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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

October 18, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Clark Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were David Martine, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Services Director Donna Davis, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Member Lynn Heath and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

Review the minutes of the September 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 4/0/2 with Jan Cox and Ron Roberts abstaining.

Review the minutes of the Sept. 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the September 13, 2005 and September 27, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the October 4, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the October 11, 2005 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

Quentin Coon asked if the ISO rates had been improved yet. Les said they have not but the rates are lower from those of 10 years ago.

 

David Martine and Caroline Hale arrived at the meeting.

 

 

 

Z-2005-05 and SU-2005-03 Continue the public hearing on an application for a change of zoning district classification from the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District with Special use requested to establish a place for outside storage in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District located at 816 N. Andover Rd.

 

Clark Nelson said this case was continued from last month to allow the applicant to contact the neighbors about this proposed special use.

 

Les Mangus submitted a memo to the Planning Commission which said this public hearing was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to provide more detailed information about the proposed outdoor storage. The Andover Church of Christ desires to zone their property to B-2 Neighborhood Business District in order to market the north 118 feet for sale for business use. The Special Use for outdoor storage came about as a result of a possible purchaser of the vacant lot needing outdoor storage and display for water garden plants and accessories. The Special Uses listed in the B-2 Regulations lists lumberyards, which would typically include some outdoor storage of materials. In general, Staff is not opposed to the proposed change, but the outdoor storage could easily get out of hand if not limited by conditions of the Special Use. The adjacent residential neighbors to the east probably would not be opposed to seeing plant materials across their back property line, but many other materials could be objectionable.

 

Chairman Nelson invited anyone in favor of this application to come to the podium.

 

Mark Savoy of Savoy Co. and agent for the applicant presented the case. He said he submitted a preliminary site plan to the Commissioners and does not think the plan shows any “outside storage”. A “working display water garden” will be exhibited at the front of the building. He said this is a 2,400 square foot building. The storage area is enclosed inside the main structure. Behind the building will be a poly covered display area. To the north of that is a 20’ x 25’ pot and planting area. 2- 20’ x 100’ poly-covered greenhouses will be constructed to the east of the main building. The owner is planning for traffic circulation around the entire perimeter of this property. The front display area will be 42’ back from the property line which will allow for 18’ parking stall and 24’ drive. 10 parking spaces are required, and the church has agreed to allow overflow parking into their existing lot.

 

Clark Nelson thanked Mr. Savoy for the site plan information and asked for clarification of the special use request. Mark Savoy asked Les for help to define “outside storage”. Mark said he talked to the owner of Children’s Discovery Center and she is not opposed to this business. He also delivered a copy of the site plan to Mr. McBride who stated his concerns at the last meeting. There has been no further communication with Mr. McBride.

 

Quentin Coon asked about maximum lot coverage. Les said all permanent and temporary structures count. Quentin was concerned this site plan shows excess of 30% coverage. Les said it is tough to exceed the maximum lot coverage if all setbacks and building separation requirements are met.

 

Les said this specific business is not listed as a permitted use in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District. B-2 has a provision that prohibits outside storage and display of goods with few exceptions. He said the applicant needs to change the zone with a special use overlay to add this garden store to the permitted uses to allow the outside display.

 

Caroline Hale asked about the difference between the outside display at Ace Hardware and this application. Les explained Ace Hardware is zoned B-3 Central Shopping District which allows the outside display.  This application is for B-2 zoning which is more compatible with the neighbors. 

 

Caroline Hale asked if this business sold, would the property continue to carry the B-2 zoning with the special use. Clark Nelson answered the special use would stay but only for the specific business approved.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this case. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest that would disqualify them from participation in this case. Hearing none, he stated notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on August 25, 2005 and notices were mailed to 13 homeowners within the notification area on August 22, 2005. Chairman Nelson called for the deliberation of the Rezoning Report.

 

Clark Nelson stated that at the last meeting there were 2 neighbors of this subject property present who spoke in favor of this special use, but were uncomfortable about the language needed to limit the use.

Z-2005-05 and SU-2005-03: at 816 N. Andover Rd.

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Andover Church of Christ/ Mark Savoy

 

REQUEST:

Change of zoning district from R-1 to B-2 with Special Use for outside storage.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing church and parsonage

 

LOCATION:

816 N. Andover Rd.

 

SITE SIZE:

3.6 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Existing church and parsonage to remain. Vacant lot to be offered for sale for potential business use with the possibility of limited outdoor storage.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- child care center

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- strip shopping/office center

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Crescent Lakes subdivision

West:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- existing single-family residences

R-2 Single-Family Residential- existing single-family residences

 

Background Information:

The church desires zone and plat the property to sell the vacant area for business uses.

 

* 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Chairman Nelson said they are on the application and in the Staff report.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Existing water & streets are in place. Sewer can be extended to serve the vacant lot.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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 is in process.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Outdoor storage adjacent to residential property would need intense screening.

x

 

PLANNING:

Les Mangus stated the materials for screening would be decided at the Site Plan Review Committee level.

 

 

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 land is available elsewhere in the nearby area.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

New business would offer new services and employment opportunities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

The property could be reserved for future growth of the church.

x

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said the commercial lot being offered for sale is no longer needed for church expansion.

 

 

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:

Potential business uses would have increased noise, light, traffic, etc. adjacent to residential neighbors.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

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 business uses along Andover Rd.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None.

 

 

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 with conditions: 1. Screening of east property line. 2. Storage limited to no more than 1/3 of the vacant lot. 3. Storage limited to not more than 10 feet in height.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Ron Roberts asked if the 10’ height needed to be specifically defined in the motion. Les said yes it does. There was general discussion about the definition of storage, and about the storage being limited to the back half of the lot. Les said the applicant is not planning to store materials outside of the structures. Les said the Commission needs to be specific when defining the outside storage and merchandise display.  He recommended the outdoor display area be no more than the enclosed building. Les further suggested the outdoor storage should be limited to the rear 1/3 of the lot and no more than 1/3 lot coverage. Discussion continued.

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District with a Special Use limited to Lot 1, Block A,  based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

1. Limited to a retail nursery and water garden product business.

2. Intense screening of the east property line to the residential property.

3. Storage limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total lot size and square footage of the building & display area is limited to no more than the total square feet of the enclosed building.

4. Storage limited to maximum 10 feet in height.

5. Storage limited to the east 1/3 of the lot. 

Based upon items 6, 10, 13, and 14. Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Andover Church of Christ/ Mark Savoy

 

REQUEST:

Change of zoning district from R-1 to B-2 with Special Use for outside storage.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing church and parsonage

 

LOCATION:

816 N. Andover Rd.

 

SITE SIZE:

3.6 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Existing church and parsonage to remain. Vacant lot to be offered for sale for potential business use with the possibility of limited outdoor storage.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- child care center

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- strip shopping/office center

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Crescent Lakes subdivision

West:

B-2 Neighborhood Business- existing single-family residences

R-2 Single-Family Residential- existing single-family residences

 

Background Information:

The church desires zone and plat the property to sell the vacant area for business uses.

 

* 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Chairman Nelson said they are on the application and in the Staff report.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Existing water & streets are in place. Sewer can be extended to serve the vacant lot.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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 is in process.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Outdoor storage adjacent to residential property would need intense screening.

x

 

PLANNING:

Les Mangus stated the materials for screening would be decided at the Site Plan Review Committee level.

 

 

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 land is available elsewhere in the nearby area.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

New business would offer new services and employment opportunities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

The property could be reserved for future growth of the church.

x

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said the commercial lot being offered for sale is no longer needed for church expansion.

 

 

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:

Potential business uses would have increased noise, light, traffic, etc. adjacent to residential neighbors.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Concur.

 

 

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 business uses along Andover Rd.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None.

 

 

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 with conditions: 1. Screening of east property line. 2. Storage limited to no more than 1/3 of the vacant lot. 3. Storage limited to not more than 10 feet in height.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Ron Roberts asked if the 10’ height needed to be specifically defined in the motion. Les said yes it does. There was general discussion about the definition of storage, and about the storage being limited to the back half of the lot. Les said the applicant is not planning to store materials outside of the structures. Les said the Commission needs to be specific when defining the outside storage and merchandise display.  He recommended the outdoor display area be no more than the enclosed building. Les further suggested the outdoor storage should be limited to the rear 1/3 of the lot and no more than 1/3 lot coverage. Discussion continued.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District with a Special Use limited to Lot 1, Block A,  based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

1. Limited to a retail nursery and water garden product business.

2. Intense screening of the east property line to the residential property.

3. Storage limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total lot size and square footage of the building & display area is limited to no more than the total square feet of the enclosed building.

4. Storage limited to maximum 10 feet in height.

5. Storage limited to the east 1/3 of the lot. 

Based upon items 6, 10, 13, and 14. Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

Les Mangus stated this zoning change will be heard by the City Council on November 8, 2005.

 

 

 

Review the Small Tract Final Plat of the Church of Christ Addition located at 816 N. Andover Rd.

 

The church desires to plat their property creating two lots. The Church & parsonage would remain together as a lot, and the vacant land would be a new lot available for commercial development. Most of the items in the Staff Checklist comments have been resolved before the Planning Commission Meeting.

 

Les Mangus said he had a conversation with Bickley Foster about this building setback line which “jogs” around the existing building. Bickley suggests the line be straight to 35’ and would make the existing building a legal non-conforming use and could continue to operate as it does today.

 

Clark Nelson asked Mark Savoy, agent for the applicant, if he wished to comment. Mark said he did not have anything to add.

 

David Martine asked if there was enough room on the front of these properties to accommodate the 10’ sidewalks. Les said it is adequate.

 

David Martine asked if all staff comments have been satisfied. Les said they have been now that the zoning has been approved.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to approve the final plat for the Church of Christ Addition located at 816 N. Andover Rd. with the condition of the 35’setback line to go straight through. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion approved 7/0.

Final Plat of the Church of Christ

 

 

Z-2005-06 Public hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from the A-1 Agricultural Transition District to the R-1 Single Family Residential District, and the establishment of the Serendipity Estates Preliminary Planned Unit Development, located at 200 N. 159th Street.

 

Les Mangus explained this case has been discussed at the last 2 meetings of the Subdivision Committee. He said the Serendipity Estates Preliminary PUD is Bob Kaplan’s desire to divide his 9.7 acre home site into five lots of varying sizes. The sole underlying reason for the PUD is to take exception to the Subdivision Regulations requirements for streets. Staff supports the proposal if some compromise can be reached for an adequate road to serve the five homes. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee Meetings has leaned towards a minimum 20 foot wide paved road with a drainage ditch along the north side only.

 

Chairman Nelson stated notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on September 22, 2005 and notices were mailed to 17 homeowners within the notification area on September 23, 2005.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest that would disqualify them from participation in this case. Jan Cox and her husband own property to the south of the applicant. She said after a previous discussion with the Andover City Attorney, she chose to disassociate herself from the assembled Commission.

 

Clark Nelson asked the applicant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the request and any response to the Zoning Administrator’s report.

 

Bob Kaplan, owner of Serendipity Estates, presented his case. He introduced Russ Ewy from Baughman Co. in the audience who is working with him on this application. Mr. Kaplan said the only issue not resolved in Subdivision Committee is access to this property. Mr. Kaplan recited the history of this property. He said he is concerned about the existing trees along the access road to these lots. He described the existing “S” shaped monument walls at the street entrance at 159th Street and said he is concerned about the possible necessity to remove them. Mr. Kaplan stated he does not want to pave this private road because that would require the removal of some if not all of the existing trees as well as the monument walls. He wants to continue the “rural” effect of this property.  He described this road that he continues to overlay with rock and stated this is a very hard surface that does not get muddy. Bob said the road could possibly be widened to 20’ if the trees were cut back, but he is concerned they will not survive it. He would prefer not widening the road to more than 16’.

 

Bob Kaplan explained a conversation he had with Fire Chief Jim Shaver concerning fire safety of these properties. Bob Kaplan said fire equipment has been in and out of this property several times over the years and they have had no problems.  Chief Shaver told Mr. Kaplan he preferred the road be paved, but that it would not be “a deal buster” if it remained rock. Chief Shaver told Mr. Kaplan to get as close to 20’ in width as possible. Mr. Kaplan restated his preference of 16’ to save the trees.

 

Bob Kaplan conceded to remove Lot 5 making this application for only 4 lots. That would shorten the total length of road to be maintained and would delete the issue of providing utilities to that back lot. He explained the option of connecting onto city utilities for lot 5 from Green Valley Home Owners Association on Lakeside Drive under the berm.  Mr. Kaplan compared the entrance of Serendipity Estates to that of Chateauroux and Belle Terre. There was continued discussion.

 

Ron Roberts asked Mr. Kaplan if he has received written permission to cross the berm in Green Valley. Mr. Kaplan said no, and that he has had no contact with their HOA. Mr. Kaplan said that would be the responsibility of the city to bring service to the lot line. Mr. Kaplan said utilities can be accessed from 159th Street if necessary.

 

Bob Kaplan said he has submitted a copy of the Serendipity Estates HOA Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which has been distributed to the Planning Commission. He said the document is preliminary at this point. 

 

There was discussion about using the gaps between the existing trees on the road to provide for passing lanes of 2-way traffic. David Martine asked how wide the existing road is now. Bob Kaplan said it is about 8’ wide. Photographs of the road and trees were shown to the Commissioners and Staff.

 

David Martine was concerned about contractor’s trucks not having enough room to function especially if 2 homes are being built at the same time. Bob Kaplan said he does not foresee that happening. David Martine restated his preference for a 20’ wide road to access all properties included in the PUD. Bob Kaplan said he would comply with the decision of the City, but continued to ask to keep the existing trees.

 

David Martine asked what the minimum street width is in the city. Les Mangus said the minimum public street is 29’ wide back to back.  David Martine asked if there is a ditch along this road. Mr. Kaplan said there would be a bar ditch built for drainage. There was discussion about the drainage flow on the applicant’s property. Bob Kaplan explained how all the utilities would be delivered to the property.

 

David Martine asked Bob Kaplan which issues are still in disagreement. Bob said 3 items:

  1. He prefers the surface of the road remain rock.
  2. Save the existing trees.
  3. Save the entry monument walls.

 

David Martine asked how wide the private streets are in Green Valley patio homes. Les said they are also 29’ wide, but that is a high density neighborhood. Jeff Syrios said it is hard to compare the 2.

 

Les Mangus said this comes from the Uniform Fire Code which states “you shall provide fire access to any building that would be a minimum of 20’ wide if the driveway is less than 150’ in length. If it is more than that, the requirement increases to 26’.” After talking to the Fire Chief, he and Les agreed that 20’ is a reasonable compromise to service the 4 or 5 houses.

 

Les said the entry monuments are out of his control. They are within what will be dedicated as the 50’ minimum arterial street right-of-way. Once that is done, the monuments must come down because they are an obstruction to the vision triangle. When the Final PUD comes to the Planning Commission, the minimum 50’ arterial street right-of-way will be dedicated. The structures must be removed. Les said the existing right-of-way is 30’, subdividing increases the minimum to 50’.

 

There was discussion about the 9 existing Eastern Red Cedar trees on the north side of the road. Bob Kaplan asked to see the annexation ordinance from this property.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the existing house would continue to be a duplex after it is sold. Bob Kaplan said that would be up to the buyer.

 

Jeff Syrios said the only issue of contention is for fire safety access.  He is unclear about the Fire Chief’s statement.  Clark said the only information submitted has been hearsay.  Les read the following from the Fire Code: “Facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete, or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds.” The Fire Chief said the existing road will withstand the 75,000 pound equipment. Les said it is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to decide the standards to be maintained by city subdivisions.

 

At 8:20 p.m., Clark Nelson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor or opposition of this application.

 

David Cox of 120 N. 159th Street East said he is still concerned about the pad height of lots 2 and 3, making the houses well above the street trees. He is also uneasy about fire trucks being expected to make a 90 degree turn onto this access road if it is only 16’ wide. He said it is difficult to pull into his own property with his motor home.

 

Clark Nelson asked Mr. Cox if the pad height and turning radius for fire trucks are the only issues he needs addressed. Mr. Cox is still concerned about the long-term maintenance of this private road as well as increased traffic on it will create a dust problem. Mr. Cox said he does not care how wide the road is, he just wants to keep the existing trees along the south side of the road.

 

Charlotte Bass asked Bob Kaplan what material is currently used to maintain the road. Bob said it is hard rock and that the road does not get muddy.

 

David Martine asked if road maintenance is addressed in the covenant. Bob Kaplan said that  it states if he does not take care of it, the city is authorized to take care of it and the cost will be charged to his property taxes.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue.

 

Janice Cox of 120 N. 159th Street East said she is concerned that cars need to have room to pass each other.

 

Les Mangus said the Fire Code addresses the need for widening roads to accommodate fire trucks parking at a hydrant. It suggest  a hammerhead. Mr. Kaplan stated he will work with the fire department to accommodate a special “notch out” in the road.

 

David Martine asked Russ Ewy of Baughman Co. if the existing driveway would have to be raised or lowered. Russ Ewy said it would not need to be changed.

 

David Martine asked Russ Ewy for the minimum pad height of foundation walls. Russ said it would be 1326.5 on the elevation and would be 1’ above the crown elevation of the road. The orientation of the houses will have to be to the south.

 

David Martine asked if there are any drainage easements. Russ Ewy said there is existing utility easement in the south and they have planned an additional 50’ utility, access, and drainage easement. There was discussion about the drainage of this property. Russ said the width of the ditch will be overkill based upon the side slope ratio and the 12’ culvert minimum standard.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Commission.

 

Joan Thompson of 111 N. Lakeside Drive said her concern was about the utility easement running through the middle of the berm which if used to supply Serendipity Estates with utilities, would mean a loss of private property to the adjacent owners. Clark Nelson said that since Mr. Kaplan has withdrawn lot 5 that is no longer an issue.

 

Les agreed as the Thompson’s property was platted, the easement is not contiguous to the Kaplan property. There is 10’ between the property line and the edge of the easement where the sewer is located. There is also a reserve adjacent to Kaplan’s property, with no homes, that if necessary, could be negotiated with the HOA for easement to service that property. Joan Thompson was concerned precedence would be set for private property to be constantly obtained in the form of easements to bring utility service to other areas.  Clark Nelson stated Mr. Kaplan would have to negotiate privately for easements if necessary. Clark said since Mr. Kaplan has withdrawn Lot 5 from the PUD, this issue is no longer a problem.

 

Ron Roberts asked if municipal water and sewer would be required for Lot 4. Les said yes it would be.

 

At 8:40 p.m., Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing and called for the deliberation of the Rezoning Report.

 

Chairman Nelson commended Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan for their compromising attitude during this case.

 

Quentin Coon said it would be more logical for the road to be widened to the north side and his opinion is all PUD’s should be held to the same standards and have paved streets.

 

Clark Nelson said this PUD is for only 4 lots and is a unique situation. He does not see this comparable to other additions containing more lots.

 

Ron Roberts still wants to see this road paved and believes the dust from this road will be a problem in the future.

Z-2005-06 Serendipity Estates Preliminary Planned Unit Development, located at 200 N. 159th Street.

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                       

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-06

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Bob Kaplan/ Baughman Co.

 

REQUEST:

Zoning district change from A-1 Agricultural Transition to R-1 Single-Family Residential with PUD overlay.

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

200 N. 159th Street; +/- ½ mile north of US-54 on the east side of 159th Street.

 

SITE SIZE:

9.77 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Single-Family dwellings

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

A-1 Agricultural Transition- existing suburban residence on +/- 10 acres

South:

A-1 Agricultural Transition- existing suburban residence on +/- 10 acres

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Green Valley PUD single family dwellings.

West:

Wichita SF-5 Single-Family Residential. - Grand Mere vacant lots.

 

Background Information:

One of 4- 10 acre tracts along 159th St. sold by the original developer of Green Valley for suburban homes. All were annexed by the City after the adjacent areas were annexed and developed.

 

* 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Agriculture to R-1 Single-Family

 

 

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, water, & streets can be extended from nearby existing facilities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

None required.

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

 

X

 

STAFF:

Similarly sized residential lots are available across the street in Grand Mere.

x

 

PLANNING:

David Martine said Grand Mere is in Sedgwick County, not Andover.

 

 

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:

N.A.

 

x

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment is perceived.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Provides a variety of lot sizes, and promotes the use of public water and sewer.

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Neighbor to the south is opposed to the gravel road being used by 5-6 families because of the dust.

 

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said many compromises have been made for this case and that most issues have been settled.

 

 

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 on the paving of an adequate private road.

 

 

PLANNING:

No further comment made here.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

Clark Nelson summarized previous comments as follows:

  1. The brick monument must be removed due to the extension of the 50’ right-of-way.
  2. Lot 5 has been eliminated.
  3. The width of the road has been discussed as 16’ or 20’.
  4. Paving vs. Rock- Mr. Kaplan has proven the rock surface has survived the years and the Fire Chief has stated this is adequate for fire equipment access, and Clark Nelson said it would be appropriate to allow the road to remain rock instead of requiring it to be paved.

Quentin Coon asked where this is defined as a private road. Les Mangus said these issues will be better defined at the Final PUD plan when hard line dimensions will be put on all the roadways, improvements and easements.  There was continued discussion about the definition of “private road”.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-06 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the A-1 Agricultural Transition  District to the R-1 Single-Family Residential District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

  1. Per the applicant’s request, removal of Lot 5.
  2. A 20’ drive be installed to the east end of Lot 3.From that point on can revert to a 16’ road.
  3. The road surface be asphalt millings or sand road gravel, no exposed limestone will be acceptable.
  4. Trees on the south will remain in tact, and a minimum of 2% drainage in all drainage easements.

 

 Motion seconded by Charlotte Bass. Motion carried 5/1 with Ron Roberts in opposition over the surface material of the road (Jan Cox had removed herself from the discussion due to a conflict).

 

Les Mangus said this will go before the City Council on November 8, 2005. Bob Kaplan asked this be deferred to a later date because he will be out of town then.

 

 

 

Jan Cox rejoined the Commission at 8:55 p.m.

 

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Montana Hills 2nd Addition. This final plat is the second and final phase of the Montana Hills Addition. The plat is in compliance with the preliminary plat, and only has minor changes in lot sizes from the final plat that was reviewed with the 1st phase. The Subdivision Committee debated the need for sidewalks, even though the first phase does not have them. The design engineer is researching the request for additional easement along the south property line as requested by the electric utility. The staff comments from the checklist can be satisfied before acceptance by the City Council.

 

Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates represented the applicant. He gave a brief history of this development. He said on the Preliminary Plat, minimum lot frontage was 80’ and has been changed to 90’ on this final plat. This change has reduced the total number of lots from 36 to 33 and lots have been made larger. The configuration of the street right-of-way has been moved slightly. He said the Subdivision Committee discussed the drainage easement along the south side of lots 1-4 and 14. That has been agreed to be changed to “drainage and utility easement”. Kenny Hill said he has noticed a number of trees in that area, and after surveying, have decided that area of Lots 1-4 can be accessed without destroying the trees. On lot 14 they would prefer to provide a 10’ utility easement between Lots 13 & 14 and work out the details with Butler Rural Electric. He also said the building setbacks throughout this addition are also utility easements.

 

David Martine asked if all the drainage easements are designed at 2%. Kenny Hill stated there is 2% grade away from all the houses, but he explained the difficulty of designing all drainage at 2%. This property as well as the others completed by Poe and Associates has been designed at 1% which is the minimum standard. There was general discussion about grade percent. Les Mangus said this property has good natural drainage. Kenny Hill assured the Commission the drainage system designed in Montana Hills is better than the one in the Aspen Creek area. Les Mangus explained if the drainage inlets are blocked with anything basements will flood if there is no other natural outlet.

 

Clark Nelson asked how the drainage standard would be changed. Les Mangus said Subdivision Regulations would be amended by the Planning Commission.  Clark wants to see a workshop session on drainage at the Subdivision Committee level. Discussion continued.

 

Tom Mack of Devlin Enterprises and managing partner of Montana Land Development addressed the Planning Commission who said he trusts the judgment of Kenny Hill and Les Mangus on drainage issues. Both have assured him this system is better than Aspen Creek. Discussion continued.

 

Jan Cox was concerned there are no sidewalks designed into this development. Kenny Hill stated there are none in Phase 1 either. Jan asked for a sidewalk on Logan Pass. Les Mangus said this is a loop street to tie into Harry Street and that the sidewalk would not connect to anything else in the city and policy does not require sidewalks in this neighborhood. 

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to approve the Final Plat of the Montana Hills Phase 2 Addition. David Martine seconded the motion with the designed 1% drainage that he has complete faith in. Motion carried 5/2 with Jan Cox and Ron Roberts in opposition because of the lack of sidewalks.

Final Plat of the Montana Hills 2nd Addition

 

 

Review and accept the 2006 meeting schedule. Les asked the Planning Commission to notify him if he sees any potential conflicts in this planning calendar.

 

 

 

Member Items:

 

David Martine- Dave said he wanted the community to know the amount of work and labor that went into the Gazebo project by the city. He said the city saved thousands of dollars by using city manpower and city equipment. He commended the city on this project and said the Gazebo is beautiful.

 

Jeff Syrios- Said he appreciated the additional FYI planning articles included in the packets. He hopes this continues.

 

Clark Nelson- Also stated his appreciation to David Martine, Les Mangus, and other city employees for all their hard work, and he agrees the Gazebo is beautiful.

 

Clark also wants to address the request for a drainage workshop session.

 

Clark noted that Jeff Bridges is absent tonight due to volunteering in Mississippi for the disaster relief. Clark commended Jeff for his efforts to help.

 

Clark said he appreciated Donna Davis attending the meeting in Jeff’s absence.

 

Jan Cox asked when the workshop sessions would begin again. Clark said that due to the upcoming holiday season, workshops would be scheduled after the new year.

Member Items

 

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 15th day of November 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.