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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

October 19, 2004

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 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 David Martine, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Commission Members Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the September 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the minutes of the Sept. 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the September 14, 2004 and September 28, 2004 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the September 7, 2004 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the September 14, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

Z-2004-03: Public Hearing on an application to amend the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development Plan located at the northwest corner of 21st Street and Andover Road.

 

Clark Nelson said the Planning Commission has received a memo from Les Mangus explaining staff’s position on all cases being presented tonight.

 

Les Mangus said this Decker/Kiser Preliminary PUD was filed in 2000 and is 505 acres. This is the first activity on this property since 2000 because the owners of the residential parcels are ready to begin construction. Change of the zoning district classification is necessary to accommodate their layout for the final PUD.

 

Clark Nelson said that agenda item #6 is also related to this property but will be handled separately. Chairman Nelson asked if anyone wanted to speak on this issue.

 

Greg Allison with MKEC Engineering Consultants representing the applicants. He said Rob Ramsayer with Ritchie Development/ Chestnut Ridge LLC is also here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. He said the zoning is being adjusted to remove some B-1 & B-3 and converting it to R-2 Single-Family Residential.

 

Clark Nelson asked the Commissioners if they have had any ex-parte communications or if there are any conflicts of interests that need to be discussed. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson asked Greg Allison to proceed with his presentation.

 

Greg Allison said this is for a zone change in a portion of parcels 3, 4, and 14. He said the land plan and streets have been amended from the original PUD. He said the parcel lines will remain the same. The residential area is being extended and the commercial area reduced in this amended plan.

 

Quentin Coon asked how deep the commercial area will be. Greg said it is approximately 220’ from the right-of-way.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the landscape buffer would all be natural. Greg Allison said it will be created by the developer.

 

Quentin Coon asked if a fence would be involved as part of the buffer. Greg Allison said it would be totally landscaping. Les Mangus said the screening would be left up to the Site Plan Review Committee and they could require either a masonry wall or landscaping. Greg Allison said that the buffer would be installed when the commercial area is developed.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak either in favor or opposition of this application. Hearing none, the general discussion continued. Clark Nelson began to review the rezoning report of 17 factors and findings.  

Z-2004-03: Public Hearing on an application to amend the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                           

 

Agenda Item No.

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2004-03

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Chestnut Ridge LLC, Greg Allison P.E.- MKEC

 

 

REQUEST:

PUD Amendment B-1 & B-3 to R-2

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Decker/Kiser PUD

 

 

LOCATION:

21st Street & Andover Road

 

 

SITE SIZE:

505 acres gross (19.3 acre amendment)

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Single-Family Residences

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

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

 

South:

Decker/Kiser PUD- B-3 Central Business vacant land

 

East:

Decker/Kiser PUD-B-2 Neighborhood Business vacant land

 

West:

Decker/Kiser PUD- R-4 Multiple-Family Residential vacant land

 

 

 

Background Information:

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

H.

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

 

 

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Vacant land

 

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

North- R-2 Single-Family Residential

South- B-3 Central Business

East -  B-2 Neighborhood Business

West-  R-4 Multiple-Family Residential

 

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

5.    Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

6.   Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the subject property?

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

Water, sewer, and streets can be provided

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

Platting required beginning development of parcels.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur with staff and assuming the zoning change is approved tonight.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said this is for the Site Plan Review Committee to determine, advise, and be consistent with the regulations.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N.A.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N.A.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment is perceived

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

 

PLANNING:

None at this time

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for

 

 

 

PLANNING:

There is no new information at this time.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2004-03 be approved for zoning district classification from the B-1 & B-3 Districts to the R-2 District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing with supporting factors being 7, 11, 13, and 14. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Clark Nelson said that a great amount of time was spent during the Subdivision Committee about this entire development. He said for the City of Andover this is a very exciting first effort to develop north of 21st Street and west of Andover Road. The potential is enormous for both the developer as well as the city and he hopes everyone does their jobs correctly so things will be done in a first class manner.

 

 

 

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Cornerstone Addition, the First Phase of the Decker/Kiser General Planned Unit Development located ½ mile west of the northwest corner of 21st Street and Andover Road.

 

Les Mangus said that most of the text issues from staff review have been taken care of on the Final PUD. There are still some issues with the title search and mortgage. There has been a preliminary drainage plan and report submitted. Les Mangus said that on the table tonight, there is another drawing of the existing conditions at the entrance to this development.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this issue. Greg Allison from MKEC Engineering Consultants said he appreciated all the help he has received from Les Mangus to prepare this request for the meeting.

 

Greg Allison said he agreed with most of the comments made from Les Mangus, but he did not agree with the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee concerning street widths. He said the entry along 21st Street is critical for this development and they submitted the drawing tonight to show the plan for saving the existing trees around the entrance street.

 

Greg Allison said that the original PUD allows for narrow roads. He said that from the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee, the road was widened to 66’ from Cantera Drive north. He said there was discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting about there being reserves on both sides of the road to allow for a narrower width of 60’ right-of-way which would be a 30’ face-to-face. From 21st Street to the south point of Cantera Drive, there would be a 60’ right-of-way and would grant reserve areas on both sides of the road which would forbid driveways encroaching onto Cornerstone Drive. Greg said the entry to this development will be of the same quality as other Ritchie Developments like Lake Point, Reeds Cove and Rocky Creek in Wichita. He said they will try to save as many trees as possible during construction.

 

Clark Nelson said that with regards to the road width, he appreciated the changes that Jan Cox suggested at the Subdivision meeting. He said the Resolution of Street Policy was included in the packets and referred to Section 9(c) talks about the Class B residential collector streets which are 66’ right-of-way.

 

Quentin Coon said the plan shows an entire grove of trees being eliminated just past the B-3 zoning. Greg Allison said some will have to be removed and it is impossible to save them all. He said additional trees will be planted and berms built just west of the existing house. The B-3 zones to the east and the west will be buffered with trees from the residential areas.

 

Les Mangus said Greg Allison has made changes from the recommendations of Subdivision Committee with the exception of the reconfiguration of the first 200 yards of Cornerstone Parkway to have reserves on both sides so that there will be no houses or residential driveways. Les Mangus thinks the commercial property should have 1 side entrance onto the collector street so the traffic from the neighborhood does not have to go onto 21st Street to get to the commercial areas within the development. Les Mangus said the narrower street widths will not be a problem as long as there is no parking allowed, no houses that abut the street, and the curves will slow down the traffic speed.

 

Quentin Coon asked if any driveways would be coming out along Cornerstone Drive. Greg Allison said that on Cornerstone from 21st Street to Cantera Drive there will not be any driveways allowed. Quentin Coon asked if Lots 17 and 18 would face Cornerstone. Greg said that at this point they could. The intent of the development is to have the drives empty on to Cantera Drive and Cornerstone Court. Greg Allison said there will be an 8’ sidewalk along collector streets and they just don’t want to contend with driveways along the 8’ sidewalks.

 

David Martine asked if these are all walk-out/ view-out lots. Greg Allison said as many as possible will be.

 

David Martine asked Les Mangus if all staff comments have been addressed. Les Mangus said there has not been a final drainage plan submitted yet. David Martine asked if the drainage swales would be designed at 1%. Greg Allison said they try to design everything at 2%. There was general discussion about stating “no less than 2% grade” in the actual motion of approval. Greg Allison explained the design policy of the owner. Greg Allison said he could not guarantee that every lot would be no less than 2% slope.

 

There was further discussion about back yard storm systems. Rob Ramsayer with Ritchie Associates, manager of Chestnut Ridge LLC, said his instructions are to build this development at 2% grade in the back yards, but cannot guarantee that everything will be that. Rob said it will be 2% away from the house. David Martine was concerned about crafting the motion to insure specified grade. Greg Allison said that generally every lot has access to an inlet. He said that inlets can be added after the fact if there is a specific problem area. Design goal and standard is 2%.

 

Clark Nelson was concerned about losing control of this development if all requirements are not listed in the motion. Les Mangus said to send Planning Commission expectations to the City Council about the final plans with a 2% slopes on all of the drainage swales.

 

Quentin Coon asked Les if there would be enough traffic from the residential neighborhoods to require a left turn lane. Les Mangus said they typically are not done at the residential collector street intersections. Les Mangus said it would be close to build one there. There was general discussion comparing density of Green Valley to Cornerstone. Les Mangus said that once this is developed there will be several ways in and out of the project. Traffic will just be concentrated until it is fully built.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the sidewalk would run all the way to 21st Street. Greg Allison said all collector streets have an 8’ sidewalk requirement.

 

Les Mangus said the title report he has is a few months old and needs to be refreshed to show the Chestnut Ridge ownership. Only a preliminary drainage report and hydrology have been received. There are no detention/retention structures proposed due to the location of this first phase. Through this first phase, there is only 1% increase in the rate of runoff to the 2 outlets, 1 on the northeast and 1 to the southwest. Subsequent phases will detain water from upstream in the project to allow the commercial area to flow more freely, clearing the big storms.

 

Greg Allison was concerned about the commercial access off of Cornerstone. He would like to keep the different users separated but doesn’t feel it will be much inconvenience to travel to 21st Street or Andover Road to enter the commercial location. He also suggested waiting until the commercial property is developed to determine access.

 

Les Mangus said there is no street name on the 2nd cul-de-sac north of Cantera Drive. There is no description of what is allowed in the reserves, such as access.

 

Greg Allison suggested the street name of Cornerstone Court. Les Mangus said every street name is not named off of a collector street. Greg Allison said they will work that out before City Council. Greg Allison said the reserves are platted for open space and landscaping, irrigation, monuments, low impact uses. David Martine asked if there would be driveway access off of the reserves. Greg Allison said there would not be any.

 

Keith Zinn asked at which point Parcels 7 – 10 would be developed. Greg Allison said only the First Phase is planned for right now which is Parcels 3, 4, & 14.

 

Keith Zinn asked if any planning has been done concerning 159th Street when Parcels 7-10 are developed. Jeff Bridges said we have not gotten into the issue of county line streets yet. He hopes to have a meeting with Sedgwick County soon regarding this issue. Jeff Bridges thinks it may be similar to the Caywood Addition where the developer pays for the paving of the street. Each dwelling unit in this project will pay an arterial impact fee and it would not be wise to dedicate a portion of that revenue to 159th Streets improvement.

 

Keith Zinn asked for a completion date of 21st Street on the north side. Les said those improvements would be needs driven. Keith Zinn is concerned about the amount of development east of Andover Road on 21st Street up to the Turnpike. Les Mangus said most of the anticipated traffic is to the west. Keith Zinn said there is only 1 lane westbound and there is 2 eastbound lanes. Les Mangus said improvements probably would not be justified until several phases of this project have been completed.

 

Quentin Coon asked if a monument would be built on 21st Street. Greg Allison said there will be.

Rob Ramsayer said their developments are phased very carefully, and the intent is to work up Cornerstone, using the lakes as a centerpiece, but start up 21st Street. The 21st Street entry is important to make a statement, and plan to align the street to save as many existing trees as possible. Rob Ramsayer does not agree with staff to have access from the residential area into the commercial.

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the Final PUD with the following conditions:

1. The street name on the 2nd cul-de-sac

2. No driveway access in the Reserve areas

3. Reserves are to be open space with landscape, and / or monuments

4. The mortgage holder on the property be on the plat.

5. Title report be provided

6. Final drainage and hydrology plans be provided with the design goal of 2% in all drainage swales with nothing less than 1.5%. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

David Martine said he appreciated the developer’s attention to drainage issues in this project.

 

Clark Nelson said the zoning case will be brought before the City Council on November 9, 2004.

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Cornerstone Addition, the First Phase of the Decker/Kiser General Planned Unit Development

 

 

VA-2004-03: Recommendation on the vacation a portion of the front yard building setback and utility easement at 621 W. Douglas. Les Mangus said this is a matter of correcting an error in the layout of a new home construction. Because a street right-of-way is different than the normal, the title report showed there is an encroachment of the building into the front yard setback which is also a utility easement. He said agenda item #12 tonight is the request of a variance of the front yard setback is related to this location. Staff recommends approval of it even though the building will be closer than 25’ to the front property line, the distance from the curb to the front of the building is the typical 39 ½ feet.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this issue. Lyndell Shoemaker of Shoemaker Homes said he has no idea how this happened. He asked that the vacation be approved.

 

Quentin Coon asked if there was only 1 foot encroachment. Lyndell Shoemaker said yes. Quentin Coon asked if this is the overhang of the garage. Lyndell Shoemaker said he is pretty sure that it is.

 

Clark Nelson asked for further public comment. Hearing none, he asked for a motion on the issue.

 

Quentin Coon made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the vacation.  Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

Clark Nelson asked to move to agenda Item #12 next for the convenience of the applicant.

VA-2004-03: Recommendation on the vacation a portion of the front yard building setback and utility easement at 621 W. Douglas

 

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals at 8:08 p.m. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2004-10: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 2 feet from the required 25’ minimum front yard setback limitation for the purpose of eliminating a 2 foot encroachment error in construction layout on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District located at 621 W. Douglas St.    

 

Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if he is recommending approval of this application based upon the unique characteristics of the lot. Les Mangus said he is and that there was a 70’ right-of-way that was platted in the subdivision but the streets were built as though it was a 66’ right-of-way, so there is a 2 foot differential in the distance from the face of the building to the curb.

 

Clark Nelson asked Lyndell Shoemaker if he had any further comments on this application that were not mentioned in the previous one. Hearing no further public comment, Clark Nelson began to review the findings of fact.

BZA-V-2004-10: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 2 feet from the required 25’ minimum front yard setback limitation located at 621 W. Douglas St.

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

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

 

Clark Nelson said this was not caused by the applicant and is a unique situation.

X

 

 

2.

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

 

Clark Nelson said no one is present in opposition of this request.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2004-10 with no restrictions. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

VA-2004-04: Recommendation on the vacation of the Final PUD Plan of the 2nd Phase of the Tuscany Addition located ½ mile west of Andover Road and SW120th Street.

 

Les Mangus said the Final PUD Plan that was titled Second Phase of the Tuscany Addition was filed in error after being approved by the Planning Commission 2-3 years ago, approved by the City Council contingent upon the guarantees of all the improvements, of which were never filed with the City but the Plat was filed with the County. The developer came up with the Winchester Estates Addition which overlaps this Second Phase of Tuscany. At the time Winchester Estates was approved, a condition was placed on Winchester that it could not be filed until Tuscany Phase 2 was vacated.

 

Hearing no comment from the public, Quentin Coon asked what part gets vacated. Les Mangus said it is the entire 2nd Phase of Tuscany Addition. Jeff Bridges said this enables the Registrar to wipe off the Tuscany Addition, put it back to vacant undeveloped ground, and to follow on with the Winchester Estates Addition.

 

David Martine made a motion to recommend approval by the Governing Body of the vacation of the Final PUD Plan of the Tuscany Addition. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0. .

VA-2004-04: Recommendation on the vacation of the Final PUD Plan of the 2nd Phase of the Tuscany Addition located ½ mile west of Andover Road and SW120th Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LS-2004-05: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 1 Block 1 Chance Acres located ¼ mile west of Andover Road and SW 130th Street.

 

Les Mangus said the Chance Acres subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission 1 year ago. The owner took the tract of land of 65 acres and divided it into 2 lots, one of which was 5 acres formed around an existing home. The owner now wants to do a lot split on the large lot to make another 5 acre lot around another existing home. In the packet is a letter that was received from the Butler County Planning Department. Les Mangus has also received a call from the Butler County Engineer who strongly believes this is an effort to circumvent their zoning and platting requirements. The County RR Zone requires that there is a minimum lot frontage of 270 feet. The County Subdivision Regulations state that a new plat cannot be filed on a piece of land within 18 months of the original plat being filed. This would be the development of a plat that is more than 3 lots which then triggers the requirement for 25% open space dedication. Staff recommends this application not be approved.

 

Roger Cutsinger of Goedecke Engineering and representative of the owner J.A. Chance Trust explained someone was interested in buying Lot 2 which began the application for lot split. Roger Cutsinger said that Rural Residential zoning does allow for 3 lots, although when it was platted it was only 2.  Roger  Cutsinger said he does not believe the applicant’s intent is to circumvent any regulations but comes out of a change in circumstances. There was further discussion about possibility of a change in the County’s decision.

 

Clark Nelson asked what the owner would do if this application is denied. Roger Cutsinger said the land would remain as agriculture. There was further discussion about possibilities for design of this lot split, none of which would comply with regulations.

 

Les Mangus said that this should be deferred until utilities and improvements are there to plat into smaller lots.

 

Chairman Nelson said he wishes this application could be approved, but with the comments in opposition from Butler County Planning Staff and City of Andover staff he sees no alternative but to deny the request.

 

David Martine made a motion to deny the lot split of Lot 1 Block 1 in Chance Acres. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

LS-2004-05: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 1 Block 1 Chance Acres located ¼ mile west of Andover Road and SW 130th Street.

 

 

David Martine made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2004-07: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of  700 square feet from the required 500 square foot maximum accessory storage structure limitation for the purpose of construction of a 30’ x 40’ detached garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District located at 1127 S. Andover Rd.

 

Les Mangus said this case is similar to one heard last month where the owner of a large lot desires to build a storage building that is larger than the maximums for the zoning district. This lot is over 2 times the minimum lot area for the zoning district, even with the construction of the 1,200 square foot detached garage it is well under the maximum lot coverage and staff supports the application.

 

Hector Camacho, applicant of 1127 S. Andover Road, explained his need for this additional need for hobbies and antique car restoration. He said the building will be metal sided- open metal truss building, with a wains cot exterior. The building will be on the northwest corner of his lot situated 25 feet from both the west and north ends. There will be a gravel driveway from the back to the front of  the building. 2 years ago, a letter was written to him by the City for inoperable vehicles and this building would serve to store the car. He said when he started this process in May, the builder he selected was not licensed to work in Andover, in late June he was notified of the requirement for a variance, then there was another delay from the lack of publication by the City. Mr. Camacho asked the Planning Commission for approval of this variance.

BZA-V-2004-07: Public Hearing - at 1127 S. Andover Rd.

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

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

 

Clark Nelson said the approval of this request would be consistent with the neighborhood, and the size of the lot creates the unique nature.

X

 

 

2.

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

 

Clark Nelson said there is no one present tonight in opposition to this case.

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.

 

Clark said the applicant has made a convincing argument.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to grant this variance without conditions. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2004-09: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 700 square feet from the required 500 square-foot maximum accessory storage structure area limitation for the purpose of construction of a 1,200 square foot garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District located at 734 N. Phillips St.

 

Les Mangus said this is similar to the last case approved tonight. The lot is larger than the minimum requirement, lot coverage that is considerably less than the maximum requirement, that the owner just requests more storage space.

 

Robert Dubus of 734 N. Phillips explained his need for more storage space for personal car repair and other general workshop/storage needs.

BZA-V-2004-09: Public Hearing- at 734 N. Phillips St.


 

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

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

 

Clark Nelson said this is another extra-large lot which is unique.

X

 

 

2.

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

 

Clark Nelson said there is no one present in opposition to this case.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to grant the variance without restriction. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Member Items:

Clark Nelson said he would defer the discussion about workshop sessions until a later date.

Member Items

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 16th day of November 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.