|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August
21, 2001
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular
meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center. Members present were Quentin Coon, John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Sheri Geisler, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts and Charlene “Charley” Lewis. Others in
attendance were Ben Lawrence, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning
Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, Administrative
Assistant.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin
Coon at 7:03 p.m.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman Coon stated that due to the length of the
agenda all items may not be able to be addressed at this evening’s meeting
due to time limitations and asked the Planning Commission to come up with
another evening prior to Tuesday, August 28, 2001 to continue this meeting
to. After general discussion it was decided that the Planning Commission
would continue those items not addressed tonight to a meeting at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, August 27, 2001.
|
Continue this meeting until
August 27, 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
Review
of the minutes of the July 17, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting. Motion
to approve the minutes was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Charles Malcom.
Motion carried 8 to 0.
|
Review of the minutes of
the July 17, 2001 Andover Planning Commission
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes
of the August 7, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.
Minutes
of the August 14, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.
Minutes of the July 31, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.
|
Minutes
|
|
|
|
|
Committee and Staff Reports. There were none
|
Committee
and Staff Reports
|
|
|
|
|
There was additional discussion regarding drainage
and the Flood Plain. There was also additional discussion regarding the
traffic.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 5
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-2001-01
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Dennis & Deborah Bush, Cottonwood Point
Investments, LLC.
|
|
REQUEST:
|
R-2 Single-Family Residential to MH-1 Manufactured Home Park
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Currently Cottonwood Point R-2 P.U.D. currently used
for agriculture.
|
|
LOCATION:
|
+/- ¼ mile south of US Hwy 54 and east of 159th Street
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
+/-
43 acres.
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Manufactured
home park.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-5
Highway Business – Wholesale
Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage
|
|
South:
|
Butler
County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural
|
|
East:
|
A-1
Agriculture – Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision
|
|
West:
|
Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on
corner Limited Commercial, remainder is residential
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Located along an unnamed tributary to Four-Mile
Creek with a substantial flood plain.
|
|
|
|
* 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: B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage. South: Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural. East: A-1 Agriculture –
Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision. West: Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner Limited Commercial, remainder is
residential.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage. South: Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural. East: A-1 Agriculture –
Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision. West: Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner Limited Commercial, remainder is
residential.
|
|
|
|
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: B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage. South: Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural. East: A-1 Agriculture –
Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision. West: Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner limited commercial, remainder is
residential.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: B-5 Highway Business – Wholesale Fireworks, Augusta RV, Advanced Storage. South: Butler County Agriculture, Bush’s home is zoned Agricultural. East: A-1 Agriculture –
Mecca Acres legal non-conforming residential subdivision. West: Sedgwick County, cellular tower, 600’ square on corner limited commercial, remainder is
residential.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Sewer
is located on the property. Water is +/600 feet north along U.S. Hwy 54. 159th Street is paved.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Services
are available but not on the property
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Platting
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
This
will be grouped multi-family and will be required to go before the Site Plan
Review Committee. This will definitely need screening.
|
|
|
|
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
vacant MH-1 land is available within the City of Andover.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
vacant MH-1 land is available within the City of Andover, however there are
lots already developed, existing and available in Andover Estates.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Compatible
to North, East and South, these are residential
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Meets
the intent of the first paragraph in MH-1 zoning, it does fit the district
applied for
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of
the Plan?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
It
is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan but does not enhance the plan.
(Yes 5-3, Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson and John McEachern NO)
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Opposition – Drainage, traffic, flood plain, concern for
property values, compatibility to neighborhood, density
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16.
Is there any information or
are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Support the application contingent upon platting and
satisfactory approvals from FEMA.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Received
traffic study, property value study and opinion by Bussart not in support.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes-John
McEachern, Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson, Quentin Coon. No- Charles Malcom,
Charley Malcom, Ron Roberts and Lynn Heath
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I
Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No.
Z-2001-01, be approved to allow a change in zoning from the R-2 Single-Family
Residential District to the MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District. at
Cottonwood Point Planned Unit Development, based on the findings of the
Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include
items 9, there is no vacant land available to develop mobile home property. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Lynn Heath made a motion to amend the motion to include item
12, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding property and 14, conforms
and enhances the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion on the
amendment passed 5-3 with Sheri Geisler, Joe Robertson and John McEachern
voting against the motion.
There was general discussion
regarding the motion. This included Les Mangus clarifying that the streets
would be above the flood plain as would the property for the manufactured
homes. Quentin Coon asked for a point of order and asked that if a vote to
approve the motion was denied if we have to vote on the disapproval. Mr.
McEachern stated that a tie vote was the same as disapproval.
Ron Roberts voiced concern
regarding the traffic, number of lots using a single entrance and the speed
of development and offered an amendment to the motion as follows:
To limit the maximum of 80 lots being developed
before a second egress is made and traffic flow enhancements on Hwy 54 and 159th Street are made.
Les Mangus reminded the
Planning Commission that this is a zoning hearing and the issues referred to
by Mr. Roberts were platting issues. Mr. Mangus stated that these could be
conditions to the platting, but to require that this be done prior to a
zoning change is not permissible. Mr. Mangus stated that conditions can be
attached at platting, not zoning.
Ron Roberts
withdrew his motion.
A new amendment to the motion
was made as follows:
Platting is required to be
complete prior to the zoning change becoming effective.
The amendment to the
motion carried 6-2 with Charley Lewis and Joe Robertson voting no.
The vote on the original
motion is 5-3 with Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Quentin Coon, Charley Lewis and Lynn Heath for the motion, Sheri Geisler, John McEachern and Joe Robertson
opposed to the motion.
Jeff Bridges stated that
this case would go in front of the City Council on August 28, 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quentin Coon called for a 5-minute recess at 8:55
p.m.
|
Recess
|
|
|
|
|
Quentin Coon reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Chairman Coon wanted to establish when the meeting would be stopped tonight
due to the length of the agenda and recommended that the Commission work
through item number 8 at least. There was general discussion and then
agreement that they would work through at least item number 8 on the agenda
which is the public hearing to amend the Green Valley Planned Unit
Development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nealy Stotler of 2342 N. Andover Road wanted to know
which house was being annexed. He was given the address and wanted to know
if it was the stucco house, and he was told by Les Mangus it was. Joe
Robertson asked where he was in relation to this house. Mr. Stotler wanted
to know what type of business would be allowed in this place. Mr. Robertson
asked if he was further north. Mr. Stotler stated he was two houses further
north. Mr. Stotler wanted to know why “he” went in there and started tearing
stuff out and he didn’t see no permit. Chairman Coon stated the
Nealy Stotler came to the podium and stated he saw
the Planning Commission vote for annexation and he stated there is a water
problem there and the Commission is voting more property in with a known
condition and the Commission approved this. Mr. Stotler stated he has a
problem with the Commission voting in property so somebody else can have a
business or whatever, he’s not worried about that but he is saying we don’t
worry about the problem and then go ahead and allow a building. Chairman
Coon stated that those issues will be addressed in the zoning hearing. Mr.
Bridges stated there was not a public hearing on this case as this was an
annexation at the request of the property owner. Commissioner McEachern
stated that in the last month property that has been adjoining to the City of
Andover have been recommended for annexation into the City of Andover. If the property is contiguous to the City or are in close proximity to the City
these areas have been annexed recently. Mr. McEachern stated that this
annexation is not anything unusual.
|
Recommendation on the
annexation of Lot 5 in the Fortney Acres Subdivision, 2300 N. Andover Road.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Bridges stated that Gilmore Street is in the
plan for future annexation into the City but not at this time as the City is
unable to provide sufficient water and sewer service to this area due to the
distances from existing service lines.
John McEachern asked that the Commission go through
the checklist.
|
Z-2001-02: Public hearing
on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler
County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District at 2300 N. Andover Road.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 7
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-2001-02
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Timothy
and Heide McFadden
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Butler County
Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Existing single-family residence on private water
well and septic system.
|
|
LOCATION:
|
2300
N. Andover Road, Lot 5 Fortney Acres
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
2
½ acres.
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Potential
commercial tenants
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
Butler County
Rural Residential
|
|
South:
|
Butler County
Rural Residential
|
|
East:
|
R-2 Single-Family Residential vacant property
adjacent to Rothco Construction office and mini storage.
|
|
West:
|
Decker-Kiser P.U.D. B-2 Neighborhood Business
District vacant property used for agriculture.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Located along an unnamed tributary to Four-Mile
Creek with a substantial flood plain.
|
|
|
|
* 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: Butler County Residential. South: Butler County Rural Residential. East: R-2 Single-Family
Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini
storage. West: Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant property
used for agriculture.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: Butler County Residential. South: Butler County Rural Residential. East: R-2 Single-Family
Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini
storage. West: Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant
property used for agriculture.
|
|
|
|
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: Butler County Residential. South: Butler County Rural Residential. East: R-2 Single-Family
Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini
storage. West: Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant
property used for agriculture.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
North: Butler County Residential. South: Butler County Rural Residential. East: R-2 Single-Family
Residential vacant property adjacent to Rothco Construction office and Mini
storage. West: Decker/Kiser PUD B-2 Neighborhood Business District vacant
property used for agriculture
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes
because the zoning change of the property across the street from this
property.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Public
water and sewer are not extended to the property but they can be provided.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Public
water and sewer are not extended to the property but they 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:
|
Dedication
of 50’ Andover road ½ right of way required
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Dedication
of 50’ Andover road ½ right of way required
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Screening of adjacent
residential properties would be required
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Screening of adjacent
residential properties would be 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:
|
Vacant
B-1, 2, 3 properties are available in the Decker/Kiser PUD and Andover Heights reserve.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
There
is vacant B-1, 2, and 3 zoning across the street._
|
|
|
|
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 opportunities would be provided.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Yes,
with adequate screening
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
13.
Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Case
by case review of commercial cases
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
John
McEachern stated that we would not allow a B-3 in a residential neighborhood
vote 6-2 with Joe Robertson and Charley Lewis voting yes.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Business
between two rural residences, drainage, sewer system and traffic
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Opposition – Drainage, sewer, traffic, flooding concern
for property values, compatibility to residential neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16.
Is there any information or
are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval contingent upon
dedication of 50’ Andover Road ½ Right-of-way.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Approval contingent upon
dedication of 50’ Andover Road ½ Right-of-way.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
17.
If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the
hardship experienced by, the applicant?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No
detriment to the public is perceived
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Late
hours of operation, type of business that may go into the neighborhood, based
on B-3 Zoning
|
|
|
|
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-2001-02, be
disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler
County Rural Residential to the B- 3 Central Shopping District at 2300 N.
Andover Road based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in
the summary of this hearing, which include items 4, because it does not correct
an error, Item 6, there is no right-of-way, Item 9 because there is suitable
vacant land available, Item 11, as she feels B-3 is not suitable with
residential right next to it., Item 14 because it is not appropriate for a
B-3 within a residential district and #15 as it is not appropriate for a B-3
within a residential district. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7-1 for
disapproval of the rezoning application with Charles Malcom voting for
approval of the B-3 zoning.
There was an additional
motion.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I
Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No.
Z-2001-02, be approved to allow a change in zoning district classification
from the Butler County Rural Residential to the B-2 Neighborhood Business
District at 2300 N. Andover Road based on the findings of the Planning
Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 9,
there is B-3 zoning available across the street but no B-2, Item 10 this
would offer more services and employment and Item 14, these issues are
decided on a case by case basis.
The motion died for a lack
of a second.
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charles Malcom, move that we
recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2001-02, be approved to allow
a change in zoning district classification from the Butler County Rural
Residential to the B-1 Office Business District at 2300 N. Andover Road based
on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this
hearing, which include items 9, there is B-3 zoning available across the
street but no B-2, Item 10 this would offer more services and employment and
Item 14, these issues are decided on a case by case basis.
Sheri Geisler read the first
paragraph of the B-1 zoning regulations as follows:
This district is designed to provide for business
and professional offices with compatible institutional and public building
uses. Such uses have limited evening activities and should be located along
arterial streets and to serve as buffer areas between business and industrial
districts and the residential districts.
Tim McFadden asked if he
could address the Commission. Mr. McFadden stated that Sheri Geisler stated this district is to be a “buffer.” He stated that this property is on Andover Road and is our major arterial going through the City and there is nothing in back
or before it to be acting as a buffer to. Mr. McFadden stated that this
Planning Commission took from the corner of Andover Road and 21st
Street on the west side and went all the way north past the three properties
that are now existing and put B-3 and B-2 zoning in. Mr. McFadden wants to
know how this would be a residential neighborhood as the entire frontage
across the street from these homes is B-3 and B-2. Mr. McFadden does not
understand what this is acting as a buffer for and he would consider B-1 if
the Planning Commission could explain what he was acting as a buffer for with
nothing in back of it and B-3 in front of it. Sheri Geisler stated that
across the street was done as a PUD. Mr. McFadden stated that across the
street is 29 acres of B-3, a shopping center district, which may be within a
PUD district but it is zoned B-3, which is what is at the Dillon’s center.
He asked that someone explain
what he is being a buffer for when he has B-3 in front of him and nothing but
mini-storage facilities behind him. He asked that the Commission explain
how this is a residential neighborhood when almost 1000’ of frontage right
across the street is B-3 and B-2 going from the south to the north. He
stated there are only three properties on the east side and doesn’t
understand how this is a residential neighborhood.
Mr. McEachern stated that
across the street there are no residences there at all and as the PUD was
planned, anybody who buys a house in this neighborhood will know where the
businesses go. Across the street, where we are talking about, it is not the
same thing. Mr. McEachern stated that if the land surrounding this was
vacant he probably wouldn’t have a problem with the B-3 if there were no
residents there. Mr. McEachern stated that in this case it is a residential neighborhood
down to the college. There is a residence to the south, to the north and to
the north of that residence. The only business there is only to the back of
the property. Mr. McFadden thanked Mr. McEachern for defining residential.
Mr. McEachern stated he makes a decision based on if he lived in the house
and he is very sensitive to the fact when a business comes next to somebody
that already owns that property, who is already there and established there,
perhaps the greatest asset they have is in that house. Mr. McFadden agrees
with Mr. McEachern but reminded the Commission that mini- storage is behind
his property and B-3 is a across the street from it and feels it is time for
this property to be used as a commercial use. Mr. Mangus stated that B-3
and B-2 is across the street. Mr. Mangus stated that the B-1 does not have
to act as a buffer it just says that it can.
The motion was seconded by
Lynn Heath.
Vote for motion to rezone
the property at 2300 N. Andover Road to B-1. 5-3 Nays being Quentin Coon, Charley Lewis and Joe Robertson.
Chairman Coon stated that the
recommendation will go to the City Council on September 11, 2001.
Nealy Stotler, 2342 N. Andover Road stated that the Planning Commission alluded to a drainage problem
coming from city property and he thinks that stands for litigation because
nobody’s corrected that longstanding problem and a thorn in his side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Bob Kaplan represented the applicant Metro Engineering and stated
this application seeks an amendment to the Green Valley Greens PUD by adding
one use, which is R-4 Multi-Family Residential. The applicant is changing
parcel 15 to develop the north part of the existing parcel 15 to parcel 16 and
change the zoning from B-4 to Multi-Family residential. Mr. Kaplan brought
Paul Fechner, Vice President of Metro Engineers, Paul McKinley, a Wichita based traffic engineer, Craig Hanson with Weigand-Omega, Eric Wolfe the architect
with Metro Engineers, and Russ Ewy from Baughman and Company to answer any
questions the Commission may have. Mr. Kaplan stated that this is the right
location if you are going to approve multi-family residential as there is
commercial property to the south and single family to the north. Mr. Kaplan
stated this is a text book case for multi-family residential zoning. He
stated that the applicant is asking for a step down in zoning, with less
intensive uses than already approved. Mr. Kaplan stated this use will have
less traffic, less strain on the infrastructure and also is in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan for the City.
Paul Fechner, Vice President
of Metro Engineers, 732 N. 129th Street, Omaha, Nebraska described
the apartment units. He stated there are 168 units proposed, 16 dwelling
units per acre. 60 units will be 855 square foot one bedroom apartments, 96
units will be 1150 square foot two bedroom, two bath apartments and 12 units
will be 1260 square foot three bedroom apartments. Mr. Fechner stated there
would be 84 garages available. Mr. Fechner stated that the upper floor
apartments have vaulted ceiling and 2/3 of the units will have fireplaces.
Mr. Fechner stated the majority of the structure will be brick. Mr. Fechner
stated they have chosen Andover due to the great school district, proximity
to Wichita, and the need for this type of property. Mr. Fechner feels this
property will be filled within 9-10 months of completion and will have an 8-9
month construction time. Charley Lewis asked if there would be covered
parking. Mr. Fechner stated there was not but there would be two parking
stalls per dwelling unit.
Chairman Coon asked if the
apartments would look like the picture they just presented. Mr. Fechner
stated they would. John McEachern asked what the height of the building is.
Mr. Eric Wolfe, the architect, stated the units in Omaha are 27’ above grade,
ceiling heights of the apartments are 8’ with some vaulted ceilings in the
upper apartments. Mr. McEachern asked what the top of center of the roofline
is. Mr. Wolfe stated it was 42’. Mr. Wolfe stated that this is slab on
grade, wood frame apartments with fire sprinklers and fire protection
services. There are also fireplaces and fully equipped kitchens, with washer
and dryers. Self contained separately metered and separate utilities. Mr.
Wolfe stated that all units have either a deck or balcony. Mr. Wolfe stated
that they would have pretty much all the amenities one would expect in a
home.
Mr. Kaplan stated that the
photos presented tonight were from an actual project they are currently
working on in Council Bluffs.
Charles Malcom asked if there
were tornado shelters. Mr. Wolfe stated that he is unfamiliar with our
requirements but shelters can be put in central corridors, separate structures
or even in a clubhouse basement and stated there are a variety of ways to
deal with what is required by the City.
Gary Fugit, the broker for
the transaction stated that this will be high quality and it will be well
managed. He feels this will help spur additional development of commercial
on the south side of this land. Mr. Fugit stated they have already had a
contract come in for a small 40 unit motel, something Andover could use. Mr.
Fugit stated that there is another group interested in an auto plaza and a
lot of this is contingent upon the apartments going in, when rooftops come in
commercial business wants to further develop around it. He feels it is a
very nice plan and well buffered and thinks the residential developers and
commercial land owners believe it will be good for the development of the
homes to the north of it.
Chairman Coon opened the
public comment portion of the hearing at 10:44 p.m.
Brian Eidem of 419 Concord stated his property butts up to the proposed Parcel 16. He stated that the
homeowners in this area are taken aback. He stated that the presenters have
had a long time to get nice photographs and work through this and all they
got was a little piece of paper saying a 18 dwellings per acre is getting put
in and we have no idea what is going in and that makes it real hard to
prepare against something like this. Mr. Eidem thinks this is a little bit
big. Mr. Eidem stated that in Parcel 15 there are restrictions as to what
can go in there and one of them is you can’t have something over 35’. He
stated there are different businesses that are in the B-4 but cannot come in
even though it is B-4. He asked if parcel 15 was going to be residential.
Bob Kaplan stated that the
original Parcel 15, the whole thing was commercial. Mr. Kaplan stated that
the south half will be commercial and the proposed parcel 16 is for the
apartments.
Mr. Eidem stated that on the
east side of 16 that butts up next to his property there was supposed to be a
row of houses along there. He stated that along next to his property 200’
past his property is supposed to be residential. When he purchased his lot
it was all residential, there wasn’t any commercial. Part of the deal with
putting in the commercial was bringing the residential on down so when he
looked out his back yard he would see residential. Mr. Edom stated that on the old maps and new maps it doesn’t show that and he feels that is a
mis-representation. Mr. Eidem stated he and some of the homeowners around
the area would prefer that perhaps there are patio homes or town homes
instead of the big monster buildings. Mr. Eidem would like this put off to
the next meeting so the presenters can sit down with the homeowners and
hammer out some differences.
Lynn Heath asked what was 35’.
Mr. Eidem stated “you can’t have a structure over 35’ ”.
Les Mangus stated that the
original parcel #15 limited the height to 35’. He stated it was negotiated
down from the maximum allowed height in the B-4. Mr. Mangus stated that to
address Mr. Eidem’s concern that there were promises made that if parcel 15
was not developed residentially there would be a 200’ buffer along those lots
in the Andover Village Addition.
Charley Lewis wanted to
confirm that old parcel 15 was changed to parcel 15 and 16 and the buffer
strip was lost. Mr. Mangus stated that the buffer was needed if the parcel
was developed B-4 business and if it was not developed residentially there
would be a 200’ buffer strip. Mr. Mangus stated that new parcel 16 is
approximately the north half of old parcel 15.
There was general discussion
as to what was done in the past regarding this property.
Mr. Eidem is concerned with
the layout of the proposed buildings and is concerned that the proposal was
not shown to the nearby homeowners. Les Mangus read the P.U.D. ordinance
that Mr. Eidem referred to as follows: “If the R-2 Single-Family Residential
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 6 foot screening wall. If commercial
construction occurs prior to the development of the Green Valley Greens
residential areas, the developer will plant 6’ to 8’ evergreen trees along
the property line between Andover Village Addition and Green Valley Greens.”
Mr. Mangus stated there was an option that a row of houses could extend down Nine Iron Street beyond the south line of Andover Village Addition adjacent to the east
and in lieu of dedicating
that area as a buffer area to the commercial. Mr. Eidem asked if there were
specific businesses that were listed in that also. Mr. Mangus stated that
the ordinance lists all the permitted uses in the B-4. Mr. Eidem also stated
that the height is in the ordinance. Mr. Eidem stated there were a number of
things they tried to restrict down.
Mr. Mangus stated that the
maximum structure height was reduced to 35’ and the maximum lot coverage
increased to 50%.
Mr. Eidem stated there was
not much for him to see and all the homeowners know is there will be 18
dwellings per acre, the ones behind Dillons he was told are 14 per acre and
that looks pretty heavy.
Carol Prucha, 338 Chippers Court, Lot #4 doesn’t really have an objection to the apartments coming in, however
is concerned with buffer between her house and the apartments as they will be
directly up against it and also the drainage.
Judy Welner, 340 S. Nine
Iron, Lot 31 and is concerned with the traffic this will generate to the
neighborhood and is also concerned with the height of the dwelling and would
prefer a two level apartment complex as opposed to a three level. Mrs.
Welner agrees with Mr. Eidem that the homeowners in the area would like more
information, as they feel taken back by the project. She stated she is also
concerned with the effect on home values.
Penny Hargrove, 334 S. Nine
Iron, which is Lot 32. She stated there is a drainage problem that the
developer is trying to address. When they moved into this area they were
shown plans that all this property would be single-family dwellings and now a
year later after being there they are being told it will be multiple family
dwelling and they are concerned with the long range effect on the investment
they have in their house. Mrs. Hargrove feels that in 25 years her house
value will go down due to the run down old apartments that will be near her
home.
Lynn Heath asked Mrs.
Hargrove if she was told that this was going to be R-2. She stated she saw
plans not more than a few months ago. Lynn Heath asked who the plans were
from. Mrs. Hargrove stated that they saw the plans at the model home and it
shows Nine Iron as a road that goes around and actually connects to Jamestown. The plans show a cul-de-sac and single family homes.
Charley Lewis asked if Mr.
Kaplan or Mr. Fugit could address the issue of the model home still showing
that property being residential. Gary Fugit stated he will answer several
questions at this time. Mr. Fugit stated that if you look at the proposed
plan you see on the far east there is a 90’ buffer in place. Mr. Fugit
stated he believes it is not required but it is in place. A 90’ buffer with
trees, berms and so forth to protect the homes on the east. Mr. Fugit stated
there was a question about water retention. Mr. Fugit stated there is water
retention designed on the west side of the property which will also buffer
the existing homes. Mr. Fugit stated that the existing homes will be
buffered by green areas. Mr. Fugit then put up a map showing the proposed site
of the apartments. It shows a buffer of garages along the north side of the
proposed site. Mr. Fugit stated that a lot of misunderstandings happen when
people go into a sales office to look at a home and he thinks possibly the
area on the plans is commercial and has been and believes the map shown in
the sales office shows this as all commercial. Mr. Fugit stated that in his
opinion the R-4 use is a much better use for the property and much better for
the long term values of the homes. Mr. Fugit stated another issue is the
number of units per acre. He stated it is 16 units per acre not 18. Mr.
Fugit stated that Wichita goes up to 29 and 16 is not that dense and spread
over 10 acres is really not a big deal.
Chairman Coon asked how many
buildings this project would be. Mr. Fugit stated there would be six. Mr.
Fugit stated this will be a much better use of the land than B-4. He asked
someone to read the B-4 uses as he feels they are much more intense than what
they are suggesting for a use. Mr. Fugit stated that they want to
cooperate with the neighbors and also stated that the owners of this property
have a very large vested interest in developing, and having a good
development as they are top developers. Mr. Fugit stated there is a concern
of financing timing on this project that comes into play on this project as
in all projects and this one has some concerns and it is not an intention to
spring anything on anyone but the normal process gives notices and this is
the normal process we are in. John McEachern read the businesses that this
property is currently zoned for now. Automobile accessory stores, automobile
sales new and used, repair services include auto body repair, painting except
no independent auto body repair, automobile service stations, car washes,
commercial recreation centers such as bowling alleys and roller rinks,
garden stores, greenhouses, gifts, souvenir shops, motels, hotels, bed and
breakfast inns, recreation vehicle sales and service. Limited to the south
370’ by the highway, package liquor store, private club, restaurant, drive-in
restaurant in the south 370’ self service laundry dry cleaning establishment,
sporting goods stores, theater, indoor. Mr. Mangus stated that all the uses
in the B-4 are also allowed. Mr. McEachern stated that these are the uses
that were allowed from the B-5 plus all the businesses allowed in the B-4.
Eric Wolfe of Metro Engineers
wanted to clarify the height issue. Mr. Wolfe stated the definition that
would normally be used for height on a building that has a sloping roof would
be the mean height between the eave and the peak, not the absolute peak
height. Mr. Wolfe stated that under most zoning ordinances and the Uniform
Building Code, he is pretty sure that is what the local ordinance says. Mr.
Mangus stated that according to the zoning regulations a horizontal plane
above and parallel to the average finished grade of the entire zoning lot the
height shown in the district regulations. No part of any structure shall
project through such plane except chimneys, flag poles, steeples, etc. Charley Lewis stated that 35’ is our maximum here. Mr. Mangus stated that 35’ is correct. Mr.
Wolfe stated to comply with that would require a lower pitch on the roof; it
would take a lower peak of the roof than what the buildings are currently
designed for.
Guy S. Boyson, 340 S. Nine Iron Drive. Mr. Boyson stated that he has also seen plans that show Nine Iron Drive will go all the way through and connect to Jamestown. Mr. Boyson stated
that there is a model of all the homes in the proposed area where Nine Iron Drive would go through lot 16. Mr. Boyson stated he is opposed to the apartments.
There was then general
discussion about the different plans that were being looked at in the meeting
and at the model home.
Mr. Fugit stated that this is
a zoning issue; the issue with the plans is with the people at the model
home, not the city.
Colin Rose, 409 Concord, stated that there are nice pictures and layouts and doesn’t feel the homeowners
have been given enough time. He heard someone say they have money tied up in
this decision but they do not have the investment the people in this room
have. They do not have their own property tied up. Mr. Rose stated we are
all willing to work on that but stated there will be no justice in settling
this tonight. Mr. Rose feels that there are many issues to be settled and
does not feel that a decision should be made tonight as there is not enough
information to make a decision. He asked that the Planning Commission
continue the discussion at the next meeting.
Chris Brimminger just signed
a contract for 329 S. Nine Iron, Lot 23 and is about one month from closing
on his new home. He stated they looked at the neighborhoods, the school
district and decided this was the place they wanted to live. He is concerned
that this has happened very, very quickly. He stated he was told there would
be a buffer between their houses and the highway. One of his biggest
concerns is that now he will have an apartment complex within one or two
houses from him and wonders what this will do to the property value. He is
also concerned with the fact that he will be looking out his back yard at an
apartment complex and was looking forward to a relatively decent view. He
feels there may be some type of compromise reached if the parties get
together. He also commented there was not enough time to make a proper
decision.
Mr. Bob Kaplan stated that
his group never anticipated that people would prefer to live next door to a
service station or RV sales lot or a heavy commercial use as opposed to an
apartment. Mr. Kaplan stated that this did not cross their mind that anyone
would prefer heavy commercial to residential as a neighbor and are a little
bit taken back by that. Mr. Kaplan stated that he would let Mr. Fechner
address the deferral of this project. Mr. Kaplan stated that it is not that
easy to have a meeting with the neighborhood, the logistics alone are
difficult. Mr. Kaplan stated that they would be willing to have meetings and
listen to the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Kaplan stated this needs to move
forward. Mr. Kaplan stated that this needs to be done on the basis of the
record. He stated that Mr. Mangus read the ordinance and stated that they
are in compliance with that. He stated the ordinance stated the buffer was
to be there if the property was not residential and this is residential and
so they are in compliance with the ordinance, in compliance with the record
and in compliance with the past history of this. He was concerned with the
misinformation or old information that people were receiving but stated this
happens all the time when people do not do research. Mr. Kaplan stated that
they had no idea that people would object to a down zoning.
Judy Welner, 340 S. Nine
Iron, stated that they were under the impression that it was not commercial
next to them so they don’t look at this as a down zoning and perhaps if they
had known it was commercial it would look different. Mrs. Welner stated the
height of the building is an issue also.
Mr. Eidem stated that when he
got his zoning notice he had to come up here and then after he sat down
“they” gave him “this” and stated that this little blue print should have
been handed out when they got the zoning notice on this. He also stated
that Mr. Kaplan is not in compliance with the zoning with the multi-family.
He stated they know something is going in there, no one came around, the City
didn’t provide anything, he checked with Mr. Mangus a couple of weeks ago and
he said some company out of Omaha, Metro something and he couldn’t give him
any more information at all. Mr. Eidem thinks something should have been
handed out, something should have been made available and he would like the
Planning Commission to table this discussion and let the homeowners talk with
these people in the next few weeks, come back in a month and when everybody
has the full information the Commission can make a fair and honest decision
on this that will be suitable to everybody.
Quentin Coon closed the
public hearing at 11:29 p.m.
Joe Robertson suggested that
the meeting be suspended to the September meeting to allow the developers and
the community to communicate a bit more. He stated that we cannot do
anything about what people are told by realtors, which is completely out of
the hands of the Planning Commission, but he feels there is an issue as far
as building height that needs to be resolved. He stated we have not heard
from the applicant whether or not they can figure out a way to shave 7’ off
the roof. Mr. Robertson stated he doesn’t even have the map of the property
in his materials, showing the proposed building.
Mr. McEachern agrees that the
public hearing should be suspended so that any information that is gained can
be entered into the record in helping the decision making. Mr. McEachern
stated this would give an opportunity for the developer and neighbors to have
further dialogue.
There was general discussion
as to when the developers and neighbors could get together. Mr. Kaplan
stated they are willing to meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Kaplan is
concerned about the time table and asked the Planning Commission if they
would consider a special meeting.
Quentin Coon asked Les Mangus
how to handle this situation. Mr. Mangus stated that this could be continued
to the next regular meeting, take action tonight, continue indefinitely, to
the recessed meeting on Monday or a special meeting could be set.
There was general discussion
about drainage and other issues brought forth in the subdivision meeting.
Mr. Mangus also commented about the plans submitted this evening and Mr.
Eidem was correct that we those plans were not available to present to
anyone.
Sheri Geisler wanted to
reflect in the minutes that we want to remember to recommend putting a wall
between the residences and the apartment. Mr. McEachern commented that we
want to make sure there is a buffer or screening. Mr. Mangus stated that
this wall can be a part of this with conditions in the motion.
Motion was made by Joe Robertson to continue
Z-2001-03 public hearing to amend Green Valley Planned Unit Development to
the September 6, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Sheri Geisler
seconded the motion.
There was general conversation regarding the time for
the meeting.
Joe Robertson withdrew his
motion and made a motion to continue case Z-2001-03 public hearing to amend
Green Valley Planned Unit Development to the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting dated September 18, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. Sheri Geisler seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess this meeting of the Planning Commission to Monday, August 27, 2001 at 7:30
p.m. Joe Robertson seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
The meeting recessed at 11:45 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|