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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

May 17, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 17, 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 Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Member David Martine and Jeff Syrios were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the minutes of the Apr. 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the April 12, 2005 and April 26, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the May 3, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the May 10, 2005 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

Election of Planning Commission Officers.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate Clark Nelson as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate Quentin Coon as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to nominate Jan Cox as Secretary of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Clark Nelson welcomed Caroline Hale as the new Andover City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission.

 

There was discussion about election of officers for the Subdivision Committee. The Planning Commission deferred the issue until the full board is present.

Election of Planning Commission Officers.

 

 

 

SU-2005-01: Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District located at 1027 N. Andover Road.

 

Les Mangus said this application arises out of the style of our Zoning Regulations which are permissively written. Les explained the other uses allowed in the B-2 district. He said the applicant is wanting to open this business in a tenant space in an existing strip center.

 

David Perreault of 14021 W. Lockmoor Circle in Wichita and applicant presented his special use request. He explained that he and his wife will be the instructors for the school. The tenant space is approximately a 1,200 square foot space.

 

Clark Nelson asked David Perreault if he already owns a school. David said this is a new start up school after previously owning and operating 2 schools in Okinawa, Japan which were very successful.

 

Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if he approved of this application. Les said he does recommend approval subject to required parking to match the change of use. There is existing adequate parking for the tenant spaces, but if there is any change in the future, the parking requirement will have to be reviewed for compliance.

 

There was discussion about this special use because it applies to the entire property, not just the 1,200 square foot tenant space. Les explained the 2 existing professional offices only use minimal parking spaces compared to the Tae Kwan Do School which requires more.

 

David Perreault said the only time the school would require additional parking is on Saturdays when testing is done. There is additional parking space available at the rear of the property at the old church. These classes will normally be held in the evenings when the other 2 tenants are closed.

 

Lynn Heath asked about hours of operation because B-2 zoning only allows businesses be open until 11:00 p.m. David Perreault said he and his wife plan to be home by 8:30 p.m.

 

Ron Roberts asked about the maximum number of students expected. David Perreault said he can only fit 25 to 30 students in the space. He said if the class size grows beyond that number, they will open more class times. Ron said his concern was about the quantity of vehicles traveling in and out of this parking lot. David said it would be proportionate to the number of students enrolled.

 

Charlotte Bass asked if the noise from this class would be a nuisance to the neighbors. David Perreault said there is some music and yelling in the class, but not enough to bother the neighborhood, and it won’t be happening while the other tenants are open.

 

Hearing no further comment from the public, Chairman Nelson declared the Public Hearing closed and began to review the 17 factors and findings.

SU-2005-01: Tae Kwan Do Training School

1027 N. Andover Road

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                            

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2005-01

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

David Perreault/ Jim Stoffle

 

 

REQUEST:

Special Use to establish a Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing Office Businesses in strip center

 

 

LOCATION:

1027 N. Andover Road

 

 

SITE SIZE:

1.2 acres

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Tae Kwan Do Training School

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residence

 

South:

R-1 Legal non-conforming multi-family residences

 

East:

B-6 Andover Industrial Park vacant land

 

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residence

 

 

 

Background Information:

 

 

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

 

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

 

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Vacant Industrial Park land to the east and residences on the other 3 sides.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

R-1, R-2, B-6

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

All are in place and adequate.

 

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:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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:

Provides a new service.

 

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 detriment to the public is perceived.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

Limited businesses along Andover Road.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

None at this time.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

16.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Lynn Heath asked if this special use applied to the entire block and both buildings or is it only for this tenant space. Les Mangus said the application covers the entire property from Andover Road to Main Street & Mike Street ½ block south. Les said the expansion of the Tae Kwan Do school is self-limiting because taking over additional tenant space would require a building permit and review of the parking space requirements. The only change would be the signage on the door.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the special use application, I Quentin Coon, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2005-01 be approved to change the zoning district classification to allow the Special Use to establish a Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District based on the findings 10, 11, and 13 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Jan Cox. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Les Mangus stated this will be heard by the City Council on June 14, 2005 for final approval.

 

 

 

Z-2005-03: Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, located at the Northwest corner of Andover Road & 21st Street.

 

Clark Nelson said the next agenda item will be consideration of a smaller portion of this PUD with an amendment to the Final Plat.

 

Clark said this applicant wants to simplify the parcels of land by combining the lots with the same zoning because this development has the potential of 1,000 dwelling units at completion. Clark said the Subdivision Committee has reviewed this amendment and was unable to agree on certain points. Clark asked Les to explain the application.

 

Les said this is a difficult case to follow the history. The original PUD was formed in 2000, an amendment was requested to convert some business and multi-family residential lots into single-family residential parcels, an amendment to allow medical uses and a hospital on 2 parcels, and tonight to combine all the residential parcels in the east 200 acres into 1 parcel. This will simplify the task of density computations. He said the other request is to vary the lots sizes within the residential parcel 4 with a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet vs. the existing 10,000 square feet. Other issues of concern are the widths of streets and right-of-ways, and collector street layout.

 

Jason Gish of MKEC Engineering represented the owner/ developer in this case and began to review staff comments. Jason submitted additional documents to the Commission and to adjacent homeowners in the audience.

 

Review of comments:

1.      Correct General Provision #2 (6 access openings onto Parcels 1, 2, & 3) – Jason said this will be corrected to show there will be 8 openings.

2.      Correct permitted use text for Parcels 5, 6, & 7. Jason said that will be taken care of. Brian Lindebak from MKEC said the developer is in agreement with staff comments.

3.      Provide preliminary drainage plan. Jason said this has been submitted. Clark Nelson said a copy of the drainage plan was delivered to the Commissioners on Monday evening.

4.      Provide preliminary sidewalk location plan. Jason said that has been submitted.

5.      Provide traffic calming methods for long uninterrupted streets. Jason said there are entry points off of arterial streets, 1 at Andover Road and 1 on 21st Street. He said in-between those 2 points he has proposed a 60’ right-of –way with a 29’ back to back street. There are no lots along this street with direct driveway access and there would be no parking allowed along this street. He feels this would be an acceptable traffic calming design.

 

There was general discussion about traffic calming concepts, effectiveness, cost to the developer, and effect on the neighborhood.

 

Jason Gish said that on the eastern and northern area of Parcel 4, the developer proposes a mixture of lot sizes. Jason said only 3% of the lots in this subdivision will be below the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. 97% of the lots are larger than 10,000 square feet. Clark Nelson explained that if this application is approved as requested, would permit 8,500 square foot lots in every single lot on the application. Clark would prefer some limitation would be placed on the total number of small lots allowed. There was continued discussion.

 

Les said that on Parcel 4, the text of the General Provisions states the maximum total number of lots allowed is 340. He said 300 lots at 8,500 square feet would create 50% open space which would not be profitable for the developer. The plan as it is shown is 311 lots. Lynn Heath said he is comfortable with the protection provided in the General Provisions and does not think an amount or percentage of small lots is necessary. Les said the average lot size shown is 13,989 square feet and even if it varied by 10% the lots would still be over 12,000+ square feet. Les said the objective of the developer is to offer a variety of lot sizes to the consumers. Les suggested having the Planning Commission designate a minimum average lot size.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone had a concern about the sidewalk locations. Ron Roberts said the 8’ sidewalk on the northwest quadrant needs to be on the north side of the street instead of the south to avoid pedestrians having to cross a collector street.

 

Les said Parcel #14 is zoned R-3 Multi-Family & allows 2, 3, & 4 family dwellings and is limited to a maximum of 78 dwelling units.

 

Clark Nelson said the drainage plan needs to be discussed and asked Jason if this property will drain from the northwest to the southeast. Jason said there is a ridge line on the north which directs the north 25% of the property drainage from that point to the north. Property south of that ridge line will drain to the southeast. Jason said there are several large detention ponds designed to catch the water from the residential area as well as controlling the impact from the commercial area. Jason said box structures will be used as drainage control.

 

Quentin Coon asked what happens with the water running to the south. Jason said the water will be released into the structure that crosses under Andover Road. Les said that during the review of this drainage plan with the City Engineer, the plan was found to be incomplete. He said areas of concern are: 1. the area north of 21st Street at the half-mile line with an area of drainage routed to the southwest and states the flow would be reduced, but no method was documented. 2. What happens with the water if a 100-year storm is exceeded? 3.   Capacity of existing box culvert at 21st and Andover Road. Les said this drainage report uses the FAA method of calculation of impervious area and he suggested they use SCS Lag method to calculate the amount of developed area. This created a +/-20% difference. Jason said they design overcompensation for drainage in other areas where a pond cannot be built. Jason further explained that on the Final PUD, minimum pad elevations on the homes are 3 feet above the 100-year storm level, and surface escape routes are built so that if the box culvert fails the water will spread out across streets and lawns before it goes into homeowner’s basements or front doors. Jason said FEMA only requires a 1-foot minimum pad elevation. Les said he wants all of that information documented in the final drainage report.

 

Les Mangus explained that the low opening if it is in a flood plain is the basement floor. The houses in this PUD won’t be in a flood plain, so the low opening is the view-out window, or walk out pit or surface.

 

Clark asked Jason about the letter of map revision (LOMR). Jason said modeling proof will have to be done for FEMA to have the existing flood plain map changed.

 

Quentin Coon was concerned where all the water would run off to from all the proposed parking lots in the commercial areas. Les Mangus said they have over compensated in the residential areas so that the sum total when it gets to the discharge area at 21st Street & Andover Road does not exceed today’s conditions.

 

Lynn Heath said some parking lots are designed to hold water in the major storms.

 

Charlotte Bass asked who will monitor these drainage plans in the future to assure the community the designs are working. Jason said the Final drainage plan is the only instrument to document the design. Les said no one will be documenting the rate of flow, but the engineers must certify that the grade was built to the level it was shown on the plan. Clark Nelson said if these checks and balances are not done during construction, the issue will need to be worked out in a court of law.

Ron Roberts asked whose responsibility it is to maintain the culverts to assure they are not covered in weeds and debris. Les said that after January 1, 2006, the City of Andover will be required to comply with the Clean Water Act. City employees will be inspecting all the structures for pollution, maintenance, blockages, and etc. The home owners associations own the reserves where the lakes are and they are responsible for maintaining the grass growing along the banks. If the HOA’s fail to do their job, the city can step in and mow the grass and assess the work back to the record property owner’s property tax. Les said these ponds are retention/ detention areas. All the city cares about is that the detention ponds slow the water down.

 

Neeley Stotler of 2342 N. Andover Road said his property is already being flooded during heavy rains and he feels the development of this property would cause him further harm. He showed 2001 -2005 photos to the Planning Commission of previous water damage to his property and of the debris that is the result of the flooding.   He said the culvert by the college is full of sediment and weeds. He said he has complained to the City about the property running behind Countryside Pet Clinic and he said nothing has been done. He said this development will create more problems for the neighboring properties to the south. Mr. Stotler said his property is receiving drainage from both the field north of his as well as flowing from the west to the east from this Decker/Kiser property. He said he has a berm on the north side of his property.

 

Clark Nelson asked Mr. Stotler if he had a proposed solution. He said the City of Andover has failed for 8 years to control the problem beginning with the college culverts not being engineered properly. He said the water is backing up the hill. Mr. Stotler said the current level of drainage onto his property is unacceptable. Clark asked if he sees any problems with the engineer’s design for this Cornerstone Addition.

 

Jeff Bridges suggested Mr. Stotler contact the Butler County Engineer as this property is not within the Andover City limits and not city jurisdiction. Mr. Stotler said he has already done so.  

 

Neeley Stotler said the surrounding property owners were not notified about this hearing. Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if the appropriate notices were sent out. Mr. Stotler said he has received some notices from the city that have been addressed to a previous owner. Les said the list of owners to be notified were provided by Kansas Secured Title who receive their information from the Butler County Register of Deeds. Les said he needs to contact the county to assure the information in their system is correct for all future correspondence. Mr. Stotler said he has a neighbor who would not have known about this hearing if he would not have told him. Clark Nelson said if property is being purchased on contract from the record property owner, all legal correspondence concerning the property must be sent to them, not the contractual buyer. Clark Nelson said the proper notifications about this hearing were sent and legal procedures were followed by the city. Les said the county shows the record property owner to be Robert B. Simpson for 2342 N. Andover Road. Lynn Heath said Robert Simpson lives north of Mr. Stotler and that Rod Buckley lives to his south at 2332 N. Andover Road. Les the law states that it is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain this ownership list for this reason, so the liability for this list is in the applicant’s hands, not the city’s. Les Mangus said he is glad Mr. Buckley is here tonight and that he did receive word of the Public Hearing.  Clark Nelson said the Planning Commission would do it’s best to address the issues of Mr. Stotler. Les said there is an error in the record but by Mr. Buckley attending the meeting tonight, the problem has just corrected itself. American Housing Trust is the record property owner of 2332 N. Andover Road where Mr. Buckley lives.

 

Rod Buckley of 2332 N. Andover Road said the drainage problem around the college needs to be fixed first before any further water is routed this direction. He said his property also floods during heavy rains. He said he is not qualified to decide if the design of the proposed drainage plan will be adequate to control flooding.

 

Clark Nelson said he appreciated both Mr. Buckley and Mr. Stotler’s comments. Clark asked Jason Gish to address the concern of these 2 gentlemen. Jason said he did not believe any drainage from the Cornerstone Addition would exacerbate the problems of these 2 homeowners with respect to the drainage. He said he could not design anything to improve the conditions of the complainants without added expense and liability to the developer. Jason said the evidence presented shows the drainage problems of the Buckley and Stotler properties are the result of existing issues on the east side of Andover Road. Mr. Stotler insisted the drainage is running across Andover Road from the west to the east.

 

Clark Nelson asked for the County Engineer and City Engineer to be consulted to help remedy the situation of the complainants. Les said he has communicated with Engineers and Mr. Stotler and has shown the problem is not the boxes at Andover Road or 21st Street. He said the water would have to be over 10’ deep on 21st Street to back up onto Mr. Stotler’s property and that has never happened. Les said the culverts on Mr. Stotler’s property are not large enough to accommodate the amount of water coming off the properties to the north. There continued to be disagreement between Mr. Stotler and staff about where the drainage problem is created. Clark Nelson said Mr. Stotler’s concerns have been made known to Planning Commission and Staff and he hopes something can happen in the future to relieve the issues of the Stotler’s. Clark Nelson stated the discussion will now be restricted to the bench.

 

Ron Roberts said he is still concerned about the long cul-de-sacs over 500’ long,

Z-2005-03: Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, located at the Northwest corner of Andover Road & 21st Street

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                               

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-03

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Chestnut Ridge, LLC/ MKEC

 

 

REQUEST:

Consolidate residential parcels 4, 14, 15, 16, & 17 AND reduce minimum lot size to 8,500 sq. ft. for the consolidated parcel #4.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing PUD with 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size.

 

 

LOCATION:

North of 21st St. & West of Andover Road.

 

 

SITE SIZE:

Entire PUD is 505 acres.

Amendment application for 125.55 acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Single-Family Residential development.

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

Butler Co. Agriculture rural residences

 

South:

Decker/Kiser PUD- B-2 & B-3 vacant commercial property,

R-3 vacant multi-family property.

 

East:

Butler Co. Agriculture rural residences & cemetery

 

West:

Decker/Kiser PUD R-4 & R-2 vacant residential property

 

 

 

Background Information:

Decker/Kiser PUD approved in 2000

 

 

 

* 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:

Rural residences, vacant commercial property, vacant multi-family property, vacant residential property, & cemetery.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

R-4 & R-2, Butler Co. Agriculture, - B-2 & B-3, &  R-3

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

Quentin Coon said he thinks this application is the result of changing market conditions. Les said the original 2000 PUD proposed 1,006 dwelling units. The amended application tonight is for 1,012 dwelling units only changing by 6.

 

 

 

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:

All could be extended to serve the needs.

 

 

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:

Cornerstone 1st Addition is currently submitted for review & approval.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

The application is for Single-Family residences only.

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

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:

Approximately 40 similar lots are available in the last phase of Caywood- +/- 8 months demand.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N.A.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

12.                                                                                                                                                                                                                To what extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Increased traffic on the street system.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Additional drainage. Les stated the standard is met. Clark Nelson said there were complaints heard tonight about drainage, but there is no proof their problem results from the applicant’s property.

 

 

 

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 & amenities.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur with staff.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

2 in opposition present at Public Hearing with drainage concerns.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

16.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval with appropriate traffic calming measures to be implemented in the Final PUD plans.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Lynn Heath asked for more traffic calming methods to be designed for the collector street just north of the multi-family property.

 Jan Cox objected to the long cul-de-sacs. She disagreed with PUD standards to be different from the general standards. Les said this PUD was approved in 2000 and the general provisions cannot be altered now. She asked for the Planning Commission to change the General Provisions of the PUD and require 31’ of paving and a 60’ right of way, specifically on the cul-de-sacs that are over 500 feet long.

Jason Gish said to maintain the efficiency of the design considering drainage and etc., he would lose density of the project and increase the cost of paving the streets which would increase the assessed special taxes to the buyers, making the property harder to sell.

Jan Cox said she would not object to the longer cul-de-sacs if the developer would agree to make the streets wider. Jason said he would be happy to redesign the long cul-de-sacks to have wider streets. Les said he is comfortable with the 58’ street because of the number of houses that abut it.

Les said the trade off in this PUD would be in following the strict standard regulations, the average lot size would be 10,000 square feet, where as in this PUD, the average lot size is 13,989 square feet some of which go over 20,000 square feet. Les tried to explain to the Commission the advantages of give and take in PUD developments.

Clark Nelson asked the Planning Commission to decide if this concept as presented improves the City of Andover in a fair and reasonable way. Clark said he supports the approval of Cornerstone as it stands.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-03 be modified & approved to consolidate residential parcels 4, 14, 15, 16, & 17 AND to reduce the minimum lot size to 8,500 sq. ft. for the consolidated Parcel 4 based on the findings 9, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

  1. In the NW/C of Parcel 4, to move the sidewalk to the north side of the street.
  2. Drainage plan approved by staff.
  3. Additional traffic calming designs on the long uninterrupted streets.  

 

Motion seconded by Charlotte Bass. Motion carried 4/2 with Jan Cox and Ron Roberts in opposition.

 

 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to recess the meeting at 9:25 p.m.  for a 5 minute break. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Recess

 

 

Chairman Clark Nelson called  the Planning Commission meeting  back to order at 9:30 p.m.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson restated the final vote on the amendment to the Decker/Kiser PUD. He said Ron Roberts and Jan Cox voted in opposition.

 

 

 

Review the Revised Cornerstone First Addition Final Planned Unit Development Plan located at the northwest corner of Andover road & 21st Street. Jason Gish from MKEC represented the owner/ developer. Jason showed the map of the proposed Phase 1. He explained Phase 1 is a separated area at the developer’s request for marketing reasons.

 

Jason Gish explained his plan to downsize the collector street just to the north of the multi-family parcel making the street width 29’ back to back to limit the speed along this street. There was discussion about narrowing streets as a method of traffic calming.

 

Clark Nelson asked Jason if he has addressed all of the staff comments. Jason went through them with the Commission.

ü      Minimum lot sizes and average density issues have been addressed earlier in this meeting.

ü      Jason said the boundary of the flood plain will be shown within reserves B & C on sheet 2 of the PUD. Les said this will be noted as a drainage easement.

ü      Jason said he will show the Andover Road & 21st Street right-of-ways existing & new on the final plat.

ü      Jan Cox said the Planning Commission Chair is Clark Nelson, not Quentin Coon and needs to be changed on the plat.

ü      Jason said he will show the right-of-way connection to 21st Street and Andover Roads. Les said this is about the text of the Final PUD saying that access to 21st Street and Andover Road will be specifically limited to 1 each from this final platted area.

 

Lynn Heath asked about detention/retention of the southwest corner of this final plat being west of the final platted area and north of 21st Street but it is not shown on the plat. Jason said intermediate means of water control will be provided during the construction of Phase 1. Les agreed with Lynn that every phase as it comes on line needs to have plans for drainage to not create further problems for existing areas.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the landscape buffer shown on the south edge of Phase 1 will be built with this phase. Jason said that will be done with the commercial area construction.

ü      Jason said he would provide minimum pad elevations where indicated along the drainage easement.

 

Lynn Heath asked for more information about traffic calming methods. Jason Gish said these developments are designed for reasonable people to control their speeds through the residential neighborhoods.

 

Jeff Bridges said the City Council is interested in traffic calming also.

 

Clark Nelson was concerned about approving a Final Plat subject to such a large number of conditions. Jeff Bridges said the City Council would also like to see the corrected Final Plat as approved by the Planning Commission. Les Mangus said the roll of the Planning Commission is to approve of this plat, and the City Council’s only job is to accept/reject the dedications on that plat. Les said the City Council cannot hear the amendments to the Preliminary PUD until June 14, 2005 to allow for the 2 week petition period.

 

Clark Nelson asked the developer if he objected to bringing the Planning Commission a corrected plan before going to City Council. Jason said he will answer all of Planning Commission’s concerns tonight and have them corrected on the final plat for City Council approval on June 14th and that the developer does not want to wait any longer before beginning construction.

 

Jason said he does not want any medians built on arterial streets because they get run into. He said it is more effective to downsize the streets instead. Les said the proposal is to downsize the right-of-way and make it a no parking area along both sides of the street. Lynn Heath proposed additional cross walks.

 

Les said some sort of agreement could be met with the developer regarding these areas of concern before the Final Plat reaches the City Council. Les is concerned that his perception of acceptable solution is different than that of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission said they would be clear about their concerns and Les could take direction from the minutes of this meeting. Chairman Nelson said so far they would like to see:

Ø      Intermediate drainage control for the southerly portion of Phase 1.

Ø      Access control into the text of the plat.

Ø      Width of the access into the residential collector streets

Ø      Sidewalk locations.

Ø      Traffic calming locations & methods.

Ø      Add the Andover Road access into the text.

 

Clark Nelson said the concerns of the Planning Commission are minor design issues that are better served by staff.

 

Jan Cox asked that in the area the collector street is to be squeezed down as a traffic calming method, if only the paving be narrowed and to leave the right-of-way alone. Les and Jason said they have no objections to this method. Jan said this is for future development in the event the street would need to be widened. Ron Roberts said this would provide for additional landscaping area for the calming effect along the roadway. There was discussion about utility easement and right-of-way.

 

Les Mangus said the additional right-of –way could be designated a reserve strip. Jason said this will be an unfair expense to the developer and eventually the homeowner. Jason said the reserve areas are built into the front end of the phase for aesthetic reasons.

 

Jason said the centerline of the street would remain as it is shown and the additional right-of-way would be added on both sides of the streets to the affected property owners.

 

Hearing no further public comment, Clark Nelson brought the discussion back to the bench.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Cornerstone First Addition Phase 1, located at the northwest corner of 21st Street and Andover Road with the following conditions:

1.      Intermediate drainage control of the west side of the south section of Phase 1

2.      Satisfaction of all of staff comments as shown on pgs. 4 and 5 of the checklist for the Final Plat

3.      Width of street right-of-way for the residential collector streets

4.      Additional traffic calming methods implemented

5.      Have a narrower pavement width but allowing the right-of-way to remain the same.

Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. During discussion, Les said a utility conference could be called for this project to assign all the utilities their space for construction.

 

Lynn Heath amended his motion to include the utility assignment. Charlotte Bass seconded the amended motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Cornerstone First Addition Final Planned Unit Development Plan

 

 

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone Medical Addition located on the North side of 21st Street East of 159th Street. Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants represented the applicant on this project. He said this is the Final Plat for the hospital site and is a portion of Parcels 5 and 6 of the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD. He said this Lot 1 will be the hospital site and is about 12 acres in size. Lot 2 is for the future medical office buildings. He said all staff issues have been addressed from the checklist. He said the street name of Cornerstone Parkway would be renamed to Keystone Parkway to avoid confusion with the residential street name. He said 3 access points are noted on Keystone Parkway, and access control on 21st Street, 1 opening to lot 1 and will line up with Quail Crossing Street to the south, so the opening will be limited to 100’ width, 147’ of complete access control on the west edge of lot 1, 1 opening proposed for the medical office building and will be on lot 2. He said the parcel descriptions have been clarified. He said the developer will petition for the Keystone collector street, sanitary sewer, water that will extend from 21st Street to the north edge of the plat, left turn and deceleration lane on 21st Street as well as a storm water drain detention pond that will be on an easement just east of Keystone Parkway.

 

Rob Hartman said there was an issue at the Subdivision Committee meeting about the street width on 21st Street with the turning lane to expand to 60’ of right-of-way. Rob said the owner objected to the landscaping plan and a compromise is a 20’ sidewalk easement in lieu of the 10’ of street  dedication which will allow the 10’ sidewalk and the proposed 5 lane street on 21st.

 

Rob Hartman said SBC had requested an easement between lots 1 & 2. Rob has contacted SBC and explained the medical office building would be connected to the hospital, SBC agreed to retract the original request.

 

Les Mangus said Subdivision Committee was concerned about cross-lot circulation between these 2 lots and the 1 to the west. Les asked about the covenants that were mentioned to address this. Rob said the plan is to put all the commercial properties in a common maintenance, access, coordination covenant that permits cross-lot drainage, access, and maintenance of all common areas. He said this will be submitted before the plat is filed. Rob Hartman offered to add text to the Final Plat General Provisions “that there will be cross-lot circulation”. Les agreed with this.

 

Lynn Heath was concerned about this drainage plan working in coordination with that of the residential plat. Rob Hartman said there will be a detention pond built on the east edge of the medical center site that will take care of all the drainage of the development.

 

Quentin Coon asked why a reserve area is not shown east of Keystone Parkway on the plan for construction of the pond. Les said this could be taken care of by separate instrument. Rob said they will dedicate a drainage easement and then during the final platting of that site they will show the reserve at that time.

 

Quentin continued to be concerned about drainage ponds not being shown on the Final Plat. Les said they are described in the drainage plan and are shown on the site plan. Les said the detention pond that does not show on this concept is going to belong in its entirety to the hospital site and will be their sole responsibility to maintain it. Rob said that even if the drainage ponds on the north side of the medical center plat were never built, the one on the southeast side would be adequate to handle it. Les said he is comfortable with the presentation of required information by Rob Hartman.

 

There was discussion about the left turn and deceleration lanes on 21st.  Rob said the north side of the road will have to be widened and re-striped by 10’ to accommodate these special lanes. Les said that when improvements are designed for 21st Street, the needs will be considered for this development only compared to today to decide if any changes are necessary at all. The developer will have petitions in the developer’s agreement that will bind him to the cost of the left turn lane and the deceleration lanes. Les said the long term plan for 21st is to have it be 5 lanes  with a turning lane in the center. Les does not think that with the hospital site traffic alone those improvements would be warranted.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Cornerstone Medical Addition with the following conditions:

o       Covenant/General Provision test to allow cross-lot drainage and access

o       Identify a reserve to the east of Keystone Parkway for the water retention.

Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone Medical Addition

 

 

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Flint Hills National Addition Phase 5. Jason Gish of MKEC represented the applicant and provided a background of this development and a color site plan to the members.

 

Jason said he is proposing a street name for the south cul-de-sac of Blue Sage and Goldenrod Court would be changed to Quail Ridge Court.

 

Les said corrections need to be made on the plat for Clark Nelson as Chairman and correct Phase 4 to Phase 5. Lynn Heath pointed out the errors on the Certificate of Survey, Owners Certificate, & on the Planning Commission Certificate & Mortgage Holder.

 

Les said he has received the final drainage plan and he has a few comments about it. They are about the methodology and missing information.

 

Les said he has received a copy of the restrictive covenants.

Les explained the need for the correction of the title to say this is replatting of a portion of Lot 1 Block 3 of the Flint Hills National Golf Course.

 

There was discussion about the north end of the plat showing the existing gate and drive for 20’ permanent emergency access control easement. Jason asked for permission to close the temporary emergency access control from Phase 4 as soon as these changes are built in Phase 5. They want to use it longer as a construction entrance. Les said this was shown on the Preliminary PUD.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final PUD Phase 5 for Flint Hills National Addition with the conditions of satisfaction of staff comments & the approval of street name of Quail Ridge Court.  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Flint Hills National Addition Phase 5.

 

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Planning Commission at 10:57 p.m.  and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2005-02: Public Hearing on an application for variance of 8 square feet from the required 72 square foot maximum limitation, the limitation of one entry monument per phase of development, and the maximum height of ten feet to allow construction of 2 entry monument signs (one each side of entrance) with a total sign surface area of 80 square feet, and a sign structure height of 13 feet on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District located at the intersection of Harry Street & Logan Pass.

 

Jason Gish of MKEC representing the developer said this sign is for the Montana Hills Addition. Jason said that even though these signs are not in conformance with the regulations, he feels they will have no negative impact on the city. He explained the landscaping around the trees and admitted the signs are already 50% constructed already.

 

Les said for an entry monument, 2 square feet per lot of signage is allowed. The first phase of this subdivision is for 36 lots. The maximum size for an entry monument sign is 100 square feet and would have to have 50 lots in the first phase. The rules allow only 1 sign per phase.

 

Clark Nelson clarified this request for variance is for the total square feet of each sign, the total number of signs, and the height of the signs.

 

BZA-V-2005-02:

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;

 

Quentin Coon and Jan Cox said this condition is created by the owners or applicants. Les said the regulations would normally allow you to build a 100 square foot sign. He said the regulations overlap, creating confusion. Lynn Heath said this arises from a condition created by the regulations of the city to restrict the signage. There was further discussion about previous change in city regulations. Lynn Heath said the spirit of the regulations was to have applicants come before the Planning Commission for exceptions.

 

Chairman Nelson asked for a show of hands to vote yes or no on this question. Yes- 4 / No-2 with Quentin Coon and Jan Cox in opposition.

X

 

 

2.

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

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.

X

 

 

4.

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

X

 

 

5.

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

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.

Lynn Heath said these signs blend in well with the environment.

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.

 

Clark Nelson said he does not believe the request is based exclusively upon a desire to make money.

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, and

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.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Ron Roberts move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-02 as requested to vary the sign provisions of section 7-102 and 7-104 to allow an 8’ increase from the allowed 72 square foot total to 80 square foot total sign area, to allow for 2 entry monuments instead of 1, and to allow for a 15’ maximum sign height instead of 10’.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried4/2 with Jan Cox and Quentin Coon in opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals at 11:00 p.m.  and to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

Annual review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to table this issue until the next meeting. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annual review of the Comp. Development Plan.

 

 

Member Items:

 

Ron Roberts asked Les about the language in item number 1 of the variance report being a stumbling block to the committee. Jan Cox said it asks the question of “action on behalf of the applicant”. Les said the only way to avoid this is to take no action.

 

Jeff Bridges stated the long range transportation plan is being updated for the Metropolitan Planning Organization and KDOT is not accepting Prairie Creek Road as a major arterial street due to a gap south of Central. They are designating this portion south of Central a “collector street” in their long range plan. He asked if the Planning Commission had a problem with that. Jeff said it is not a monetary issue for the city. Les said it is a definition difference of arterial and collector streets between the city and the feds. Les said Andover can continue to show Prairie Creek Road in our comprehensive plans as a future arterial street.

Member Items

 

 

Jan Cox made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:18 p.m. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Adjournment

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 21st day of June 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.