there are 3 pro-business on the City Council there would be 3 pro-business on the Site Plan Review Committee and they could possibly vote for why they were put on the Committee and if that’s what is wanted he would suggest that the Site Plan Committee be disbanded.  Chairman McEachern stated that Committee is a valuable asset to the community as much so as the appearance and the future of the community as the Council and this Board.  He stated that the effect of what the community will look like in 10 or 15 years is going to far outweigh what the Council or the Planning Board does.   Mr. Fugit will not argue that, his motion was only to change the nomination process.  Chairman McEachern stated that if the guy is only there as long as the City Council member he will vote along with that Councilperson 100%.   Chairman McEachern stated if the Mayor appoints someone you don’t agree with vote no.  Sheri Geisler agreed.  Gary Fugit stated that getting input onto that Committee was very difficult for a Council member.  He also stated that he has had more complaints about that Board than any single thing out in this town. 

 

Planning Commission members agree that they receive many comments about this Committee.  Mr. Fugit stated that the Committee has done good things and he is not knocking the Committee.  Mr. Fugit stated that Council is elected, that Committee is nominated and asked how they could effect that Committee if there are complaints.  Mr. Fugit stated that this came about when the Mayor nominated three people and the Council turned them down.  There was general discussion regarding the selection of Committee members.  Les Mangus stated that the proposed change does not change the makeup of the Committee.  Ron Roberts asked if each Council member would be told what profession he could pick from.  Mr. Mangus stated no, it just has to shake out to be a well rounded group.  Sheri Geisler stated that the Site Plan Review Committee does a lot of good, if we keep it set up the way it was but perhaps there could be some brainstorming and give them some general guidelines to adhere to. 

 

Mr. Bridges stated you could adjust the rules under which they are operating rather than change the people on the Committee.  Lynn Heath stated that he feels that changing the nominating process would not change anything, it would not correct the problem, it would not give the Council control over this Committee.  Mr. Fugit stated that they would like some input into the nomination process.  He stated he thinks that then they will pay attention and try and work with that Committee closer.  Charley Lewis agreed with Mrs. Geisler about the idea of changing the guidelines.  Chairman McEachern reiterated that there is a large learning curve when you are on one of these committees.  

 

There was general discussion as to terms for Committee members and how to remove members from the Committee.

 

Motion was made by Quentin Coon to set a Public Hearing for the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on amendments to the method of appointment of the members of the Site Plan Review Committee. Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review the proposed amendments and set a Public Hearing for the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting on amendments to the method of appointment of the members of the Site Plan Review Committee.  

 

 

Member items.  Chairman McEachern asked who the new person from the paper was. Merdith Jenkins stated she is from the Andover Journal.  She was welcomed to the meeting.

 

Chairman McEachern asked about the carwash on Andover Road.  He asked if there were supposed to be gates in the rear of the property.  He also asked if the fence was supposed to be 8’ or 6’.   Mr. Mangus will check on that.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that three of the trees at the AJA need to be replaced as they are dead.  Mr. Mangus will check on that.

 

Chairman McEachern also asked about the building behind him.  He stated that there are supposed to be 3 English Oaks.  Les Mangus stated that the work on this project is not done yet. 

 

Joe Robertson asked about the schedule of finishing the driveway for Conoco (Presta) on 21st Street.  Mr. Mangus stated he will revisit Mr. King and Mr. Presta.

Member items. 

 

 

Joe Robertson made a motion to adjourn.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.   

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.

Adjourn