ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 17, 2004

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 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 Jeff Syrios, Quentin Coon, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, and David Martine.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn.  Commission Member Charlotte Bass was absent.

Call to Order

Review the minutes of the July 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

David Martine made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Jan Cox, Quentin Coon, and Jeff Syrios abstained from voting. Motion carried 4/0/3. 

Review the minutes of the July 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the July 13, 2004 and July 27, 2004 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the August 3, 2004 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the June 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

Chairman Nelson said that due to the large number of people in the audience tonight, he wanted to insure that everyone who wishes to speak on some issue will be allowed to.  He decided to move the variance for the Senior Citizens Club to the beginning of the agenda.

Quentin Coon made a motion at 7:03 p.m. to recess the Planning Commission and to Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

BZA-V-2004-05: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of the required 25 foot minimum rear yard setback in the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for the purpose of construction of a building addition for the Andover Senior Citizen’s Club at 410 Lioba Drive. Clark Nelson said the notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate and notices were mailed to 22 real property owners of record on July 8, 2004.  Chairman Nelson asked if any members have had any ex-parte communications concerning this issue. There were none reported. Chairman Nelson asked if any members have a conflict of interest in this case. There were none.

Chairman Nelson asked for the Zoning Administrators report on the case. Les Mangus said the Senior Center building is oriented so the front door faces Lioba Street and is on a corner lot. The building is pushed to the rear of the lot to allow for parking in the front. The front yard to 3^rd Street is currently built at that setback. He said this request for a building addition would bring it to within 1’ of the property line. Mennonite Housing has contacted Les to say that as adjacent property owners to the Senior Center, they are opposed to the building addition. Les did invite Mennonite Housing to attend this meeting to get their comments on record.

Les said that because the building faces Lioba Street, the rear of the lot to the east is adjacent to the Summerfield Senior Housing. The zoning regulations require a minimum of 25’ foot rear yard setback. Lynn Heath asked for the required side yard setback. Les said the minimum side yard setback for uses other than residential dwellings is 15’.

Xury Hole of 318 Willowbrook represented the Andover Seniors as the President of the Senior Citizens Club.  He spoke in favor of the variance application and of the advantages of the Senior Citizens Club to the City of Andover. He introduced Bill Morris as the architect of this project.

Bill Morris, architect from Augusta presented the plan for the Senior Citizens. He showed a sketch of the proposed 19’ x 35’ building addition, existing building and parking area. He addressed Article 107 of the Zoning Regulations with the following statements:

§         The Senior Club outgrowing their existing facility is a unique problem.

§         They do not believe they would be adversely affecting the neighborhood any more than they are now. There is an existing fence around the patio area where the expansion is planned. They have purposefully kept their building back to the north from the window in the adjacent apartment to avoid impeding the view more than it is now with the existing fence.

§         This expansion project is already a financial hardship on the club.

§         They are adhering to the general spirit of the Zoning Regulations with this application, not affecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the citizens.  He said that granting of this variance would add to the general welfare of the community by allowing the club to grow and offer services.

Clark Nelson asked if the existing west parking area is adequate for projected growth of the club. Bill said that it is adequate and the plan does not exceed the 35% maximum lot coverage.

Clark Nelson asked if Mr. Morris had attempted to align the addition to the west as opposed to the east. Bill said they had tried, but the expense to move the restrooms on the west side of the existing building makes that option cost prohibitive, and estimates the difference to be around $10,000 to move them.

Jeff Syrios asked how the building addition would impact the parking ratio. Bill said the existing parking area would be adequate.

Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Morris to anticipate comments by the opposition of the adjacent owner to the east. Bill said the footprint of the addition is no different than the existing fenced patio area. He said there is a 5’ height difference between the 2 properties.

Clark asked what the building addition height would be. Bill said it would be 11’ at the ridge and match the slope of the existing roof.

Bill said there may be a question of safety. This would be addressed in the building permit process for rating of the exterior fire walls. He said the exit door on the new addition would also be a safety design. There was general discussion about the 1-hour fire wall.

Clark asked Bill if he had contacted any of the neighbors in an effort to work out any differences they might have. Bill said he had not contacted any.

David Martine asked if a previous variance had been granted for this property to allow the reduced 20’ rear yard setback. There was discussion as to how this building got oriented this way.

Jeff Bridges said that the Mennonites donated the land to the seniors, and when the deed came through, the deed and the survey were different. The Mennonites built their facility 10 feet further onto the lot they were going to donate than anticipated. The conceptual design of the building included that 10’ that was no longer available, so when the city did the field survey we had to make the building fit, and in order to keep the square footage, the building was turned.

David Martine asked about the rear door of the building. Bill said it would be located on the south. David asked if the owner to the east decides to fence the property, how would there be access to the back of the property. Bill said that in the event of an emergency, the fence would be destroyed.

Ron Roberts asked how the rear wall would be constructed 1 foot off the line with no agreement from the neighbors. Bill said that it won’t be a problem and it would be constructed from the one side.

Ron Roberts asked if the green area to the east on the plan belongs to Mennonite Housing. Bill said that most of it does.

Quentin Coon asked if the roof would have an overhang. Bill said it would not, because they want the fire wall it would come up as a parapet past the roof-line.

Cindy Ball of 921 S. Andover Road and President of Andover Development Co., stated they own the property on the southeast corner of 3^rd Street and Lioba known as Beaumont Place. She spoke in support of the Senior Center expansion project and stated many residents of Beaumont Place are members of the Senior Citizens Club. She stated the distance between the proposed expansion and her property would not be a problem.

Norma Watts of 329 McCandless, and Director of the Senior Center for 3 years, explained the services provided by the center and the need for additional space.  

Chairman Clark Nelson asked the audience for a show of hands if they were in favor of the variance. The majority of the people raised their hands. 

Chairman Nelson asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the variance.

Vic Cox of 9187 SW Stevens Road explained that the Senior Center has given a key to their front door to Mennonite Housing to allow them to use the basement in the event of a tornado. Mr. Cox stated this basement area is designed to only be a mechanical room and is not constructed to be handicap accessible.  

Keith Zinn asked for Xury Hole to return to the podium to answer some questions. Mr. Zinn asked how long this 600 square foot addition will be adequate for the growth of the club. Xury said this expansion would help with the overcrowding of the events going on at the center. Keith was concerned about having another non-conforming building in the future when the club outgrows this facility. Xury had no comment about this.

Bill Morris said the plan could be adjusted if that would be more agreeable to the Board. Mr. Morris explained the financial hardship of the Senior Citizens Club and that the club does not anticipate construction of a new facility in the foreseeable future.

Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Morris if he has studied all the possible configurations that would be less burdensome on the adjacent property. Mr. Morris said there is no other option due to the expense of moving the bathrooms and the property being land locked.

Jeff Syrios asked what the budget is for this project. Bill said the approximate cost will be $60,000, and the additional burden of $10,000 to move the restrooms if the building was expanded to the west. There was general discussion about options for expanding in other directions.  

Clark Nelson explained this is a drastic variance request, that would normally be denied, and should be given due consideration.

Jan Cox said she feels this request is a temporary solution. She is also very concerned about the space between the buildings for maintenance, fire safety, and reduced light and air of the adjoining property.

Jeff Syrios asked Les for his bases for conclusion of possible adverse affect on the rights of the adjacent property owners. Les said the case is unique because the property was gifted to the seniors. He said the minimum distance between this addition and the adjoining property should be 33 feet and Les feels this would be injurious to the other owner. Les said that the fire wall would require a 2 hour rating if the distance between the 2 buildings is less than 5 feet.

Jeff Syrios asked if the Fire Department would have a concern if this variance were granted as presented. Les said fire protection is the reason for the language in many of the building codes.

There was further discussion about options to grant this variance. Lynn Heath said he would prefer the variance be reduced from 1 foot to 5 feet.

Clark said he is going to vote in support of this variance even though it is in opposition to Staff’s comments. He said he is more persuaded because no one attended this meeting in opposition of the variance. Clark also felt the estimate of $10,000 to move the restrooms from the east to the west was low.

Quentin Coon was concerned about the uses of this building in the future should the Senior Citizen’s Club move to a larger facility. 

Hearing no further comments, Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m.

BZA-V-2004-05: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of the required 25 foot minimum rear yard setback in the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for the purpose of construction of a building addition for the Andover Senior Citizen’s Club at 410 Lioba Drive.

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; Vote 7/0

X

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents; Vote 4/3 with Jan Cox, Quentin Coon, and Lynn Heath in opposition.

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. Vote 6/1 with Quentin Coon in opposition.

X

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; Vote 5/2 with Jan Cox and Lynn Heath in opposition.  

X

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations. Vote 4/3 with Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, and Jeff Syrios in opposition.

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. Vote 5/2 with Jan Cox and Jeff Syrios in opposition.

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. Vote 7/0.

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; Vote 4/3 with Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, and Quentin Coon in opposition.

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. Vote 4/3 with Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, and Quentin Coon in opposition.

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 David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2004-05 as modified, subject to 5’ rear yard setback instead of the 1’ as requested. Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 7/0.

David Martine asked if this plan would come before the Site Plan Review Committee as the next step. Les said that it would.

Lynn Heath stated Plan B of this application would be a 15’ x 35’ addition to the Senior Citizen’s building. There was further discussion with architect Bill Morris concerning the modified approval. Bill said the plan will be redrawn to meet the Planning Commission’s approval.

Les Mangus added that according to the Building Codes for that particular occupancy group if the building is 5’ or greater from the property line, the fire  wall would only have to be 1 hour rated, and it could have windows and doors.

Quentin Coon said the 5’ rear yard setback is a reasonable compromise. Clark Nelson thanked the Senior’s Club for attending the meeting.

Quentin Coon made a motion for a 5-minute recess at 8:30 p.m. Clark Nelson seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Chairman Nelson called the Board of Zoning Appeals back to order at 8:35 p.m.  

BZA-V-2004-06: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of the required 500 square foot maximum accessory structure area limitation for the purpose of construction of a 30’x50’ garage/shop in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District at 800 Daisy Lane.

Chairman Nelson asked if any members had a conflict of interest or had obtained outside communications in this case. Lynn Heath said he had signed a neighborhood petition in favor of this case. Mr. Heath stepped down from discussion and consideration in this matter before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Les Mangus said this property was recently annexed as R-1 zoning because it is a platted lot which exceeds 20,000 square feet. He said this property is 2 times the minimum lot area. The regulations limit a single accessory structure to 500 square feet and a total of accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. The application is for a 1,500 square foot garage/shop.  

Ron Mayes, owner and applicant of 800 Daisy Lane said he has lived at this property since December of 1986. He wants to build a garage/shop to pursue his hobby of collecting Dodge Chargers. He has been receiving code enforcement notices from the city for having too many vehicles on his property. Mr. Mayes is asking for a variance to construct a building large enough to accommodate a vehicle lift. He said his lot is large enough to accommodate a 30’ x 50’ building in the back yard. A map was shown of the applicant’s property and the surrounding neighborhood. There was general discussion describing all the adjoining property owners who have large buildings. Ron said there will be no commercial use of this building at all.

Les Mangus said he discovered that Butler County Zoning Regulations have a maximum size limit of 800 square feet for accessory storage buildings.

David Martine asked Mr. Mayes if he planned another driveway access into his building. Ron said he did not want another one.

David Martine asked how tall the side walls of the building would be. Ron said that with a 30’x50’ steel building to include a vehicle lift, the walls would be 12’ inside. The exterior walls would be 14’ on the end, 3-12 pitch with the total height of 17’.

Hearing no further comments, Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m. to begin the factors and findings.

BZA-V-2004-06: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of the required 500 square foot maximum accessory structure area limitation for the purpose of construction of a 30’x50’ garage/shop in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District at 800 Daisy Lane.

F.

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant; Vote 6/0.

X

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents; Vote 6/0.

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. Vote 6/0.

X

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; Vote 6/0.  

X

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations. Vote 6/0.

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. Vote 6/0.

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. Vote 6/0.

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; Vote 6/0.

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. Vote 6/0.

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 David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2004-06 as requested with no conditions. Motion seconded by Jan Cox. Motion carried 6/0.

H.

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

1.

None required.

David Martine made a motion at 8:48 p.m. to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 Lynn Heath returned to the Planning Commission.

LS-2004-02: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 22 of Mecca Acres Revised Plat No. 2- 1105 W. US Hwy. 54. & LS-2004-03: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 21 of Mecca Acres Revised Plat No. 2- 1023 W. US Hwy. 54. Chairman Nelson said these cases will be heard and discussed together with separate motions and votes.

Les said these applications came up due to some construction and changes in ownership in the property. Both applicants were in attendance trying to bring the lots into compliance with the city regulations.

Cindy Ball of 921 S. Andover Road said this approval is needed in order to obtain a special use permit for a contractor shop at 1105 W. US 54. She said the signature of Dorothy Ornelas is still needed to complete this lot split. Approval of the lot split is contingent upon the documents being signed.

Cindy said that the original property owner’s attorney contacted Les today who is working on completing this process. The attorney said he is helping his clients get all the documents signed and bring the properties into compliance.

Clark asked Les if he suggested passing the lot split cases contingent upon the staff comments. Les said that is right.

David Martine asked what the Planning Commission had already done concerning this case. Cindy Ball said there was a special use permit approved contingent upon the lot split completion. David asked if she had occupied the building yet. Cindy stated they have only moved into the office space that did not require a special use.

Charlotte Bauer of 750 S. Ruth said they are currently the owners of lot 21 and trying to sell the north half of lot 22. They have just received a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Glass Cottage at 1023 W. Hwy. 54 pending the successful completion of the lot split.

Keith Zinn asked about the existing zoning on lots 21B & 22B

Les said that 21B is R-3 Multi Family and 22B is R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

Having reviewed the Lot Split in the Mecca Acres Addition LS-2004-02, I Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the lot split subject to the Staff Comments.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Having reviewed the Lot Split in the Mecca Acres Addition LS-2004-03, I Lynn Heath make a motion to approve the lot split subject to the Staff Comments.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

LS-2004-02 & LS-2004-03 Review the proposed lot split of Lots 21 & 22 of Mecca Acres

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Winchester Addition, the Second Phase of the Tuscany PUD. Clark said this is a portion of an approved Phase 2 that was never completed, and per the memo from Les, it meets the conditions for satisfaction subject to the staff comments.

Jim Ubert with Poe and Associates, and agent for the applicant said they are asking for approval of the final PUD plan. Jim said all the corrections suggested by Les have been completed.

David Martine asked how many lots will be opened. Jim said there will be 39 lots to the west from the originally planned 59 lots. These lots have been redrawn to accommodate 3 car garages. He said some of the lots are larger and there will be 2 retention/detention ponds built.

David asked about the size of the sidewalks. Jan Cox said they will be 8’ wide along Vintage and 5’ along Tuscany. Jim Ubert said the sidewalks will be built along the street right-of-way.

Les said this is a part of a prior plat, and a part of it was platted in error, which now needs to be vacated which needs to be done before beginning the new one. He is satisfied with the remainder of the plat.

Les said that by virtue of this new final plat, that portion of the new plat that overlays the old plat would vacate the old plat but the previous one was larger than this one.

David Martine asked if the drainage plan had been provided. Les said there was a copy of it and the lot grading plan in the Planning Commission packet. Les said some changes have been made in the drainage plan to bring it up to 1% minimum drainage and swales. David was concerned about the inlets being in the back yards of the properties. Les said that inaccuracies in the final grading of lots tend to compound themselves. By the time all the utilities are in and the house is built the grading most generally will not match the original plan and requires staff effort to get it back into compliance.  Les said that the entire grading plan is in excess of 1% which complies with city standards.

Clark Nelson was concerned about the continuous problem of flooding in the new developments. There was further discussion about errors in grading.  

Ron Roberts made a motion to approve the Winchester Addition, the Second Phase of Tuscany PUD contingent upon staff comments the vacation of the entirety of the original Phase 2 of Tuscany PUD property. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Winchester Addition, the Second Phase of the Tuscany PUD.

Review the sketch plat for the River Subdivision, a replat of portions of the Allen Bales Tracts and Carl Mitchell Addition located at US Hwy. 54 and Daisy Lane. Applicant and owner, Hal McCoy of 13808 E. 13^th Street presented his plan for this property. The following points were covered:

·         The concept of “The River at Andover” was drafted to be a benefit for the City of Andover.

·         The majority of the parking will be around the perimeter of the property with the retail development on the interior.

·         Walking paths will connect the parking areas to both the green spaces and retail buildings.

·         More landscape area will be provided than is required by code. As many trees as possible will be saved or created into artwork or benches.

·         The drainage area will be designed to look like a river.

·         The covenant for the development will be strict with an agreement for cross parking.

·         Extra-wide parking spaces and driveways.

·         The buildings will retain a theme, but will not be identical in architecture.

·         The development will begin with the Walnut Valley Country Store and will be 14,000 square foot building.

·         They plan to have 3 different restaurants in the project.

·         Negotiations have begun for a mid-priced hotel with a meeting room.

·         Other vendors and retail buildings will be in the project.

·         Reverse frontage access control.

·         Property is platted and zoned B-3 and B-5.

·         Poe and Associates have done the preliminary drainage plan. Some utilities will have to be relocated.

·         This will be a 1-Phase development and the planned opening is October 2005.

There was further discussion about access control into this development.  Les Mangus proposed that Daisy Lane will end at the commercial part of this development and a new street will come off the US-54 alignment but it will not go through. Other traffic will be run onto Allen or Bales Street. Les said this would be discussed at the next meeting for providing a reasonable access to Flint Hills Liquor, Red Mesa, and providing for traffic along Daisy Lane from right-in right-out access.

Hal McCoy said there is no chance of getting the Diamond Shamrock station working with the theme of the new development.  He has a legal agreement with Red Mesa and Flint Hills Liquor store stating they cannot build past 5-10 feet of their existing building and the rest of their land has to comply with the “River at Andover” driveway and parking setup. They have to pave their land to the grade of the River, with the same material and type of construction.  Hal has a gentleman’s agreement with the Carney’s to architecturally reasonably modify their building to a degree to blend in with the theme of the River.

David Martine asked if when Hwy. 54 is constructed; if there will still be a ditch. Les said yes there would be adjacent to the highway will remain a ditch section. Andover Road will be curb and gutter on the south 7 lanes.

There was general discussion about the view of the country hay barn and the seasonal items that would be sold from there.

Lynn Heath asked Les about sidewalks in this development. Les said that sidewalks are up to the discretion of the Planning Commission, and he suggests the reverse frontage road would have an 8’ sidewalk on it that would tie it to Andover Road and to the internal sidewalks that they are proposing.

Review the sketch plat for the River Subdivision, a replat of portions of the Allen Bales Tracts and Carl Mitchell Addition Debs located at US Hwy. 54 and Daisy Lane.

VA-2004-01: Recommendation on the vacation of the utility and drainage easements on Lot 2 of Block 1, Meadows Third Addition- 408 E. Central. Les said that during the review for the site plan submittals for the Fountains Senior Housing projects that the Bush’s proposed,  some platted easements were found on the property that are excessive and probably redundant to those that were platted with the Crescent Lakes Addition. It makes it cumbersome to develop the property especially the 60’ easement along the north of the property. Site Plan Committee recommended to the owners that they apply to vacate those easements and to ask the utility companies to see if the space was really needed. None of the utility companies have responded as of today. All utilities with the exception of sewer are already in place in easements off of this property or adjacent to this property. Sewer could be extended through the Crescent Lakes Addition.

Debie Bush, representing Andover Senior Care, and resident at 726 S. 159^th Street East, said this application is necessary because some lighting issues would be impacted if not allowed to be installed in these easements. She said this is a 20’ easement on the east side of the property and a 60’ on the north side. There would not be building on the easements, but the lighting is impacted by it.

David Martine made a motion to approve the recommendation  of the vacation of the utility and drainage easements on Lot 2 of Block 1, Meadows Third Addition- 408 E. Central. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

VA-2004-01: Recommendation on the vacation of the utility and drainage easements on Lot 2 of Block 1, Meadows Third Addition- 408 E. Central.

VA-2004-02: Recommendation on the vacation of a portion of the utility easement on Lot 19 of Block 1, Green Valley Greens 5^th Addition- 228 Chaparral Court.   Les said the owner of this property desires to build a swimming pool in the rear sideyard of the property. There are some large easements in the rear yard, most of which are not used and not needed. Notices have been sent to the utilities, and the owner has modified this request to meet the needs of the utility companies. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Doug Clark of Clark Pools from 9115 W. Douglas in Wichita represented the owners. He explained there is no problem granting Westar Energy the 11’ they asked for to clear their transformer. Doug wants to enclose the transformer box in the easement. Mr. Clark said this request does not affect any of the adjoining neighbors.

There was further discussion about the placement of the pool. The concrete would butt against the 8’ setback and the 11’ easement along the rear property line of Lot 18. Mr. Clark asked if the skirting/decking could be placed on the 8’ setback. Les said that it could be. Les said the concrete flatwork could encroach into the 8’ setback but not the pool structure. Doug said there is a 3’ steel deck support system on the structure of the pool.

Les said that Westar has requested that the diagonal remainder on the northeast run be 11’ instead of 10’ to clear the corner of their existing transformer.

Quentin Coon asked if there is an existing fence. Doug said there is not one now but there will be a 6’ cedar privacy fence constructed up to the 25’ setback in the front.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the vacation of a 23’x15’ triangle of the utility easement and not including the 1’ that is additional easement requested by Westar Energy on Lot 19 of Block 1, Green Valley Greens 5^th Addition- 228 Chaparral Court. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

VA-2004-02: Recommendation on the vacation of a portion of the utility easement on Lot 19 of Block 1, Green Valley Greens 5^th Addition- 228 Chaparral Court.

Member Items: Quentin Coon asked about City Council discussions about library expansion. He suggested locating it in one of the vacancies in the shopping centers. Jeff Bridges said the owners of the shopping centers want to continue to lease that space rather than sell it outright.

Clark Nelson commended the Planning Commission for the handling of the agenda items today. He apologized for the lateness of the hour.

Member Items

Jan Cox made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Adjournment

Respectfully Submitted by

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

Approved this 21^st day of September 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.