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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 15, 2004

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 15, 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, Lynn Heath, and David Martine. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges, and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn.

Call to Order

   

Review the minutes of the May 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0 with David Martine absent.

Review the minutes of the May 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

   

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the May 11, 2004 and May 25, 2004 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the May 4, 2004 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. There was no meeting in June. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the May 11, 2004 & June 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Chairman Coon stated the Election of Officers & Committee Members item on the agenda would be moved to Member Items to take care of the cases being heard by the Commission tonight.

Communications

   

Z-2004-01- Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from the R-1 to the R-2 Single- Family Residential District at 215 W. 13th Street.

At 7:10 p.m. Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing. He asked the Commission if anyone had received ex-parte communications. No one had received any. Chairman Coon said this was advertised in the Andover Journal Advocate on May 13, 2004.

Kirk Miller from KE Miller Engineering, 516 S. Market, in Wichita and agent for the owner stated the owner wants to split this residential lot into 2. He stated there is an existing house on the property. The lot split case was approved at the last meeting, but the zoning needs to be changed on the property to comply with the current residential minimum lot area zoning requirements.

There were no comments from the public.

Chairman Coon said the next step is to complete the rezoning report.

Z-2004-01- Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from the R-1 to the R-2 Single- Family Residential District at 215 W. 13th Street.

   

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2004-01

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Cheryl Smith/ Ron Smith

REQUEST:

Change zoning district classification from R-1 to R-2 Single-Family Residential

CASE HISTORY:

Platted recently as C. Smith Addition. Subsequent lot split for this lot requires R-2 zoning for 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area.

LOCATION:

SW corner of 13th & Main.

SITE SIZE:

+/- 1/2 acre

PROPOSED USE:

Construct 2 single-family dwellings

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residential

South:

R-2 Single-Family Residential

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residential

 

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 an necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

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

H.

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

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

PLANNING:

Residential on all 4 sides.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

  1. What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?

STAFF:

PLANNING:

R-2 Single-Family Residential

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

  1. 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

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

X

STAFF:

X

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

  • 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

  • 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:

    Water, sewer, streets are in place & adequate.

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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:

    Lot split is approved pending zoning.

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    X

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    In close vicinity.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

  • 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

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

    No detriment perceived. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2.

    PLANNING:

    Concur with staff.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

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

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • What is the support or opposition to the request?
  • STAFF:

    None at this time.

    PLANNING:

    None.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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:

    The applicant said he wants to build another house there.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?
  • STAFF:

    No detriment to the public is perceived.

    PLANNING:

    Concur with staff.

    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-2004-01 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1 Single-Family Residential District to the R-2 Single-Family Residential District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary as number 1,2,6, 13, & 14 of this hearing. (and that the following conditions be attached to this recommendation) Motion seconded by Clark Nelson. Motion carried 7/0.

     
       

    Recommendation on the Petition for Annexation for the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 27 South, Range 3 East of the 6th P.M., Butler County, Kansas (Crescent Lakes PUD)

    Les Mangus said that a positive recommendation on this annexation is required to give the Planning Commission jurisdiction to hear the next zoning case. When the City Council hears the cases, they would have to annex the property before they can approve the zoning change.

    Clark Nelson asked Les if he was recommending approval. Les said yes and that the property is already adjacent to city water, paved 4-lane street, and a sewer interceptor that runs diagonally from SE to NW through the property.

    Clark Nelson made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for the petition for annexation of the subject property. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

    David Martine arrived at 7:18 p.m.

    Recommendation on the Petition for Annexation for the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 27 South, Range 3 East of the 6th P.M., Butler County, Kansas (Crescent Lakes PUD)

     

     

     

    Z-2004-02 Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Crescent Lakes Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to add an additional 80 acres adjacent to the east of the existing PUD. Chairman Coon opened the public hearing on this case at 7:18 p.m. He asked the Commission if they had received ex-parte communications. No one had received any. Chairman Coon said this case was advertised in the Andover Journal Advocate on May 20, 2004.

    Bob Whittaker, developer of Crescent Lakes, expressed he thought he is an asset as a model developer to the community of Andover by offering several amenities. He then asked for approval of the zoning change for the Amended Crescent Lakes PUD.

    Mr. Whittaker said they are proposing platting 17 lots in the new area along with said Phase 4 that was approved by the Planning Commission in January. Kenny Hill of Poe & Associates has proposed 3 streets to join in to the existing Crescent Lakes PUD. During the Subdivision Committee meeting, it was proposed to extend the existing 5' sidewalks on Crescent Lakes Drive go over to the new area at which point the new area would then become 8' sidewalks. After consideration, Mr. Whittaker has decided to agree to make the 8' sidewalks extend even into the existing Phase 4 of Parcel 1. At the end of the existing 5' sidewalk, the 8' width will be built over to the new parcel, and throughout the new area, over 4,200 lineal feet of 8 foot sidewalk would be offered pending Planning Commission acceptance. These sidewalks will be built in greenspaces and greenbelts. An additional "leg" of 8' sidewalk will be put on 1 parcel for future development of the 80 acres north of this property which will give a direct route from the 13th Street Park to the Central Street Park which is a goal expressed by the city. Mr. Whittaker said he appreciates the good working relationship with all the Governing Bodies of Andover and with City Staff and he expects that to continue.

    Clark Nelson asked Bob to summarize the changes he has incorporated since the last Subdivision Committee meeting. Bob said the only change is on Crescent Lakes Drive off of Andover Road there is 1 block of existing 5' sidewalk, which will be extended as 8' all the way into the new area.

    Clark asked if the bike path on the north is still intended to be built. Bob said that yes it would be.

    Clark said that after the lengthy discussion about this case at Subdivision Committee, he appreciates the concessions Mr. Whittaker has made to his plan.

    Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates, representing the applicant, clarified the sidewalk details for the Commission. He said the other changes that have been made are the straightening of Woodstone to make a better transition with the new development. 2 street connections have been added at Covington Drive and Lakecrest Drive.

    Kenny said that a requirement of staff was to submit a drainage plan and that has been done now. All other comments by staff have been taken care of.

    Quentin Coon asked if there was enough room for the 8' sidewalk to run through Reserve P. Kenny Hill said he could design the sidewalk to be level in this area and there is not a large amount of drainage running through this area.

    Lynn Heath asked if the open area around the lakes is accessible to the public. Kenny said the lake water surface shown on the plat is somewhat schematic rather than precise. He said they would try to leave space between the back of the lots and the water. Kenny said the proposed 8' sidewalk by the lake provides the public access.

    Kenny said there is another swimming pool proposed.

    Ron Roberts asked if it was preferred to run the sidewalks in the existing Phase 4 in front of the lots instead of in the green area. Kenny Hill said yes and that everything would be in the rear of the lots of the new area.

    Quentin asked if Winston Drive connects at the southeast corner of the Industrial Park. Kenny said yes it is. Quentin asked if it was meant for that drive to tie into proposed residential or industrial. Kenny said either/or however it develops. That connection was shown on the original plan, only it curved to the north, and has now been straightened.

    Ron Roberts stated there was lengthy discussion in the Subdivision Committee about the 8' sidewalk going out closer to Andover Road as well as whether it should be in the front or rear of the lots. No decision was made during Subdivision Committee meeting.

    Les Mangus said the new Park & Open Space Plan suggests the city create greenways that would connect walking paths, open space, and this waterway corridor was identified as one of those greenways. There was discussion whether to retro-fit an 8' sidewalk into the backyard of those lots that were already approved or stick with the plan that was approved 7-8 years ago and place the sidewalks in the front. Les said Mr. Whittaker is offering a compromise to put in larger 8' sidewalks, but has not agreed to put them in the rear of the lots because it would require a complete redesign of the 4th Phase that he has already engineered.

    Keith Zinn was concerned about the retention ponds in Parcels 1 & 2, and whether one will flow into the other. Kenny said that it does.

    Keith asked if there would be a culvert under the road. Kenny said there would be a substantial one put there.

    Keith asked if the elevation shown on 1320 is the spillway of this retention pond. Kenny said that is the normal water surface of that pond. Keith asked if these ponds would overflow into the park area to the south. Kenny said that yes they would.

    Keith asked if Kenny anticipated any water backing up into the lots that back up to the pond. Kenny said they would be designed so that the water will never get up into the actual lots.

    Sheri Geisler, resident of Crescent Lakes, wanted to insure that the treeline on the east of the new development would be remain in tact. Quentin Coon said it is noted in the Preliminary PUD that "all existing hedgerows on the periphery of Parcel 1 would remain in tact".

    Ron Roberts asked if there would be any utility cuts behind the existing houses. Kenny said all the utilities would follow the roads.

    Sheri Geisler was concerned about the future and utility companies needing to make cuts in the treeline, and whether they would be required to come before the Planning Commission for approval before the work is done. Les said that General Provision #11 states: "All existing hedgerows on the periphery of Parcel 1 shall remain in tact except for utility cuts through the hedgerow."

    Les said that in all the already platted areas the utility easement is not contiguous to the property line, it is actually offset over 30- 40 feet by a landscape easement that protects those hedgetrees. To get a utility easement to cross over into the existing platted property would require another utility easement to make it contiguous. So there will be parallel utilities on the opposite side of the hedgerow since there is no connectivity. Les said the exception would be the reserve areas and street crossings.

    Bruce McNaughton, 612 E. Lakecrest Drive, said he prefers the 8' sidewalk plan in front of the homes rather than in the rear on the existing 7-acre lake.

    Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing.

    Clark asked if all comments by Les have been satisfied. Les said that notes and leaders have been added to the existing water lines and the existing sewer interceptor, which are depicted on the Preliminary Plan, but are not labeled. Les said that the sidewalk alignment at the northeast corner of the new 80 acres would be put on the Preliminary PUD Document.

    Quentin asked Les if this is the first time the Planning Commission has amended a PUD by adding land to it. Lynn Heath said the Caywood Addition was similar.

    Quentin asked Les for the pros and cons of proceeding in this manner. Les stated the advantage is the set of general provisions they are already comfortable with. The advantage to the developer is that the additional phases that he adds by adding property are considered in our financing structure as being continuation of an existing project rather than waiting in line as a new project. Disadvantages to the developer would be that this method opens up the original PUD for discussion, which is how the Planning Commission was able to get the 8' sidewalk across the northern side.

    Lynn Heath said you cannot change what is already developed, but you can make changes to undeveloped areas.

    Ron Roberts asked if there were hedgerows around the entire perimeter of Parcel 2. Bob Whittaker said it might be scattered around the southeast side of the property. This area will be landscaped anyway.

    Bob Whittaker said that he established a 40' outside of the dripline protective area for existing trees. He said he has done everything possible since 1996 to save every tree possible.

    Les reminded the Commission about the tornado of 1991 which went diagonally across this property and took out most of this hedgerow.

    Chairman Coon began the rezoning report at 7:50 p.m.

    Z-2004-02 Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Crescent Lakes Prelim. PUD Plan to add an additional 80 acres adjacent to the east of the existing PUD.

       

    ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

    Agenda Item No. 6

    REZONING REPORT *

     

    CASE NUMBER:

    Z-2004-02

    APPLICANT/AGENT:

    Bob & Marlene Whittaker/ Kenny Hill- Poe & Associates

    REQUEST:

    Amend Crescent Lakes PUD to add 80 acres adjacent to the east.

    CASE HISTORY:

    Expansion of existing Crescent Lakes PUD

    LOCATION:

    1/2 mile east of Andover Road on the north side of Central Avenue.

    SITE SIZE:

    203 acres total

    PROPOSED USE:

    Additional single-family residential dwelling sites.

    ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

    North:

    Butler County Agriculture

    South:

    City Agriculture A-1 - USD #385 Central School Campus

    East:

    Butler County Agriculture

    West:

    R-2 Crescent Lakes PUD

     

    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 an 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:

    Agriculture except to the west which is the Crescent Lakes development.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?
  • STAFF:

    PLANNING:

    Butler Co. Ag. To the north and east. City Ag to the south.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

  • Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?
  • X

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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?
  • STAFF:

    Construction of the USD #385 Central School campus & water, street, sewer improvements.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Lynn Heath said it is the popularity of this area due to Central School Campus.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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:

    Water, sewer, public streets are available adjacent to or on the proposed site.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur with Staff.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

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

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    Not in the immediate vicinity.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Quentin Coon said the Potential Residential Lot Report shows there are plenty of lots available.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

  • 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

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

    No detriment to adjacent property is perceived.

    PLANNING:

    Concur with Staff.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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

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

    STAFF:

    Orderly growth of the City around existing infrastructure. Proposed 5-ft. sidewalk along collector streets in the existing PUD does not meet current standard.

    X

    PLANNING:

    The plan recommends growth to the east.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • What is the support or opposition to the request?
  • STAFF:

    None at this time.

    PLANNING:

    None at this time.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • 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:

    Information received from Kenny Hill and Mr. Whittaker.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?
  • STAFF:

    No detriment to the public is perceived.

    PLANNING:

    Concur with Staff.

    COUNCIL:

       

    Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Clark Nelson, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2004-02 be approved to amend the Crescent Lakes PUD to add 80 acres adjacent to the east and to change the zoning district from Agriculture to R-2 PUD based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary as numbers 6, 7, 9,12, 15 & 16 of this hearing. in the summary of this hearing. (and that the following conditions 1. Labeling of water & sewer lines, and reference of the sidewalk on the northeast 2 lots) Motion seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 8/0.

     
       

    Lynn Heath made a motion at 8:00 p.m. to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

     
       

    BZA-V-2004-03 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the required minimum lot size in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1653 N. Andover Road.

    Les said this entire block of property has developed in the last 15 years. The developer was very cognizant of the need for minimum lot sizes, widths, areas, and etc. and they planned their buildings around those minimums, leaving this building where the candle shop is today as a 10,000 square foot lot. With the Andover Road improvement, there became a need for additional right-of-way off of Lots 1 & 2. There was now an imbalance to keep those lots as 10,000 square feet. When the Candle Shop was built between the 2 existing buildings, the owners deeded a triangular tract to make sure that all 3 lots had their minimum lot size. Since that time, Mr. Wagner's business has grown, requiring more storage space. Mr. Wagner is asking for a variance property owner to the north to square up his boundary and allow him to use his full depth of property.

    Charlotte Bass asked Les if there was an existing house on the west side. Les said that there is a lot that is 75' by less than 100', which is an existing parcel that is foreign to all these transactions. Les said the existing cedar fence is nearly on the property line between all these existing business buildings and the house. This triangle has no effect on the existing house.

    Les said that neither of the owner/applicants were able to attend tonight's meeting.

    Clark asked Les if he recommended approval for this variance. Les said he does recommend approval since the 26' triangle serves no one other than meeting the technical requirement of the bulk regulations.

    Chairman Coon asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on this application. No one made a comment.

    There was further discussion about this case.

    Quentin Coon asked if this property would have to be replatted if this application is approved. Les said to go through the checklist to determine jurisdiction for deciding the case.

    Keith Zinn asked if Lots 1 & 2 had the same owner. Les said no, they are different owners.

    Keith Zinn asked if the abstract would have to be changed as far as different owners are concerned. Les said there would have to be a deed to pass the land from one owner to the next, and that is a transaction that does not require platting because it is between 2 adjacent owners.

    Chairman Coon reviewed the findings of fact.

    BZA-V-2004-03 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the required minimum lot size in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1653 N. Andover Road.

       

    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;

    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.

    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.

    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

       

    Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the variance. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

     
       

    H.

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

    1.

    None required.

     

     

    BZA-V-2004-04 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the minimum front yard setback in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District at 1429 N. Andover Road.

    Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Les Mangus said this is another peculiar case from years past. He said the original church building was built before the formal zoning regulations were adopted. Portions of the existing building are legal non-conforming uses and don't meet the setback regulations from the street. The church is proposing some additions and would like to line the faces of the buildings up with the existing building.

    David White from Howard & Helmer architects, representing the United Methodist Church presented the variance. Mr. White showed the Commission the graphic of the proposal and answered questions. He said the encroachment is 11.5 feet beyond the 25' setback.

    David Martine asked if when that street goes to curb and gutter, what impact there would be and if there is enough room to do so. Mr. White said they are 13.5 feet to the property line and another 15- 20 feet to the street line. Les said that there was an exceptionally large right-of-way platted for Main Street before the city was ever incorporated. It is 80' where typical is 64'.

    David Martine asked if there is an existing driveway on that side of the building now. Les said yes there is. David asked if it would be removed. Mr. White said there is an existing driveway and they are proposing another drive and want to move the existing one.

    Jeff Syrios asked Les if he recommended approval for this application. Les said it is okay because many of the buildings in the area don't meet today's setback's and minimum lot sizes and widths and etc.

    Chairman Coon asked if there was any comment from the public. Hearing none, Mr. Coon closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. and reviewed the factors and findings.

    BZA-V-2004-04 Public Hearing on an application for variance of the minimum front yard setback in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District at 1429 N. Andover Road.

       

    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;

    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.

    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.

    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

    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 approve the variance application to reduce the required front yard setback as requested. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion approved 8/0.

     
       

    David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission at 8:30 p.m. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

     
       

    Review the Final Plat of the Valsong Addition. Chairman Coon said the Preliminary Plat of the Valsong Addition was heard at the last meeting. Kirk Miller from KE Miller Engineering representing the owner & Ron Smith, owner, were both present to answer questions of the Commission.

    Kirk Miller said the comments from Les have been addressed. Les stated SBC does not need additional easements.

    Charlotte Bass asked if the final drainage plan is adequate for future development. She is very concerned about runoff. Kirk Miller said a drainage plan has been submitted to Les. The plans submitted now are only for the 3 lots. Kirk said there would be less runoff in the area than there is now.

    Clark Nelson said he believed that all drainage plans should be presented at the time of the final plat for approval as opposed to after, to give the Planning Commission time to study it and to ask questions.

    Les Mangus said a drainage plan with all the runoff calculations was submitted at the Subdivision Committee.

    Charlotte Bass asked about the huge berm on Harry Street. Ron Smith said that is dirt out of the pit pond, which will be made into moguls that will be landscaped. He said this will also be screening from Harry Street.

    Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m.

    Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat of the Valsong Addition. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/1 with Charlotte Bass voting no.

    Review the Final Plat of the Valsong Addition.

       

    Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Planning Commission at 8:35 p.m. for a 5-minute break. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

     
       

    At 8:40 p.m., Chairman Coon reconvened the Andover Planning Commission and called for Agenda Item 11.

     
       

    Public Hearing on the proposed adoption of the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Andover Area, Kansas 2003-2013 and the accompanying Park System and Open Space Master Plan Element.

    Jeff Bridges stated this process began more than 1 year ago facilitated by a Community Capacity Grant through the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing. Foster and was hired to help us write the plan and to coordinate the public input which was an extensive community survey. There was a surprising 33% response to the survey. The results of the survey were included as the background information in the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight the Public Hearing will include the Master Plan for Open Space, which is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The separate Park Plan Committee drafted that and the Steering Committee for the Comprehensive Plan accepted. Public comment will be heard tonight and make a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the plan.

    Bickley Foster, of Foster and Associates, stated his admiration for the Andover Planning Commission not being a "reactionary" board. He reminded the commissioners to be "planners" for the future of Andover. This is a process prepared by Jeff Bridges, Les Mangus, Mike Rice with Rice Foster and Associates, Deborah Foster created the maps, Deborah Carroll did a lot of the copying and work with the committee. The 1st Comp. Plan for the City of Andover was made in 1972. Other updates and amendments have been made since then. This is an update of the 1995 Plan, which runs from 2003-2013. State Statute requires that the Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed annually. Bickley suggest the Planning Commission pick out 3-5 items for 1 year goals, and needs to be added to the agenda of the July Planning Commission Meeting. He began to highlight the 1st of the 12 Chapters of the Plan.

    • The existing Land Use Planning Area map has not changed since the 1995 Plan.
    • Andover is now included in a Metropolitan area of 4 counties- Butler, Harvey, Sedgwick, Sumner.
    • There is a greater enrollment in the Andover Butler County College than there is in El Dorado.

    Mike Rice said the goal chapter draws a bridge between the previous plan and the current realities.

    • Andover has accomplished most of the goals that were set in the 1995 plan.
    • Remember the emphasis on working with other entities to accomplish goals.
    • Make sure there is a good inventory of all types of housing available, so as Andover grows it can accommodate all types of people who would like to live here and who you would like to have as neighbors.
    • Rural subdivisions should fit in well with development throughout the area (no island annexations, etc.)

    Quentin Coon asked how to encourage apartment rental units since this was mentioned in the community survey as a need. Mike said that in zoning, to identify areas that would be compatible with that use, and to work with developers who have a history of making those kind of improvements. The Commission should focus on quality, not quantities of certain types of housing not to exclude any one type. Clark Nelson thinks the market will determine what is best. Mike said that the Planning Commission needs to be prepared for the time when that demand does come.

    Les Mangus said that all the zones need to be better utilized to do more integration of lot sizes, multi/single-family, rather than to try to segregate each zone away from its counterparts. He further thinks just because an application is submitted to the Planning Commission, it would not be unreasonable to ask the developers to design assorted lot sizes and types of dwelling units.

    Jeff Syrios is concerned about public perception where property values are concerned. Les said that high density does not necessarily equate to lower property values. There are people looking for all types of housing.

    Mike Rice said even the Park Plan give opportunities to deal with density vs. property value issues. There is no use for setting policy or goal for these issues if the market is not demanding it. Mike continued to highlight the land-use chapter.

    • Importance of the Park Master Plan, which encourages acquisition of land for public parks which in turn, encourages housing developments in the surrounding area.
    • Encouragement of commercial development at Central and Andover Road and the intersection of Andover Road and US 54.
    • Character/ vision needs to be decided for the Andover Road corridor. Gateways to the community and Open Space within the community, role of the Site Plan Review Committee are all elements in this.
    • Projected population is very important in planning for the future.
    • Connectivity between subdivisions and other elements to knit isolated neighborhoods together to function better as a city.
    • Community survey showed a growing interest in hike/bike path networks throughout the city.
    • Identify an alternate water source by the year 2014 with the idea to develop a secondary water source.
    • Improvements to the library were identified as a goal in the community survey with the Park and Open Space Master Plan being a vital part of this goal.

    Bickley Foster continued to highlight Chapter 4 & 5.

    • There are more females employed in Andover than males.
    • The majority of workers are travelling out of town, but there is a better balance now due to the industrial park.
    • The City of Andover is the 4th lowest in Butler County for property tax rates.
    • Encourage the development of a diversified local economic base of light industries, retail trade and service businesses with added possibilities for tourism, lodging, and entertainment businesses.
    • Continue expansion of the Andover Industrial Park to balance the industrial part of development.
    • Andover is one of the top 3 fastest growing cities in the State of Kansas.
    • The last plan forecasted the Andover population to be 7,500 by 2010 and that number has been surpassed already. This updated plan projects 11,000 by the year 2013. Housing figures prove it is very possible to do that.
    • 72% of the houses existing in 1999 were valued at over $100,000.
    • Affordable housing was the main reason for people to work in Andover but not live here. The 2000 Census states that 13.6% of the homes in Andover are mobile homes. The 4 county area has only 6.1%. Butler County has 10.9%.
    • The data shows it would take 95 new housing units per year to support the projected 2013 population of 11,000. Les said in 2003, 187 building permits were issued, 2002 there were 202. Even on a conservative projection, the 11,000-population figure is possible without great effort.

    Les Mangus gave the summaries of Chapters 7- 10

    • Page 7-4: FEMA has issued new maps for Andover in 2002 and future revisions will be digital.
    • Page 7-6: Corridor Master Plan sets a guideline for the uses along the highway and the development of the highway. The railroad is in the process of abandonment throughout Butler County and into Sedgwick County.
    • Page 8-6: Land Use Chapter shows Andover Crossing Development, and new businesses along Andover Road and US 54 have created a whole new type of business in Andover. Andover needs to preserve the traffic carrying capabilities of this intersection while providing reasonable access to be profitable. There needs to be some sort of frontage road system so that business and residential traffic would not access directly out onto the highway.
    • Page 8-10: Andover is maturing from being a bedroom community to being one with more commercial and industrial, creating a more, well rounded, mature city.
    • Page 8-10: Protection of the business core at Central and Andover Road is essential to maintain its vitality. Promoting the regional shopping at US 54 and Andover Road. Prepare for another business core at 21st Street and Andover Road. Future industrial growth at 21st Street and the Kansas Turnpike interchange.

    Quentin Coon asked if the current location is the best suited for the Industrial Park. Jeff Bridges said yes it is the best given its developed nature. Attempts to take the businesses from the industrial park who expect to be in the location and to convert it to another use would discourage some current clients from expanding their businesses.

    Les continued with the summary from Chapter 8.

    • Page 8-12: Lot report is done monthly.

    Quentin was concerned about the Crescent Lakes project being done "right now". Les said it is a logical expansion of an existing project which offers a good variety of housing and takes advantage of all the public infrastructure that is available, water, sewer, streets. Jeff Bridges said it is advantageous that Mr. Whittaker was able to purchase that property and make it part of an overall bigger project. There is connectivity, systematic use of utilities, access to major highways and streets and a good way to keep the land from being developed in ways that weren't compatible with one another.

    Les continued with the summary from Chapter 8.

    • Chapter 8: The amount of land that is being used for right-of-ways is less than it was with the past plan as a result of current development designs.
    • Encourage expansion to the east to make a broader pattern.
    • Page 9-2: Sedgwick County, Butler County, and the City of Andover have all come together to find a plan to pave 13th Street into a 4-lane paved street for improved access into the Industrial Park, School system, and etc.
    • Page 9-4: Andover is now part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Committee for transportation. We will utilize the Functional Classification Map that Wichita and the MPO have including in their designations of street classifications which opens up some avenues for us in financing of arterial street projects.
    • Page 9-8: The railroad is abandoned now.
    • Page 10-4: Substantial water improvements, which assure us a better supply of water. The 21st Street connection to the Webb Road high pressure pump station in Wichita, extending transmission lines down Harry Street & Pawnee Avenue over to Andover Road to strengthen the south end of our system.

    There was general discussion about the City of Andover becoming less dependent upon Wichita for water.

    • Page 10-4: Wastewater plant expansion in 1997 should be able to serve our population growth through 2013. In about 2007 we will need to be looking at a design to satisfy the KDHE.
    • Page 10-5: Mandated to formulate a storm water plan and will be adopting rules and regulations that will be similar to the City of Wichita in regards to prevention of pollution of streams and lakes.
    • Page 11-1: WDM did a study of building needs for city hall, fire, library, and police, and as a result have construction of Police Station going on now. There is discussion about a future city hall facility and possible library expansion.
    • Page 11-2: City of Andover now provides fire service to the city and the township.
    • Page 11-3: USD 385 Central Campus is now in place and operating.
    • Page 11-5: The effect of the Central Park to the Open Space Master Plan has been noted.
    • Page 11-6:The future relocation of City Hall and Library, and addition of additional sites for a fire station, elementary schools, and neighborhood parks.

    Quentin Coon asked for a definition of "neighborhood parks". Les said they are identified basically 5 acres in each square mile of development in the neighborhood. Jeff explained the Park System & Open Space Master Plan map on the council wall with the purple circles that depict proposed neighborhood park service areas.

    Bickley Foster summarized Chapter 12. He said Andover is becoming a more efficient city as it expands to the east and west.

    • Explanation of the Capitol Improvement Plan and how it is to be "embraced" within the Comprehensive Development Plan.
    • Encouraged the Planning Commission to do more "neighborhood plans" to "tie things together".
    • Be choosy about ground annexed. Community questionnaire showed 55% of residents wanted a less aggressive annexation policy.
    • Economic Development is important to fill out the industrial area.

    Bickley said the most efficient cities have a central administration system as Andover does.

    Mike Rice summarized the Park and Open Space Plan and he thanked the committee on their hard work.

    • Although this is a detached document, it is an element of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Mike explained to the Commission their part in planning of the future parks and open spaces of Andover.
    • Explanation of the park impact fee and how developers can negotiate with the city to dedicate land for public use in lieu of some of those fees.
    • 2/3 of survey respondents would be willing to pay for improvements to Central & 13th Street Parks, for a public swimming pool and more hike/bike paths.
    • Acquiring land is a need to develop public utilities and amenities.

    Quentin Coon asked for any public comment. Hearing none, at 7:38 p.m. Chairman Coon closed the public hearing.

    Lynn Heath stated his name was misspelled on page iii.

    Chairman Coon read the Resolution of Adoption of the Comprehensive Development Plan as follows:

    PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION

    WHEREAS, pursuant to authority granted by statutes of the State of Kansas, the Andover City Planning Commission was recreated by the City Council of the City of Andover, Kansas by Ordinance No. 680 and given authority to adopt a comprehensive plan for all of the City plus certain surrounding area in Benton, Bruno and Pleasant townships in Butler County, Kansas; and

    WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of K.S.A. 12-747(a), the Planning Commission did give notice by publication in the official city newspaper on May 20, 2004 of a public hearing on said Plan and accompanying Element to be held on June 15, 2004 and written notification as required by K.S.A. 12-743 (a) has been given to the Butler County Board of Commissioners and the Benton, Bruno and Pleasant township trustees; and

    WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said hearing did hear all comments and remarks relating to said Plan and Element and did give consideration to all statements;

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by a majority of the members of the Andover City Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Andover Area, Kansas: 2003-2013 and the accompanying Andover Park System and Open Space Master Plan Element dated June 15, 2004, be hereby adopted as the official comprehensive plan for the City of Andover plus certain surrounding area in Benton, Bruno and Pleasant townships of Butler County, Kansas as described therein; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in compliance with K.S.A. 12-747(b), the action of the Planning Commission be provided to the Andover City Council in the form of a certified copy of said Plan with the accompanying Element, this Resolution and a written summary of the public hearing and, furthermore, to recommend that they approve the Plan by publication of an Ordinance as required by K.S.A. 12-747(b).

    APPROVED by at least a majority of the Andover City Planning Commission members at Andover, Kansas, this 15th day of June 2004.

    Clark Nelson made a motion to adopt and recommend to the City Council the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Andover Area, Kansas 2003-2013 and the accompanying Park System and Open Space Master Plan Element. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

    Public Hearing on the proposed adoption of the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Andover Area, Kansas 2003-2013 and the accompanying Park System and Open Space Master Plan Element.

       

    Clark Nelson thanked Bob Ruth for attending the entire public hearing, as well as City Council member Keith Zinn, Bickley Foster, Mike Rice, Deborah Carroll, and City Staff for their commendable job with all the work. Clark stated he feels our city is in good hands and he appreciates all of their efforts and guidance.

    Lynn Heath thanked Clark Nelson and David Martine for serving on the committee.

     
       

    Review of the Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Andover. Jeff Bridges said this is a draft copy and does not require action by the Planning Commission tonight. City staff is in process of developing a plan to pay for funding of these items. At the next Planning Commission meeting will be the finished copy, which will be adopted at that time.

    Review of the Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Andover.

       

    Member Items: There was general discussion about the future home of city hall and the Andover Public Library but no decision has been made yet.

    Election of Officers and Committee Members. Lynn Heath asked to remove himself from the Subdivision Committee due to his busy work schedule. Chairman Coon opened the discussion for nominations for the Subdivision Committee.

    Lynn Heath nominated Clark Nelson as Chairperson for the Subdivision Committee. Clark accepted the nomination.

    David Martine said he would not mind continuing to be the Secretary of the Planning Commission.

    Jan Cox made a motion that all nominations cease and to elect Clark Nelson as Chairperson. Motion carried 8/0.

    Lynn Heath stated that Quentin Coon has been an excellent Chairperson. The other members agreed and appreciated his leadership and service.

    David Martine nominated Ron Roberts as Vice Chairperson. He declined the nomination.

    Lynn Heath nominated Jeff Syrios as Vice Chairperson. He declined the nomination also due to lack of experience and time scheduling.

    Quentin Coon nominated Jan Cox as Vice Chairperson. She declined the nomination due to lack of experience.

    Clark Nelson nominated Quentin Coon as Vice Chairperson. He accepted the nomination.

    Ron Roberts made a motion to cease nominations and to elect Quentin Coon as Vice Chairperson. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion Carried 8/0.

    Lynn Heath made a motion to cease nominations and for David Martine to remain as Secretary. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

    There was general discussion about the committee member positions of the Subdivision Committee. Charlotte asked how many are required to serve. Jeff Bridges said there are to be 4 members.

    Lynn Heath made a motion to cease nominations and to elect the Subdivision Committee members: Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, Clark Nelson, and Jan Cox. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

    Lynn Heath asked if election of officers would be held at the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Les said that it would be on the agenda.

    David Martine stated that as a member of the Bruno Township Board, he expressed extreme gratitude to the city staff, for allowing the board to use the Central Park Lodge as a meeting place. He said the meetings are held the first Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m.

    At 10:15 p.m., David Martine was concerned about submission of drainage plans and how much the Planning Commission should be involved in deciding whether the drainage plan works or not.

    Clark Nelson said this is a problem in Sedgwick County also. There was general discussion about requirement of individual lot grading plans. Clark asked if a workshop on drainage issues would help the members make more informed decisions.

    Keith Zinn said retention ponds are supposed to take care of most drainage problems if they are engineered properly.

    Clark Nelson said the Commissioners need to have an overall plan for the drainage and knowledge of where the water goes for the entire area before making decisions regarding plats.

    Les Mangus said he agreed the Commissioners need to become more involved with the drainage conception for each plan. He said he can ask the developers to bring the drainage plans for review by the members with the Preliminary Plats. In the past the Planning Commission has not wanted to be as involved with this issue. Walk-out/ view-out basements are creating the majority of the grading problems today. Les suggested a balanced view of the drainage plan standards.

    Les said the standard is "there is to be no increase in the degree of runoff from a 25 year storm, that 2 year storms be carried completely within underground storm sewers, and that 5 year storms be carried completely within the curbs". There was continued discussion about the city's standard for drainage.

    Member Items

       

    Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

    Adjournment

    Respectfully Submitted by

     

    __________________________

    Deborah Carroll

    Administrative Secretary

    Approved this 20th day of July 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.