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

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

March 15, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 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, Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll was absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the November 16, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Review the minutes of the November 16, 2004.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the February 8, 2005 and February 22, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the March 1, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

Z-2005-01: Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the Village Crossing Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development to change a portion of Parcel 2 from the B-1 Office Business District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

Clark Nelson referred to the memo from Les Mangus to understand the staff position on this matter. Les gave some background on this case and said this is an existing PUD that has been finaled  in 1997 or 1998. The current zoning is partially B-1 Office Business District partially B-2 Neighborhood Business District with some uses added in from the B-3 zone. The owner is asking to change the B-1 portion to B-2. The land is partially developed, the Bank of America is complete, and the Village Crossing retail center is in this development. The owner wants to change the zoning of the remaining property on this site.

 

Clark Nelson opened the public hearing for Z-2005-01 at 7:05 p.m.

 

Russ Ewy with Baughman Company, agent for the applicant, said that Dr. A.J.  Reed, owner/ developer is out of town and not able to attend this hearing. Russ stated the approved PUD limits the commercial retail oriented uses to the south 2/3 of the site. The north parcel of 2 lots is currently zoned B-1 Office Business uses. Russ said this development is progressing in a quality nature. Lot 2 is currently undeveloped as is the north ½ of Parcel 3. Russ said he is asking for the same use restrictions that affect the southern 2/3 of the property up through Lot 2. Russ said that on #3 of the staff comments which asks for the length of time a subject property has remained vacant or undeveloped as it is zoned. Russ thinks this property will sell quicker if this rezoning is approved.

 

Lynn Heath asked for the history of zoning changes on this property. Les said the north part is B-1 and the south part is B-2 restricted with some uses from B-3. The application tonight is virtually the same as the amended application that was heard several years ago with the exception of the addition of drive-thru restaurants. Russ said they were permitted restaurant use in the southern parcel (1) which is comprised of lots 3 & 4. It was proposed to allow restaurants with drive-thru facilities in the prior application,  but the bank has been built in that site instead.

 

Russ continued to say there are screening and drainage issues on this site. He said measures are being taken to keep architectural harmony with the buildings along the north/south elevation of this site.

 

Lynn Heath asked which B-3 uses were previously allowed. Les said the permitted uses in Parcel 1 reads, “all uses in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District together with the following uses which included all of them from B-3”. The exceptions were discussed.

 

Jeff Syrios asked for detailed information about the parcels, lot numbers and existing structures. Russ said Lots 2 and 3a is the undeveloped wooded area shown on the plat. Russ said this developer has been approached for sale of Lots 3a and 2, but due to the difference in zoning, the person denied the sale of the land.

 

Les Mangus said at the time the original Preliminary PUD was adopted, the boundary of Parcels 1 & 2 was decided by the Planning Commission to be Office Business Use to serve the residential neighborhood to the west.

 

Jeff asked Les for an explanation of his suggestion to deny this request. Les said because this zoning has been debated before and nothing has changed. Jeff asked if the compatibility between uses in the transition from heavier to lighter uses would conflict with the philosophy of transition. Les said yes if you follow the table of compatibility to the letter of the law, the transition would be from single family to multi-family, to office business, to retail and service businesses. He continued to say if this change is approved, 2 steps would be skipped and go from single family directly to retail and service business with little or no opportunity to provide a landscape buffer or adequate landscaping. This issue arises from the intensity of the B-3 uses spelled out on the PUD that are more intense.

 

Jeff Syrios asked for a rebuttal from Russ Ewy. Russ said in his conversations with Dr. Reed, they plan to continue the retail development that is existing in Lot 3b. He said everything this development wants to do, could be in compliance with all regulations in the B-2 zone. Russ said this would still permit restaurants but prohibit the fast food type. The Planning Commission is concerned about noise, light, and traffic, quality of life issues for the residential neighbors to the west. Russ said the office business hours of operation should not bother the neighbors as much as the retail business would. He further stated there would not be any parking along the west side of the development to interfere with the neighbors. He said all the activity would stay on the east side along Andover Road. Russ said this is a minor request.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if B-2 zoning would be consistent with the philosophy of the transition. Les Mangus said to eliminate some of the B-3 uses would help with some of the concerns about truck traffic with pickup/delivery and open late hours. Russ Ewy read the last sentence from the permitted uses for parcel 1 which excludes service stations, bed and breakfasts, outdoor speakers and package liquor sales. Lynn Heath said the restrictions are in place for the future growth of Andover. Clark Nelson said it would be helpful if they knew what the specific restrictions would be. Russ said there is no contract by the owner to develop this property right away.

 

David Martine asked what businesses have been lost due to the existing zoning. Russ said mainly a strip retail center. Russ said Dr. Reed is looking for flexibility in the zoning to make the property more marketable.

 

Jan Cox said she thought this application was for 2 different zoning districts for lots 3a & 2.  Russ said a strip retail center would be prohibited with B-1 & B-2 zoning. He suggested zoning Lot 2 B-2, and B-2/B-3 hybrid on Parcel 3a..

 

John Cash of 306 Village Road said when he bought his home, he was told the property behind his would only be developed as office business use. He is concerned about the existing strip center and thinks to add another one would be a mistake for the adjoining neighbors to the west. He said the rear window to his home is flooded with lights 24 hours a day which disrupts his sleep. More lights in this area would be more of a nuisance. He also is unhappy about the dirt and trash from the construction of the property. He further complained about the drainage in the rear of his home and said during wet weather mosquitoes are bred. He said the seeding in the rear of his property has been destroyed by the new construction and he does not think more construction will help. He said he does not want to smell food 24 hours a day if a restaurant is built.

 

Quentin Coon asked Mr. Cash which lot his property is adjacent to. Mr. Cash said it is behind the existing strip mall and the tree line. John Cash showed photos of some existing problem areas he is complaining about.

 

Clark Nelson asked if the security lighting from the existing business was caused from the direction or style of the fixtures. John Cash said they do not have a motion detector on them and the lights are just bright and pointed toward his home. Les said that all the approved fixtures are wall packs and down shaded. Les said he will drive by there tonight to check out the complaint.

 

John Fernandez of 314 Village Road said he agreed with the complaint of John Cash about the light from the existing business shines in his bedroom window also.

ü      Mr. Fernandez is concerned about his property value considering the noise and light from these new businesses being built.

ü      He complained about the car headlights shining in his windows at night when using the ATM at the bank.

ü      He complained about the drainage in this area and thinks the development will create another drainage problem in his backyard.

 

David Martine asked if Mr. Fernandez would feel differently if the property behind him is zoned office business vs. retail. Mr. Fernandez said he would prefer the lots are zoned for office business due to the noise and late hours kept of delivery drivers for retail centers.

 

Clark Nelson asked if the drainage issues described so far tonight have been addressed. Les said all of the drainage for this property has been engineered, approved by the City Engineer. They are building extensions to structures with each phase of this development. Clark Nelson said the neighbors’ complaint about the drainage during the construction phase is justified. Les Mangus said the construction of these buildings actually helped this drainage situation because the majority of the water that was coming into that structure that crosses Andover Road, was actually coming off the road right-of-way, crossing over those lots into these gentlemen’s back fence then into the road crossing structure. Today, with those buildings, all of the water on Andover Road is confined to the Andover Road right-of-way. Only the water from that neighborhood is confined is going into the drainage structure at the rear of those businesses.

 

David Martine asked if there are area inlets along the rear of the commercial buildings. Les said yes there are. Lynn Heath said most of the property is graded to drain towards Andover Road.

 

Russ Ewy rebutted the complaints made by homeowners stating all their issues can be addressed and remedied. He said deliveries can be limited and lighting can be taken care of by the Site Plan requirements.  Russ said he would be willing to discuss changes with Les and that he did not mind coming to the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss it further.  

 

Clark Nelson declared the public hearing closed.

 

Quentin Coon said the first time this PUD was considered; the main concern was protecting the residential neighborhood to the west with some kind of transition. He said the B-1 zone was approved to protect the residents who were there first.  There was further discussion about the support for the original decision.

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to table this case until the next meeting. Lynn Heath seconded the motion to give the applicant time to work with Les Mangus to work out suggested restrictions on uses that would be more palatable to all concerned. Motion carried 7/1 with Quentin Coon voting no.

Clark Nelson said he wants a lighting report submitted to the Commission next month to see if the lights have been misdirected.

Z-2005-01: Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the Village Crossing

 

 

Z-2005-02: Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development to change a portion of Parcel 13 from R-2 Single-Family Residential to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District, to change Parcel 7 from R-3 Multiple Family Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District, and to add hospitals and related medical facilities to the permitted uses in Parcels 5, 6, and 7.

 

Clark Nelson stated he has submitted a report of substantial interest pursuant to a statute, with Butler County Clerk Ron Roberts office, and said he has no representation or other interest with respect to the owner or applicant, but the agent is a company with which he has done business. He does not feel this will affect his judgment in this matter. Clark asked Les to review this case for the Commission.

 

Les said that this application is to amend the Decker/Kiser PUD to allow the construction of a new hospital and related medical facilities along 21st Street and east of 159th Street on PUD Parcels 5, 6, &7. The proposal slightly reconfigures the existing R-4 Multiple Family Parcel 5 to allow for the proposed hospital site, while leaving an adequate site for apartments. The change from R-3 Multiple Family Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District on Parcel 7 is probably the most debatable change in the application, which should probably be negotiated down to B-1 Office Business District, including the hospital and related medical facilities uses, to provide a better transition to the existing adjacent R-2 Single Family Residential Parcel 8 to the North. Staff supports the amendment, with the revision to Parcel 7, as stated in the case checklist because it brings a much needed quality of life service to the community with a minimal affect on the nearby neighborhood.

Clark Nelson asked if the applicant was present to discuss this case.

 

Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants on behalf of the applicant, showed elevations of this project plan. He said they are asking for a protective overlay use for a hospital and related medical facilities. He said a medical facility is planned for a portion of Parcels 5 & 6 and an apartment developer is looking at a 15 acre site in this area. Phase 1 of this development would be for the hospital facility site and is about 10 acres. To the west of that is Phase 2 for more medical offices and related uses. Future expansion would be built to the north and west. The 15 acre apartment development would be built to the east of the hospital.

 

The entire Community Unit Plan (CUP) encompasses about 500 acres. He said some of the frontage along 21st street would be minimized of the apartment parcel for access to the shared collector street with the hospital and the collector street would be built during the 1st Phase of the hospital project and will tie in to the residential area. The zoning is not requested to change for Parcel 5, just the medical use be added to the permitted uses.

 

Rob Hartman continued to say the drainage coming from the north into this area runs to the south and east is planned to be caught in a series of detention ponds which will be used to buffer the multi-family site from the residential sites to the north and east of it.

 

Clark Nelson asked about a staff comment about changing the R-3 to B-3 and Les suggests amending it to B-1. Rob Hartman said he thought the developer would appreciate maximum flexibility for future development. David Martine asked if there would be some landscape buffers built between these zones. Rob Hartman said there would be.

 

Ron Roberts was concerned about tonight’s plan deleting reserve areas and green space. Rob Hartman said in Parcel 5, there is a large reserve on the east side but not on the north. The new proposal is for water on the north and east but will not be as wide of pond on the east, but he feels it will be adequate.

 

David Martine asked if the developer would be satisfied with a 30’ landscape buffer anywhere this development abutted residential neighborhoods to business districts. Rob said that would be fine.

 

Charlotte Bass asked about the size of the planned hospital. Rob Hartman said this will be a 1 story building of 50 beds, an emergency room, general hospital facilities, and no emphasis on any particular specialty.

 

Jeff Syrios was concerned about the north/south street that connects with 21st Street conflicting with the entrance to Quail Crossing and all the projected emergency vehicle traffic to the hospital. Rob Hartman said he did not have that information. Lynn Heath said most emergency vehicles turn the lights and sirens off when they are near the facility. Rob said there is a signal expected in the future at that intersection and a designated right turn lane.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if any design changes are needed to carry emergency vehicle traffic. Les Mangus stated the streets will be designed to accommodate truck turning movements. Signalized intersections will be decided on a case by case basis and will be researched more for vehicle movement than structural design. Rob said there will not be a helicopter pad on this hospital site.

 

Lynn Heath asked if all the property adjacent to the south is zoned residential. Les said there is a 500’ wide B-3 Business parcel from 159th east to the edge of the existing Quail Crossing.

 

There was further discussion about current and proposed zoning of this property.

 

Jan Cox asked if the hospital were to expand in the future, would a 2nd story be added to the building. Rob Hartman said future expansion would be with medical offices only, and no structure changes to the hospital itself.

 

Architect Steve Perry with McCluggage, VanSickle & Perry, said he did not think the client has any intentions of expanding the hospital building. The only possible expansion might be a couple of operating rooms. Only future medical clinics and offices are planned to expand to the west.

 

Charlotte Bass asked if this will be a “doctor owned” hospital. Rob Hartman said yes this will be “doctor owned”. Jeff Bridges said the Federal moratorium on construction of new hospitals only applies to specialty hospitals and the Andover facility will be a general hospital.

 

Keith Zinn asked where this development will be built in relation to the assisted living center. Les Mangus said it would be 1,000 feet west of it.

 

Jack Newman of 2411 N. 159th Street East asked for more information about this project.

ü      He asked if 21st Street could handle the additional traffic that would come from this commercial and residential development. He asked if a signal would be placed at the intersection of 21st and 159th.

ü      He was concerned about the siren noise from the emergency vehicle traffic.

ü      Would additional office space be necessary considering the amount of vacancies already in Andover?

ü      He does not want this area to become a dumping ground and said 159th has a problem with trash already.

ü      He also asked how this development would affect his property values. He is more concerned with the apartment complex development than he is about the hospital.

ü      He is concerned about the drainage problem existing on this property and does not want further erosion by it’s development. He said the 7 acre lake at North Meadows addition does not retain enough water during heavy storms.

 

Clark Nelson said the Planning Commission has taken note of all these concerns and the goal of this hearing is to assure projects such as these are done properly and that public input is always appreciated. Clark asked Mr. Newman if 159th Street is paved north of 21st Street. He said it is not and if these medical offices are well designed with appropriate berms and landscape buffers, he has no problem with the development.

 

Julia Baugh of 2044 N. Ruger Circle in Quail Crossing said they bought their property, they were told this property would only be developed as residential. She is upset about the noise from the hospital emergency room which will reduce the value of her property. David Martine asked how far away her property is from this development. Ms. Baugh said she is 2 lots south of 21st Street in the Quail Crossing Addition. Clark Nelson said he appreciated Ms. Baugh’s comments and concerns.

 

Ron Garcia on the south side of 21st Street just west of the intersection of 159th and 21st and is in Sedgwick County. He said a signalized intersection would be necessary should this development be built as planned.  Les Mangus stated the improvements to 21st Street are not on the 5 year plan for the metro area. But with the improvements that have come up starting at K-96, new residential properties. and now this proposed development, he thinks the Metropolitan Planning Organization is going to have to review the need for new improvements in  that area.  Improvements are generated by uses, not plans. Les said there are 3 lanes from Andover Road west to 159th Street, then 2 lanes to 127th Street, then to modified 3 lane, with a turn lane.

 

There was discussion about paving 13th Street into Wichita. Les said there are 2 projects in design now, the bridge over the Kansas Turnpike in the City of Andover expanded to 4 lanes, and from the current city limits of Andover at ½ mile west of Andover Road is planned 2006 construction which would go all the way to Highway 96 with 4 lanes and curb & gutter. Jeff Bridges stated in 2006 Sedgwick County and the City of Andover will come together at the county line with a 4-lane project. The bridge will start this year. Once the bridge is done the paving of 13th will begin. Jeff said the hospital would like to break ground this year.

Hearing no further public comment, Clark Nelson closed the Public Hearing.

 

Clark Nelson asked the Commission to review the Rezoning Report. 

Z-2005-02: Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

 

Agenda Item No.2

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-02

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Kiser Inc./ Rob Hartman- PEC

 

 

REQUEST:

PUD Amendment- A portion of Parcel 13 from R-2 to R-4, Parcel 7 from R-3 to B-3, and add hospitals & related medical facilities to Parcels 5, 6, &  7 permitted uses.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Decker/Kiser Preliminary PUD

 

 

LOCATION:

Northeast corner of 21st Street and 159th Street

 

 

SITE SIZE:

48.8 acres

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Hospital and related medical facilities, and reconfiguration of the proposed apartment site.

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Decker/Kiser vacant land

 

South:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Quail Crossing PUD &

B-3 Central Shopping District- Quail Crossing PUD vacant land

 

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Decker/Kiser PUD vacant land &

B-3 Central Shopping District- Decker/Kiser PUD vacant land

 

West:

RR Sedgwick County Rural Residential- vacant land

 

 

 

Background Information:

Zoning amendments to accommodate the proposed Kansas Medical Center Hospital and related medical offices & facility.

 

 

 

* 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:

Surrounded by vacant land on 3 sides and Quail Crossing to the south.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Decker/Kiser vacant land

 

South:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Quail Crossing PUD &

B-3 Central Shopping District- Quail Crossing PUD vacant land

 

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Decker/Kiser PUD vacant land &

B-3 Central Shopping District- Decker/Kiser PUD vacant land

 

West:

RR Sedgwick County Rural Residential- vacant land

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

Clark Nelson said this property is ready for development with some guarded events.

 

 

 

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:

Lynn Heath said changes over the past few years that makes bringing a medical facility into this area more beneficial, such as the steady and continued growth of population.

 

 

 

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 facilities are available in the area and can be expanded or extended to service the permitted uses.

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said this has been noted on the plans and David Martine has made comments and suggestions in that regard.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

x

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

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:

Andover does not have a hospital, the nearest is Wesley Medical Center about 20 minutes drive west. The hospital would create an estimated 150 – 200 jobs , most with a salary in excess of $50,000/yr.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

No increase in detrimental affects is expected, when compared to the uses already permitted.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Citizens were present at the hearing to voice their concerns about lowering property value, noise, etc. Jeff Syrios said detrimental affects have been shown by the public at this hearing.

Les Mangus said the staff opinion is based on the uses in the R-4 Multi-Family and all uses currently allowed in the B-3 zone.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Hospitals are outright permitted uses in the B-1 Office Business District, and are a special use in the R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Quentin Coon is concerned about the proposed zoning change for Parcel 7 from R-3 to B-3.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14. Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

The plan mentions the increasing proportion of elderly persons, and the importance of the health care system. Adequate health care is considered a “Quality of Life” issue which is promoted throughout the plan.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said at the hearing, oppositions and concerns were noted from the citizens.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Staff, engineers, architects, and homeowners

 

 

 

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:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

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-2005-02 be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification from the portion of Parcel 13 from R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District, to change Parcel 7 from R-3 to B-1 to also include a 30’ landscape buffer on private property and not to include water and to add hospitals and related medical  facilities to the permitted uses in Parcels 5, 6, and 7 based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing of numbers 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14. (and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation) . Motion seconded by Quentin Coon.

 

Lynn Heath is still concerned about the R-2 to R-4 change and the specific type of buffer required between the 2. There was general discussion about platting issues. Les Mangus said the proposed change of R-2 to R-4 only encompasses 2.8 acres and that the lake area is conceptual only at this preliminary stage. The size of the pond will be determined by the need. These items will be determined during platting.

 

Ron Roberts was concerned about adequate drainage in this area. Les said it will be the Planning Commission decision when the Final Plat is submitted and will be shown as platted reserves for drainage or recreation. There was general discussion about methods of water control.  

 

 Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

Quentin Coon made a motion for a 5-minute break. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

Clark Nelson called the meeting back to order and asked for a motion to recess the Planning Commission into the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lynn Heath  seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

BZA-V-2005-01: Public Hearing on an application for variance of 200 square feet from the required 1,000 square foot limitation for the purpose of constructing a 1,200 square foot garage at 1207 S. Ginkgo Lane.

 

David Hicks owner of 1207 Ginkgo Lane said he is asking for a variance to build a garage to store cars and his boat. He said this will be a metal building from Sutherlands with a concrete floor.

 

Clark Nelson asked if any public was present to speak in favor or opposition of this matter. Seeing none, Clark began the review of the factors and findings.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone on the Board needed to disqualify themselves. Seeing none, notification of this case was confirmed on February 10, 2005 in the Andover Journal-Advocate and proper notices have gone out to the neighbors. There were no members receiving ex-parte communications.

 

Les Mangus stated this application meets the requirements of 10-107C 2: To vary the applicable bulk regulations , including maximum height and lot coverage and minimum yard requirements. 

BZA-V-2005-01: Public Hearing on 1207 S. Ginkgo Lane.

 

 

F.

 

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare;

 

 All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

 

All agree with the statement.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

1.

None required.

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-01 as requested. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

Clark Nelson stated the variance is valid for 180 days and is subject to obtaining a permit and beginning construction.

 

 

 

BZA-CU-2005-01: Public Hearing on an application for conditional use to permit an off-site 10’ x 12’ real estate development sign at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Harry Street.

 

Clark Nelson stated that Tom Mack representing Flint Hills Realty Company LLC is in the audience if anyone has questions of him. Seeing there was no public to speak on this issue, Clark Nelson began the review of the factors and findings. 

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone on the Board needed to disqualify themselves. Seeing none, notification of this case was confirmed on February 17, 2005 in the Andover Journal-Advocate and proper notices have gone out to the neighbors. There were no members receiving ex-parte communications.

 

In the memo from Les Mangus, this application replaces a similar application which was withdrawn by the applicant a few months ago after a disagreement with the subject property owner. The proposed real estate development sign meets the criteria in the sign regulations for an off premises real estate sign, with the exception of the 10’X12’ proposed size, which would have to be limited to a maximum of 100 square feet to meet the zoning district regulations. Sign Regulations specifically allow off premises real estate signs if the property for sale or lease does not have frontage on a major traffic way. Signage is not allowed in the right-of-way. This sign would be on private property and not within the vision triangle. Staff supports the granting of the conditional use limited to 100 square feet..

 

Tom Mack said their sign plan has been modified to 10’ x 10’ size.

 

Charlotte Bass asked for clarification on “conditional use”. Les said there are specific criteria for the amount of time a real estate sign can stay up. Les read the Zoning Regulation which states” a real estate sign shall be removed when 75% of the lots in the subdivision have been sold”.

 

Clark Nelson stated for Tom Mack that the sign will remain for 2 years. Clark

BZA-CU-2005-01:Public Hearing on the northwest corner of Andover Road and Harry Street.

 

 

 

 

Does the evidence support the conclusion that:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

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

 

The applicant has amended the sign size to comply. .

X

 

 

2.

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

 

Staff: The proposed site is within a horse lot at the corner of Harry Street and Andover Road, and will be separated by the owner’s house and barn from adjacent residences.

X

 

 

3.

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

X

 

 

a.

The location, nature, size and height of building, structures, walls and fences on the site; and

X

 

 

b.

The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site.

 

Staff: Same as answer from #2.

X

 

 

4.

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

 

Staff: N/A.

 

 

 

5.

Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.

 

Staff: N/A.

 

 

 

6.

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

 

Staff: N/A.

X

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact support the conclusions as set out in Section 10-108C of the Zoning Regulations which are necessary for granting of a conditional use, I , Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the conditional use for Case No. BZA-CU-2005-01 as requested. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

Clark Nelson stated his appreciation to Keith Zinn for his attendance and input to these meetings. Clark also appreciated Mayor Ben Lawrence for his attendance during the beginning of this meeting.

 

Discussion of a time for the Planning Workshop originally scheduled for the December 2004 meeting. The monthly workshop meetings will only last about 1 hour.

Planning Workshop

 

 

Member Items:

Keith Zinn: Asked if there would be a meeting in April. Jeff and Les both said there is already an agenda started.

 

David Martine: none

 

Ron Roberts: Stated he is not in favor of extended meeting recesses. He prefers adjourning one meeting to the next. Jeff said a special meeting would have to be called.

 

Lynn Heath: none

 

Jan Cox: none

 

Quentin Coon: Asked how much negotiation should be done during amendments of PUD’s. Les said that on residential side there are specifics in the PUD section of the book which lets you vary items by 10%, but on commercial it is open ended for negotiations. Quentin asked how much of this should be done during the actual meeting. Les and Jeff said how much the Planning Commission is comfortable with. Les said the applicant has to accept or deny those changes to the original application. Clark Nelson likes the opportunity of give and take as long as it is reasonable.

 

Jeff Syrios: Stated he has no problem of negotiating specific details of PUD’s.

 

Charlotte Bass: Charlotte Bass said she appreciated all the hard work to make the Comprehensive Development Plan book look so nice.

 

Clark Nelson: Stated the hospital matter is very substantial project as a 505 acre development. He thinks this is a wonderful opportunity for the City of Andover and surrounding area. He wants to see great care taken to protect the surrounding neighborhoods and yet make progress.

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the meeting at 9:14 p.m. and to reconvene into a Planning Commission Workshop meeting on April 19, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 19th day of April 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.