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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

January 20, 2004

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission Members present were Clark Nelson, Jan Cox, Jeff Syrios, Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, and Lynn Heath. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Commission Member David Martine was absent.

Call to Order

   

Review the minutes of the December 16, 2003 meeting.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Quentin Coon abstained from voting. Motion carried 6/0/1.

Review the minutes of the December 16, 2003 meeting.

   

Communications:

Communications

Review of the City Council minutes from December 9, 2003 and December 30, 2003. Minutes were received and filed.

Review of the Subdivision Committee minutes from November 11, 2003 and January 13, 2004. Jan Cox stated on the January 13, 2004 minutes, page 3, and fourth paragraph that the word "Court" should be stricken. Minutes were corrected and filed.

Review of the Site Plan Review Committee minutes from January 6, 2004. Minutes were received and filed.

Review of the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

 
   

Review the access control additions to the Chance Acres Final Plat requested by the Butler County Planning Commission. Les Mangus said that at the last meeting, this final plat was approved then sent to Butler County for acceptance of the dedications by the County Commissioners. In the last re-write of the Butler County zoning and subdivision regulations, the County added a step where plats in the extraterritorial jurisdiction must go to the Butler County Planning Commission before the plats go to the Butler County Commissioners for final acceptance.

The Butler County Planning Commission had concerns about the language on the use of the reserves along the south and west of Chance Acres for public street connections, not just access in general. The County Engineer could not approve this plat now that Butler County has an access control policy which limits properties to 1 access for each lot onto the mile line roads.

Roger Cutsinger from Goedecke Engineering explained the additional notes he has put on the plat. He said that with Les' help, language has been added on the lower portion of the drawing addressing these reserves and what can be done with them. The County thought the language was too vague in calling them access/landscape/reserve on both the south and west sides. He said he has also added a note on 130th Street that says there is one opening per lot, which coincides with what Butler County Engineer is recommending.

Lynn Heath asked for clarification of what Butler County is requesting. Roger said that on the very north end of Lots 1 and 2, the note was added "1 opening per lot". This is shown on the 8 1/2" x 11" size map in the Planning Commission's packets.

Roger said that in the General Notes it says "Reserves A & B shall allow at least 3 public street crossings on the south and west sides". Roger said there is no idea at this time where the property owners may want the public street crossings in the future. This way, they may have at least 3 along the south and west sides of Lot 1.

Lynn Heath was concerned about all the easement land being taken from one owner and the adjoining property owner does not have to sacrifice any at all. Roger Cutsinger agreed with him.

Roger said that in the past, they have just platted in 1/2 of a roadway and let the adjacent owners plat the other half.

There was general discussion about the preservation of the hedgerow and about "spite" strips in Bridlewood Subdivision.

Roger said the owner plans to continue farming Lot 1, the remaining 59 acres of land. The owner has agreed to the new conditions as requested by the county.

Clark Nelson asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to approve what has been negotiated with the county. There was continued discussion about the preservation of the hedgerow and the possible locations for access into this property.

Clark Nelson asked Les what action the Planning Commission needs tonight. Les asked the Planning Commission to approve the amendments to the Final Plat and resubmit it to the Butler County Commissioners.

Roger said this actual lot is 1/4 mile long on the west and 1,600 feet on the south and the overall from 130th Street is 1/2 mile.

Lynn Heath said that 2 points of access is enough.

Lynn Heath said that on the plat it says "allow at least 3". He had a problem with that if they build houses facing that street and you are going to allow 1 access for each lot, you are talking about 7 or 8 total access points.

Les said his interpretation of that is "3 total". Quentin Coon read bullet 3 from the plat stating "Reserves A and B shall allow at least 3 public street crossings on the south and west sides of Lot 1".

Les said he does not think the Planning Commission would want the total number restricted because the owner of the property may chose to have more than that, but then he would have to apply for a replat of the Chance Acres property.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the amendments as made by Butler County to the Final Plat of Chance Acres, with the condition there are no more than 3 public street crossings on the south side and no more than 3 public street crossings on the west side of Lot 1. Clark Nelson seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Review the access control additions to the Chance Acres Final Plat requested by the Butler County Planning Commission.

   

Review the Final PUD Plan of Reflection Lake at Cloud City 2nd Addition. Chris Bohm, from Ruggles & Bohm, Wichita, Kansas, submitted a revised copy of the plat that included the additional easements. He said that following Subdivision Committee last week, a couple of changes have been made. He went on to give a brief history of this project.

Chris said the revised Preliminary PUD of Reflection Lake at Cloud City was approved on November 19, 2002. Last year a northerly portion was finaled (the loop east of the pond), however over the last few months the developers have decided to focus their efforts on the southerly area which is the Final PUD submitted tonight.

The revised copy of this plat has Stonewood Street running north/south between Minneha Avenue and Hedgewood Court. The plat tonight is verbatim from the approved PUD from November 2002. The developers have just moved to a different location to begin Phase 1 on this side. The Subdivision Committee asked for a street name change, which is now Stonewood.

Additional easements are requested by SBC, which have been added to the revised plat. In areas where a full 10' has not been added, they will do 5' on the subject lots and 5' by separate instrument outside the property to comply with the 10' as requested. Along the south line of Lot 17 - 24, at the extreme south end of the plat, a 15' drainage and utility easement has been added to allow the conveyance of storm water.

There is a hedgerow there that is to be protected. The easement has been moved out sufficiently to allow for grading and have utilities put in and keep the hedgerow in tact. The hedgerow may have to be trimmed, but it is at the dripline of the hedgerow.

Quentin Coon asked if this runs to the west. Chris said it runs to the west to a proposed pond.

Quentin asked what happened in the southeast corner. Chris said the developer picked a lot to stop the project.

Charlotte Bass asked if there would be a detention/ retention pond. Chris said yes, and it would be directly west of this plat as well as a storm water sewer system that services the area into the pond.

The reserve that the new pond is situated in, is part of the Final PUD of Reflection Lake at Cloud City Addition, the replat of Cloud City.

Charlotte Bass asked about this property being close to the Flood Plain. Chris said it will detain the peak run off to the existing condition, it won't improve anything downstream, it is designed to not make anything worse that would be leaving the site.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the Final Plat as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. There was general discussion about the northern portion of this plat being multi-family housing that has already been approved. Motion carried 7/0.

Keith Zinn asked about the area to the south (Lakeview Heights) and whether the water runoff from this addition would affect their ponds. He also asked if any residents from Lakeview Heights have been contacted personally to see if they have any objections to this plan. Chris said he has been working with Poe & Associates in review of the drainage plan and they agree this design will work well controlling the water for both developments.

Review the Final PUD Plan of Reflection Lake at Cloud City 2nd Addition.

   

A Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals at 7:38 p.m. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

   

BZA-V-2004-01 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the limitation of the maximum size of an accessory storage structure from the required 500 sq. ft. per building and 1,872 sq. ft. of total accessory structure limitation for the purpose of constructing a 2,400 sq. ft. detached accessory structure on property zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District at 213 E. Central Ave.

Richard Wheeler from 926 Drury, Wichita, said this is his mother's property. He wants to build a storage shed and remove 3 of the existing sheds to clean up the property. He said this would be storage for lawnmowers, garden tractors, and cars.

Clark Nelson asked Mr. Wheeler how he decided which buildings would be torn down. Mr. Wheeler said the longest shed was built to store his father's motor home. It is just a pipe covered with metal and a dirt floor. The 2 sheds he is keeping have concrete floors in them. The older shed to the back (bldg. 3) is an old grain elevator that was moved in years ago and needs to be demolished.

He said buildings 4 and 2 will stay, buildings 1, 3, and 5 will be torn down. Building 1 was constructed after the tornado to keep the mowers in.

Clark Nelson asked him to repeat exactly what he intends to store in the new building. Richard said it is for mowers, garden tractors, and automobiles when he moves in with his mother.

Clark asked about the motor home that is on the property now. Richard said it belongs to a friend of his, and it will be removed. Clark said he noticed a number of mowers currently sitting outside on the property and not contained in any of the buildings.

Clark asked if this request is approved tonight, would Mr. Wheeler put all of the items currently on the exterior, be contained within the new structure. Mr. Wheeler said there are 2 trailers in the yard he uses to haul the mowers and scrap metal with. Mr. Wheeler said this lot size is 2 1/2 acres.

Jeff Syrios asked where on the property this new structure would be built. Richard said it is the new 40' x 60' building as shown on the sketch.

Clark Nelson asked what the chances are of removing all the existing buildings other than the new one. Mr. Wheeler said he would rather not. He said he wanted to keep them because they are newer buildings, one of which is a block building, and the other is a frame building, both of which have concrete floors and garage doors.

Charlotte Bass said one of the buildings looks as though it houses a boat and she asked if that structure would be kept. Mr. Wheeler said it is his son's boat and that structure will be removed.

Charlotte Bass was concerned how many items would be sitting out in public view after the new building is constructed. Mr. Wheeler said that only the 2- 2 wheel trailers would be left out, but they could be hidden behind the building if that would be a problem.

Jeff Syrios asked if the photo submitted to the Commission is exactly what will be built. He said not exactly. He said it would be similar to the photo with a patio to the north around the corner and down the east side.

Jeff Syrios asked how it would be different from the photo. Richard said the overhead door in the front will be a larger double door, and he is not sure which company he will hire. He would rather not have a wooden structure covered with metal like the Morton Company makes. He would rather have a steel structure without any wood in it. He said the front of the building would have an overhead door and a window in the front, a man door similar to the photo on the east side, 2 windows on the east side.

Keith Zinn asked if the applicant's father's filling station was still on the property. Mr. Wheeler said it was above ground, and has already been disposed of. Mr. Zinn asked if the applicant runs a lawnservice business. Mr. Wheeler said no that he only cares for his own lawn and his mother's.

Hearing no further comments, Quentin Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. to consider the facts and findings.

Lynn Heath asked Les if the 500 square foot maximum floor area for a storage structure and 1872 square feet for accessory structures maximum, is according to the size of the lot. Les said the zoning regulations put a maximum on the size of a storage structure for that R-1 Zoning District and they further go on to define that the total of accessory structures cannot exceed the size of the principal structure. The existing house is 1,872 square feet.

Keith Zinn asked if the square footage of all the accessory buildings combined couldn't exceed the 1,872 square feet. Les said that is correct.

Clark Nelson asked if the 5 structures currently on the property have been "grandfathered" in. Les said they have been. Lynn Heath said the ones being demolished only total 870 square feet. Ron Roberts said there is 750 square feet of structures he is leaving. Les said the total of the 5 structures is about 1,600 square feet and there is 1,530 feet of existing accessory buildings. Lynn Heath said the applicant would be going from 1,600 square feet to 3,160 square feet. Quentin Coon began the review of the findings of fact.

BZA-V-2004-01 Public Hearing an accessory storage structure 213 E. Central Ave

   

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;

Clark Nelson said this is a very large nice tract of land that is unusual to be found within the city limits of Andover. Because it has been there for such a period of time and he believes the improvements anticipated here will greatly improve the appearance of the site and he would support a yes vote on this question. Lynn Heath agreed due to the uniqueness of the property.

Jeff Syrios disagreed, stating nothing about the land creates the need for a building. He said this application is created just because the property owner wants it.

Clark Nelson said this is a nice piece of property with 5 out buildings that are less than optimal for the future of the City of Andover and he believes it is in the city's best interest to vote yes on question 1.

7

0

2.

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

Clark Nelson said yes, both by the physical observation as well as the fact that there are no neighbors in opposition present here tonight.

Lynn Heath said this would make the property look better.

7

0

Chairman Coon reopened the Public Comment at 8:02. Keith Schmidt of 436 Porth, said he lives across the street to the east from the applicant and is in favor of the construction of a new accessory building.

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m.

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.

Clark Nelson said that due to the uniqueness of the property, the strict application would hinder the owner to improve the location and appearance of the site. This would be an undue hardship in this case plus he is persuaded by the neighbor coming here tonight to speak in favor of the project.

7

0

4.

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

Lynn Heath said these elements would probably improve with this project.

7

0

5.

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

Lynn Heath said with the large lot it will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations.

7

0

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.

Clark Nelson said this goes along with #1 above and should be answered in the affirmative. Jeff Syrios agreed with Mr. Nelson.

7

0

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.

Ron Roberts said there is no indication this applicant will make more money with the construction of this building.

7

0

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

Lynn Heath said the opposite is true, that this will be an asset to the neighborhood.

7

0

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.

Clark Nelson and Lynn Heath said this is a true statement.

7

0

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve a variance as prescribed in Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations to permit an increase in the required 500 square foot per building and 1,872 square foot total accessory structure limitation for the construction of a single 2, 400 square foot detached accessory structure on property zoned as R-1 Single-Family Residential with the restriction of the removal of structures number 1,3, and 5 on the drawing that is attached and providing the total area of accessory structures is no greater than 3,160 square feet. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.

Lynn Heath asked Les if there is a time limit on the applicant completing this project. Les Mangus stated the applicant has 6 months to act on a variance, which means to apply for a building permit. Lynn Heath asked if that 6 months included both removal of the other buildings as well as construction of the new one. Les said yes, if that is what the conditions on the resolution require.

Motion carried 7/0.

Keith Zinn asked the applicant if the new building would have a restroom in it. Mr. Wheeler said no, it would not at this time.

H.

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

1.

Removal of existing buildings numbered 1, 3, and 5 on the sketch attached to the application.

   

BZA-V-2004-02 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the maximum fence height from the required 6 foot height limitation to permit a 2 foot increase for the purpose of adding a lattice top to a 6'5" solid cedar fence on property zoned R-2 Single-Family Residential District at 316, 322, 404, 412, 418, & 426 E. Douglas Ave.

Keith Zinn was concerned about the wording of the application which should be the lattice can go 18" above the solid cedar fence not to exceed the 8' maximum. Les Mangus said the reason it is stated 2-foot increase is because it is in 2' in excess of the maximum height of a fence in the residential zones. The applicant is asking to exceed the maximum by 2 feet even though he has a variance allowing him to build a fence up to 6'5".

Lynn Heath asked Les if a variance like this has already been approved for Lot 308. Les said no, that it was an approval for the 6'5" fence.

Lynn Heath asked if the 6'5" fence was behind all the lots or just behind lot 308. Les said it is behind all the lots.

Jan Cox asked if the fence would go all the way to Shay Street. Les said that it would.

Keith Zinn stated that lots 6 and 7 have been changed to R-3 zoning.

Lynn Heath asked how far the boundary Lot 7 is from the street. Les Mangus said about 100 feet. There is a reserve there that was platted as a portion of the USD #385 Addition.

Glenn Tate of 14611 Sport of Kings, Wichita, is the owner of Lots 2 - 7 on E. Douglas Avenue. He said this request is for construction of an 8' fence on the back property line of these lots. This will be a privacy fence of 6' 5" of solid cedar fencing and 18" lattice top on it and that this is a unique property because the houses on Lots 3 and 5 have view-out basements.

There is drainage run behind the homes to keep the mobile home park from being flooded. The water is being channeled toward Shay Street and out to Douglas. The setbacks on the houses behind Mr. Tate's properties are less than normal. They don't have much back yard. The property line is such that the fence has to be set on the downslope of the drainage.

Clark Nelson was concerned about the structural integrity of the lattice attachment. Clark asked if the posts were tall enough to attach the lattice. Mr. Tate said these are 4"x 4" posts and the lattice will be part of the structure. He said the lattice gives the effect of 8' of privacy without the element and wind consequences of a solid board 8' fence.

Chairman Quentin Coon opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. There was no one present to speak about case BZA-V-2004-02.

Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and began to review of the findings of fact:

BZA-V-2004-02 Public Hearing at 316, 322, 404, 412, 418, & 426 E. Douglas Ave.

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;

Ron Roberts said this property is unique because it is in a drainage area, which makes it lower than normal.

Lynn Heath said the fencing would also be separating MH-1 from R-1 and R-3 zones.

Jeff Syrios said the homes are built up higher also.

7

0

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents; no further comments. Consensus.

7

0

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. Consensus.

7

0

4.

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

Consensus.

7

0

5.

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

Consensus.

7

0

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. Ron Roberts said this goes back to Question 1 above and is a topographical condition. Consensus.

7

0

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.

Maybe a little bit but not completely. Consensus.

7

0

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. Consensus.

7

0

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. Consensus.

7

0

H.

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

1.

None required.

   

Clark Nelson made a motion to adopt a Resolution that BZA-V-2004-02 be approved on the basis of the five findings were in the affirmative and that we approve an 8 foot privacy fence on the property from the existing 6 foot 5 inch fence as described in the application for the property sited. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.

 
   

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Andover Planning Commission. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.

 
   

Member Items:

Clark Nelson said he wanted to thank the City Council, Mayor, and specifically Charley Lewis, for putting together the Employee Appreciation Dinner at Stooges. He further thanked the employees at Stooges for first class service.

Charlotte Bass said she was glad to see it was very well attended.

Quentin Coon said the Commission should drive by 21st Street and Webb Road for an example of very bad sign zoning. It is a new sign for the new Kwik Shop.

Member Items

 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

Adjournment

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

Approved this 17th day of February 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.