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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

February 18, 2003

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Vice Chairman Lynn Heath called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission Members present were Clark Nelson, John McEachern, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Dave Martine. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Ben Lawrence. Commission Member Quentin Coon was absent.

Call to Order

   

Les Mangus explained the correction on Pg. 26 of the minutes of December 17, 2002 Planning Commission. Motion was made by Charles Malcom to approve the correction in the minutes of the December 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion Carried 6/0.

Approve the correction in the minutes of the Dec. 17, 2002 meeting

   

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Dave Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Approve the minutes of the Jan. 21, 2003 meeting

   

Minutes were reviewed from the Site Plan Review Committee of February 4, 2003, Subdivision Committee Meeting minutes of February 11, 2003, City Council minutes from January 14 & January 28, 2003.

There was general discussion about the underground irrigation system requirements from the Site Plan Review Committee. Les Mangus stated Kevin Dreiling is studying the regulations in an effort to develop some standards of which irrigation may be one requirement. Mr. Mangus further stated each case is considered on its own merits.

Lynn Heath noted the minutes were accepted as presented.

Staff Reports. Les Mangus explained the response letter by Butler County Planning and Zoning Director Todd Kennemer to the letter he had written about the relationship between the City Planning Commission and the County. Mr. Kennemer responded with a sample inter-local agreement between Augusta and Butler County on zoning. It is the same agreement that was looked at 3-4 years ago. Andover staff has some philosophical differences with the plan but it is a good place to start talking with the City Council and County Commissioners about how to improve that relationship and the way things "mesh together" when dealing with the properties outside of the city limits and new annexations. Les Mangus suggests the Mayor appoint a committee to talk with a City Council member and a County Commission member and the County Zoning Administrator about this agreement. Mr. Heath stated this would be discussed further during Member Items.

Potential Residential Development Report was discussed.

Communications and Staff Reports.

   

Case Z-2002-09: Reopened the public hearing on an amendment to the Countryside Preliminary Planned Unit Development to change the zoning district classification of Lots 1 and 16 of Block 2 Countryside Third Addition from R-2 Single-family Residential District to R-3 Multiple-family Residential District, returned by the Governing Body to allow the Applicant a fair hearing.

John McEachern stated he is the applicant and would be disqualifying himself from participating in the decision making part of the meeting. Mr. McEachern stepped down from the podium and joined the audience. Lynn Heath declared that with 5 members present, there is a quorum and the public hearing will continue.

Les Mangus stated there is no new notification required and that this case has been remanded back to the Planning Commission from the City Council so the process is continuous which started with the public hearing in December of 2002.

Lynn Heath stated he received letters of ex-parte communications concerning this case. He further stated Quentin Coon received 2 letters 1 from Kristi Zukovich and 1 from John & Lynette Juresic and they have been submitted into the record. Charles Malcom stated he has received 1 phone call and the 2 letters. Dave Martine said he has talked to 1 of the citizens who submitted a letter. Lynn Heath said he received 1 phone call. Ron Roberts stated he had a brief discussion with the applicant that was not directly concerning this case. Clark Nelson stated he received the 2 letters also.

Les Mangus stated this case was heard in December 2002 and at the last City Council meeting this case was remanded back to the Planning Commission for further debate, when at that City Council meeting the applicant stated he did not receive a fair hearing, by not being allowed to rebut the public comments made after the public hearing was opened and closed several times.

Public Hearing: John McEachern of 126 Lexington Court, applicant in this case, said at the last meeting there was public concern about the traffic, parking, safety issues in the neighborhood, and mowing on this property. Mr. McEachern presented comparative information from the Green Valley development (32-units in Parcel 12; 88-units in Parcel 13; 110 in Parcel 14), that just passed the City Council. Highway business traffic from Parcel 15 that also empties into this area. He further stated this Planning Commission with Council approval changed Parcel 16 that can include up to 140 for multiple family units the total number of units for a total of 370 for a total number of traffic and that area covers 10.5 acres plus the highway traffic that would come in off Highway 54 that would attend the businesses in that area when they are built. Traffic would be coming down Jamestown from Andover Village and from Green Valley and Andover Village down Douglas that would exit on 54. The comment from the City Council minutes was that they were pleased with the plan which was before them which was for patio homes which had been in its original conception had been single-family dwellings. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission changed that to patio homes. There were a few objections from some of the neighbors and even though the lots were 6,000 square feet. The issue of traffic was discussed, but 32 units were allowed to be built there with 6,000 square foot lots, single family, and because they were of smaller nature, there was no concern about being a safety issue.

Mr. McEachern compared traffic issue on 2nd Street, to the North of Koob; duplexes on the South side 14+ on the North there is a 96 unit apartment complex, 48 would flow into this traffic as well as the senior citizens apartments which totals 15 units, also Green Valley flows into 2nd Street. There are 59 homes in this area which means traffic could flow even further back in there if they were going to Andover Road. This is the same width road as there is on Koob. On 1st Street there is a Post Office on the end of 2nd Street there is Pizza Hut and Whimsies and across the Street there is Sub and Stuff, so there are more business closer on 2nd Street than there is to Koob. By adding 2 more units to the proposed zoning change we could ad as little as 2 cars or possibly as many as 6. He has rental units in Andover, a duplex where there is only 1 driver in the unit. A duplex on 2nd Street and in that unit there is one side that has 2 cars that park in the garage and on the other side they have 3 cars one of which parks in the street. 2 other rental units in Andover, and neither one of them park in the street. In one of the houses, there is only 1 driver. Just because a unit is a duplex, does not mean the area will be flooded with cars parking on the street or increased traffic.

As far as the zoning change. Looking at Green Valley, Parcel 15 & 16 started out multi-family and was changed to highway business. Recently half of that was remained business then came back with a request for apartments but did not want to lose their business zoning, but the north half of Parcel 16 changed to multi family again which can be 14 units per acre.

Patio homes- from the far end of the patio home is 2 tenths of a mile from there to Highway 54, neither this Planning Commission nor the City Council found any reason not to allow the additional number of units in there with 2 tenths of a mile to a thoroughfare.

Crime was another issue. He submitted a record he obtained from the Andover Police Department showing that the multi-family properties he owns do not substantiate any increase in the crime rate in the area.

There was concern about a certain "type" of person who lives in a duplex not being welcome in this neighborhood. Mr. McEachern said that one of his renters was a police officer and another was the office manager for Congressman Todd Tihart. Most of the people living in McEachern rentals stay for an average of 5 years.

The next concern voiced by the public was about the possible decrease in their property value. He took each address on the north and south sides of Koob and from the north side of 1st Street, south of 2nd Street and calculated (with information from the County Assessor) their property value from 1995 and from 2002 which proves an increase in average of 46% per area. In a conversation with Bickley Foster, anomalies such as a cell phone tower would not make a great impact on the property value of a development it just may remain on the sale market longer, than the construction of duplexes.

The issue of parking was discussed. He said he would require his tenants to park off the street if the Planning Commission so ordered. He does not see the reason for requiring his tenants to park in the driveway when he submitted documentation and photographs proving so many other homeowners in the neighborhood leave their vehicles on the city streets.

He said he has a month-to-month rental agreement with his renters stating they must comply with all his regulations or they will be evicted within 30 days. He stated he rents homes for $750 to $850 per month and that they don't frequently move.

Comments about the grass on the vacant lots: He stated that in Andover Ordinance Number 449, which states "no weed or obnoxious growth or vegetation shall be allowed over 18" in height". He stated he normally mows that lot down when it reaches 8"- 10" . He sees no need in mowing closer because it is a vacant lot. He said complaints were filed saying he does not rake or bag the grass from this lot. He stated that in the 10 - 11 years since he has owned this lot, he has received 1 code compliance notice and 1 verbal request to mow from the City.

John McEachern stated he spoke to the Chief of Police in Andover about the difference in the crime rate between duplexes and single-family homes. The Chief stated they do not have nor do they, store records classifying single family or duplex or twin homes. McEachern said he asked the Chief if he had a general feeling about whether there are more or less calls to the Police Dept. concerning a certain type of home. Chief Harris said he had no opinion.

Photos of parking by everyone in the neighborhood were submitted to the record and were discussed at length. He stated that by restricting parking on this lot, would not alleviate the traffic congestion in this area.

McEachern stated this case is about land use only. Evidence has been presented that shows that even though there would be additional traffic, it is not of a significant nature that it would affect the neighborhood. He stated he would not consider building 4-plexs on this lot, as there is not sufficient space. He submitted photos of what the proposed duplexes might look like.

He said the restrictive covenant for this area that was started in 1976 basically says 1. no used house can be placed on the lot, 2. No sign may be placed on the lot unless allowed by the City 3. No animals other than a household pet may be on this lot. 4. No mobile home or modular home may be placed on this lot, however camping trailers are allowed. 5. No overhead lines 6. No LP storage or tanks 7. No single-family residence of less than 1,100 square feet. 8. No junk, equipment, tools, or inoperable automobiles or debris shall be stored. , maintained or left in the open or otherwise exposed to view upon said land.

He stated his development would be 1,050 up and 1,050 down and a double car garage and that this unit would be rented quickly.

He submitted photos of what the neighbors would likely see if a twin home were to be constructed on this lot. He stated he has the legal option of facing the structure either direction since this is a corner lot. He said he would make the restriction to the renter of no travel trailers if allowed to build the duplex. Additional storage building of 300 square feet would be allowed on this lot. The storage building could legally be constructed of metal. He could cover up to 3,500 square feet of this lot with structures. He was concerned whether the neighborhood would maintain the same character it has currently if duplexes were built as owners of single family homes have reportedly been running windshield and detailing shops out of their homes.

He commented the lots were sold to him after the tornado in "as is" condition which contained lots of storm debris on it. There was information reported about the history of effort by Mr. McEachern to clean up this property.

He commented about the weeds in the neighbors yard, showed photos of them, which were reported to be in excess of 18" in height, and stated he has not ever called the City to complain about this nuisance.

He commented on whether there is enough space on this lot to build a duplex. The lot is 79.5 x 134. It contains 10,653 square feet. The maximum coverage of the lot would be 3,728 square feet. Of that maximum coverage would be 1,864 for each unit. If a 24 x 24 garage was roughed in there would be 576 and 1288 living space. He submitted to the Planning Commission that what was talked about in the last hearing was not valid, was unsubstantiated, was capricious, and deceptive in as much that certain hearings did not even take place. He has never knowingly nor intentionally presented any information that is not true. If the Commission looks at this case the way they have in other Planned Unit Developments such as Green Valley and Reflection Lake where there is only an in and out egress on Kellogg. The 47 homes in this unit does not dictate an over burden on traffic as proved by the presentation tonight. He further stated he has no problem with the Commission imposing a protective overlay requiring no parking on the street in front of his property. If allowed to have the zoning, even though it would not be required, he would install a fence on lot 16, which is the south lot, the north lot now has a fence that has been installed by the homeowner.

As a result of duplexes being built on this lot, revenue would be generated for the city, which would be of benefit for all citizens. He further stated the people who rent duplexes if there are single parent homes, the children usually work in the local industries, which is a benefit to the community. There are only 13 duplex lots available for building in Andover today. One has 7 and One has 6, and both are developer owned and for sale, not for rent. The planning commission has also denied mobile home and modular homes coming into the community and that duplexes from the community standpoint of view take the place of those manufactured housing and mobile homes as they provide another level of housing below home ownership. He asked the Commission to consider this case on land use only, not from reports of a doghouse, mowing of the lot.

Public Comments:

Ted Uhlenhop of 319 Koob Lane submitted to the Planning Commission Members a summary sheet of the tax appraisals of the North side of Koob Lane. He stated there is contained (in Sections 3 & 6) of the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City of Andover, statements encouraging the development of multi-family housing. Section 8 provides guidelines for future locations of multi-family housing including duplexes. As a buffer area between single family and non-residential uses. This is the current setup of the Countryside 3rd Addition. The duplexes along the east side of Koob Lane provide a buffer between the commercial property east of the neighborhood and the single- family homes west of Koob. Koob Lane provides the buffer between the duplexes and single family homes. The buffer between the multi-family housing and single family homes should remain. Koob Lane should not be more multi-family housing. Item 14 from the Facts and Findings list "is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the plan?" From the 1994 meeting minutes concerning this same issue, the answer is "no". The guidelines of Section 8 further state " locating multi-family housing along arterial and collector streets but not on streets mixed within single family neighborhoods." Mr. Uhlenhop stated approval of this application would begin a bad precedence. Empty lots could be rezoned based upon the presence of commercial or multi-family housing in the area and that the existing single families home tax appraisals had increased. He guessed almost all if not all-single family home tax appraisals have increased over the past several years. The tax appraisal of the single-family home at 244 Koob (Lot 16) raised only 17.4% between 1994 and 2002. While the tax appraisals of the rest of the homes along the north side of Koob increased on average of 45.9% the minimum being 41.7%.

Mr. Uhlenhop showed other drawings, which showed possible areas where duplexes could be located on lots 1 & 16 based on R-3 and PUD regulations. He further stated a duplex would most likely cover more of the allowable construction area than a single-family rental. A duplex can disrupt the continuity and cohesiveness of the existing single-family homes between 1st Street and Koob Lane. He stated that if the adjacent homeowners to the applicant property were trying to sell their homes, the buyers would notice the back of the duplex on the east being 8' from the backyard and this would effect the value of this home. Most homeowners in this neighborhood purchased their homes under the assumption the lots would remain zoned for single family homes as shown on the PUD. Both of the applicants have stated they purchased these lots as investment property.

Kristi Zukovich of 304 West 1st asked for everyone in the audience tonight who is opposed to this development to stand. A majority of the audience in attendance stood. She reviewed information that was previously stated this evening. She asked the Commission to focus on the land use issue. She contradicted the statement by Mr. McEachern about not feeling as though he received a fair hearing. She stated Mr. McEachern did not choose to address the Planning Commission in December about this case. He did attend the City Council meeting to refute the concerns of the residents that had been presented at the Planning Commission meeting in December. She stated that according to Butler County Register of Deeds, from 1986 there were only 7 single family homes built on Koob and 1st Street. All homes built after 1986 suffered from the affects of the tornado of 1991. Mrs. Zukovich quoted minutes from the City Council meeting of January 28, 2003 when Mr. Gehrer was asked by Councilwoman Lewis if he would still build if the rezoning did not take place. His response avoided the question instead and stated The lots were purchased as an investment and therefore would have rentals built on them and twin homes would have better curb appeal. Both men have provided information about their other rental properties, both at the City Council and at the Planning Commission, and all that is irrelevant to this particular case. Comparing the property owned by Mr. Gehrer on Concord is difficult as it is a 110-foot x 130-foot lot size, much larger than the applicant's tonight. She stated neither Gehrer nor McEachern have presented any information regarding their ability or inability to sell this property since their ownership. She stated the police have never been called to her home for any reason. She stated it was unfair for Mr. McEachern to be photographing her neighbors, the Mendoza's, at a time when they were having company. She stated the traffic is much worse on a Sunday morning when all the streets in the neighborhood are full of cars parked attending the Catholic Church. The Planned Unit Development is nearly 100% completely developed. The existing duplex properties are much larger than the applicants. Mr. McEachern's property is recorded to be 79.5 x 134 feet and Mr. Gehrer's property is 49.5 x 134 feet. Mrs. Zukovich stated these lots just are not large enough to build duplexes on. She reported that in 2001, within 2 blocks of where her children play, there were 92 calls to the police on 2nd Street, 30 calls to 911 Koob and Lioba, which included calls for drug possession, battery, suspicious person, domestic disturbances, burglary, malicious mischief, parking complaints, prowlers, robbery, and more. During the same time period there were only 2 calls on 1st Street for a lost juvenile and a lost animal. She quoted the FHA guidelines for appraisal to purchase a home, it states "depreciation is the loss in value from any cause such as physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence. External obsolescence is a loss in value caused by negative conditions outside of the property such as a change in zoning or excessive noise and traffic. She recited some of the subdivision history of the City of Andover and of the ownership of the applicant's property. She submitted photos of existing duplexes with vehicles parked in front of them. She stated the Countryside 3rd Addition contains 60 single-family homes now. She submitted packets containing all the previous documented information for each of the Commission Members. Clark Nelson asked her if she was here to object to the ruling made by the City Council. She said she was contesting the claim by Mr. McEachern that he did not receive a fair hearing in December when he could have submitted all the information then that was discussed tonight. Mr. Nelson asked Mrs. Zukovich if she felt that both the Council and Planning Commission have heard her. She said she felt that she had been.

John Juresic of 318 Koob Lane asked Mr. McEachern that if he knew the property was zoned as single-family when he bought it, and he did not like the way it was zoned then, why did he even buy it? Mr. Juresic stated that if the applicant would have built single family homes 10 years ago and both lots were occupied for 9 years out of the 10, charging $700 per month, both applicants would have grossed $75,600 for a grand total of $151,200. But as is, neither has made any money on their investment. Mr. Juresic stated there is no financial institution that loans money on a tax appraisal, they are only granted upon real estate appraisals.

He reminded the Commissioners of this request being denied in August of 1994. The reason for denial noted was "subject property is part of a Planned Unit Development, that the area is all but completed as a single-family residence area, the change would be an up-zoning and not a down-zoning, that this contract with the residents in the PUD should be retained as a single-family residential partial." There has not been one change to that area since 1994 that would require the reversal of that decision. In 1994 the question was asked if the zoning change was consistent with the district classification. At that time it was noted that the change was a request for an amendment to the PUD and the book does allow an amendment to the PUD but the request is in a direct conflict with what was called out in the original PUD plan. Just as in 1994 there continues to be significant opposition to the changes of the present zoning classification. He submitted into the record, a petition containing 53 signatures of opposition from the neighborhood. He is of the opinion that if this request is approved it would have a negative impact on other neighborhoods in Andover. He recited some of the history of the Countryside PUD and stated the homeowners would welcome 2 single-family residences being built there. He asked the Commission to deny this application.

Don Sandmire of 318 Countryside Court stated the zoning of this area was a consideration of the purchase of his home. He stated he had his house re-appraised this last fall, and as the appraiser was leaving he said he would put the information together for him, but the valuation of his home would be affected by the duplexes.

Lynn Heath closed the Public Hearing at 8:52 p.m.

Applicant's Response to Public Comments: John McEachern said Jim Gehrer asked for a rebuttal, was denied that, so being the reason the City Council sent this case back to the Planning Commission. And a City Council member said they thought the reasons stated in the checklist were more in favor of the applicant than they were of the neighborhood and one of those was the traffic issue as it is only that one block listed, and there was no substantial evidence presented that crime was a factor. Mr. McEachern said he never stated the police told him that the cars parked along these streets were a problem. What he said was that they had no feelings or no records that there was any more crime in duplexes than in single-family homes. Mr. McEachern further said the Planning Commission and the City Council have approved substantial changes in the PUD's both in Reflection Ridge and Green Valley and allowed an overlay and said that apartment complexes could go in there. Just last week a PUD was changed from single-family dwellings. PUD's have more to do with the size of the lots than anything else when they are presented. He said he thinks duplexes would not injure this neighborhood as this lot is on the perimeter of the development. The City should not consider safety, parking, or traffic in this decision due to the precedent set previously. He said the neighborhood would probably get a nicer unit built if he was going to get more money back, which he would do with a duplex. If he builds a single-family dwelling, he will build an 1,100 square foot which is the minimum.

Clark Nelson asked Mr. Mangus if the application comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Les said that it does in his opinion.

Clark Nelson asked John McEachern if he has received a fair hearing. Mr. McEachern said that it was fair.

Case Z-2002-09: Countryside Preliminary Planned Unit Development

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-09

APPLICANT/AGENT:

John & Martha McEachern/ Jim Gerher

REQUEST:

Change zoning district classification from R-2 PUD to R-3 PUD

CASE HISTORY:

Countryside PUD from the 1980's. The same request was denied in 1994.

LOCATION:

Northwest corner of Koob St. and 1st St.

SITE SIZE:

Two lots 79.5' X 134' each

PROPOSED USE:

Multiple Family Dwellings

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-3 Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings

R-2 Countryside PUD single family dwellings

South:

B-1 St. Vincent De Paul Church

East:

R-3 Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings

West:

R-2 Countryside PUD single family dwellings

 

Background Information:

Last two vacant lots in Countryside PUD

 

* 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:

Countryside PUD built in the 1980's

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said this is a critical issue as to what the true character of the neighborhood is today and what impact if any the application has to it either helps it or diminishes the character or changes the character and although the neighbors may disagree with him, it appears to him there are substantial numbers of multi-family units within this area, and he does not think the addition of 2 additional duplexes does not change the character of this neighborhood. This is based upon the number of multi-family homes across the street and as they outline exactly what the neighborhood is.

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:

    R-2 & R-3 to the north, B-1 to the south, R-2 to the west, R-3 to the east.

    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:

    Concur

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    X

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    Concur

    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:

    Sewer, water, and streets are in place

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

    1. 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:

    None is available in the immediate vicinity

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    Lynn Heath stated it is currently zoned as R-2 and is suitable and Charles Malcom agreed. Clark Nelson stated this may be problematic.

    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:

    Increased traffic and activity

    PLANNING:

    Clark Nelson stated that crime, parking, and traffic issues are relevant issues to turn down or approve this application. On the issue of property values, there was individuals testify on both sides of the issue and that it is up to the Planning Commission which evidence is more credible than the other. Dave Martine was concerned about the cohesiveness of the neighborhood.

    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:

    Concur.

    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:

    Dave Martine said he has no comment on this question. Clark Nelson had no comment. Ron Roberts was concerned about being able to take pieces of the Comprehensive Plan out of context and make a case either way and was deciding if this would disturb the cohesiveness of the neighborhood. Lynn Heath said he felt this application was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but was not sure it further enhanced the implementation of the Plan. Clark Nelson stated he respects Staff's professional opinion on this issue that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which is what the law requests the Commission make a finding of. Mr. Nelson takes Staff's professional opinion as being affirmative on this issue. Lynn Heath was concerned about the amount of buffer this development would provide between single-family and commercial in this neighborhood. Dave Martine, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts all voted yes on this question.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    Opposed to increased traffic & activity. Possible devaluation of nearby property.

    PLANNING:

    Similar to question 12. Concur with Staff with the addition of crime. Clark Nelson appreciated the neighborhood for their input for this zoning request and noted the majority of them stand in opposition to it.

    COUNCIL:

     

     

    YES

    NO

  • Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons who would be helpful in its evaluation?
  • STAFF:

    Approval as applied for.

    PLANNING:

    Clark Nelson stated he did not hear any expert testimony with regard to valuation, although a number of exhibits have been submitted which include historical numbers, and there has been hearsay information tonight. Lynn Heath stated this question did not have to be answered yes or no.

    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 measurable 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, Clark Nelson, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2002-09 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 to R-3 based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing: To support the motion, he noted #1 the character of the neighborhood is currently mixed with both multi-family duplexes and single-family and he does not believe this changes the character of the neighborhood, #6 the adequacy of all the utilities to service the uses that are intended, #12 he does not believe there is any detrimental impact to the neighborhood whatsoever by approving this zoning request, #13 it is consistent with the comprehensive plan Article 14 & 16, there are adequate knowledgeable persons who have recommended approval, #17 the relative gain to the public health, safety, and general welfare by approving this would outweigh any other alleged negative impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Lynn Heath noted the motion died due to the lack of a second.

    Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I, Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2002-09 be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 to R-3 based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the following conditions be attached to this recommendation: #5 Would change the conditions in the area, #12 increased traffic, activity, crime, property value, buffer zone, is a major change, #15 Same at #12 to the nearby properties #17 no set value on the property right now. Dave Martine seconded motion. Motion carried 4/1 with Clark Nelson being opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on February 25, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.

     

    Vice Chairman Lynn Heath called for a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p.m.

     

    Vice Chairman Lynn Heath called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m. John McEachern stepped back up on the Board. Member Ron Roberts excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Heath stated there is still a quorum so the meeting may continue.

     
       

    Case Z-2003-01: Public hearing on an application for change of zoning district classification from the A-1 Agriculture Transition District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with Special Use for Mini-Storage at 1225 E. U.S. Hwy. 54 (Sunflower Estates Lot 4, Block 2).

    Lynn Heath asked if there is any reason for any members to disqualify themselves. There was none. He declared there is a quorum of 5 present to receive this hearing.

    Les Mangus stated official notice for this case was published in The Andover Journal-Advocate on January 16, 2003 and notices were mailed out to landowners on January 9, 2003. He further stated this plat of Sunflower Estates was approved at the last meeting contingent on the zoning of this piece of property to match it's lot size. Mr. Mangus explained the location of this property to the Members. There was general discussion about the history of this property and it's zoning.

    Applicant Tim McFadden of 703 Dublin Drive, said this project started through the annexation and platting process, there has always been copies of the final plat submitted showing the intent of the owners which was B-3 with mini-storage on it. Mr. McFadden stated it was his error to have an incorrect legal description on the application that did not match the drawings. He was told by Mr. Mangus to start this process over again to correct this error for this piece of property, it is only to change the wording in the legal description. Mr. McFadden stated this property use intent has never changed. There was more general discussion as to the location of this property which is Lot 4 with the dedicated right-of-way being Bridget Lane.

    Motion was made by John McEachern to approve this application as presented. Clark Nelson seconded motion. Lynn Heath stated the Public Hearing must be held first.

    Public Hearing: No one from the public was present concerning this case. Having heard no one, Lynn Heath closed the public hearing at 10:02 p.m.

    Case Z-2003-01: Sunflower Estates

       

    ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

    Agenda Item No. 6

    REZONING REPORT *

     

    CASE NUMBER:

    Z-2003-01

    APPLICANT/AGENT:

    Tim McFadden

    REQUEST:

    Zoning district change from A-1 to B-3 with Special Use for Mini-Storage.

    CASE HISTORY:

    Part of the Sunflower Estates Commercial Plat not owned by the applicant at the previous hearing.

    LOCATION:

    1225 E. U.S. Hwy. 54

    SITE SIZE:

    +/- 3/4 mile east of Andover Rd. on the south side of U.S. Hwy. 54 2.97 acres.

    PROPOSED USE:

    Businesses and/ or mini-storage

    ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

    North:

    B-3 vacant land with special use for mini-storage owned by applicant

    South:

    A-1 vacant land owned by applicant

    East:

    Butler County Agriculture- legal non-conforming residences.

    West:

    B-3 vacant land with special use for mini-storage owned by applicant

     

    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:

    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:

    Part of a +/- 56 acre development plan

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    The property was acquired by the applicant to square up the boundaries of the already approved plan.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    No, but they can be provided with reasonable extensions.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    Platting appears later on the agenda.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Final Plat has been approved contingent on zoning of this lot.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    X

    STAFF:

    Site plan review and screening required.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur.

    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:

    No land in the vicinity other than that of the applicant is available for mini-storage.

    X

    PLANNING:

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    STAFF:

    X

    PLANNING:

    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:

    Increased traffic, noise, lighting, etc.

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    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:

    Business uses along U.S. 54 Corridor

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    Perceived devaluation of nearby properties, increased crime, noise, traffic, lighting, etc.

    PLANNING:

    This has all been considered at a previous meeting and there is no public comment at this meeting.

    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 contingent on platting and limited to indoor storage only.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur.

    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:

    X

    PLANNING:

    No detriment is perceived.

    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-2003-01 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the A-1 District to the B-3 District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. (and that the following conditions be attached to this recommendation #1- 17 as previously discussed with the special use added therein) Motion seconded by Charles Malcom. Motion carried 5/0. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 11, 2003.

    Les Mangus stated that Agenda Item No. 8 needs no further discussion, that the zoning is now in compliance with the platting.

     
       

    Motion by Dave Martine to RECESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONVENE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Charles Malcom seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

     
       

    Lynn Heath called to order the Board of Zoning Appeals.

     

    Case BZA-V-2003-01: Public hearing on an application for variance of the minimum lot area requirement of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit in the R-3 Multiple-family Residential District at 718 Autumn Ridge Court. To permit a lot split application to proceed with one dwelling unit lot having an area of 4,426 square feet.

    Lynn Heath stated this case refers to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations and this requests approval by the Planning Commission, not a recommendation to the Governing Body.

    Les Mangus said this is a common request that multi-family dwellings are built on a lot, then after the fact, the owner lot-splits and sells off each side of a 2 or 3 family dwelling to different owners. In this case, because of the odd shape of this lot, he was not able to split it down the middle, the cul-de-sac makes an imbalance to a square footage of 4,426 on Lot 3A and 6,824 on Lot 3B, but still started out well over 10,000 square feet which is the minimum for a 2 family dwelling. Mr. Mangus further stated the owner had a 10 foot easement to work with and could have gained 190 square feet by repositioning the split but still could not have achieved the 5,000 square foot minimum.

    Curtis Lutrell of 925 N. Crestline, Wichita, Kansas, licensed land surveyor for MKEC Engineering Consultants, agent for the applicant. He stated they were requesting a variance so they could continue with the lot-split procedure. Mr. Lutrell stated there is no duplex on Lot 2 at this time.

    Public Hearing: There was no public present for comment. Lynn Heath closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Heath noted that no Member has received any ex-parte communications on this case. Les Mangus stated the ability to vary the minimum lot area is limited to 20% and in this case is a little over 11% reduction is being requested.

    Case BZA-V-2003-01: 718 Autumn Ridge Court

    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 as requested with the restrictions if any as identified therein. John McEachern seconded motion. Motion carried 5/0.

     
       

    Motion by Dave Martine to ADJOURN THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND RECONVENE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Charles Malcom seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

     
       

    Review the Replat of the Prairie Star Addition. Les Mangus stated this property has been reviewed under 3 different names, Reed Addition, Prairie Star Addition, Replat of Prairie Star only with 2 lots. The owner has proceeded with some sales to different tenants and now has 3 separate tenants for this property. When the plat was reviewed at the Subdivision Committee it was 4 lots, at that time the owner's agent said he would bring it back to us in 3 lots. There were 3 along the highway and they have consolidated them to make 2.

    John McEachern was concerned if there has been a cross-lot agreement made.

    Russ Ewy of Baughman Company and agent for the applicant, Dr. A.J. Reed, 315 Ellis, Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Ewy stated this is a replat of around 18 months ago. All cross-lot access agreements and building setbacks, extension of water and sewer, drainage plans, insuring access to further to the west, all of which are still considered in this plat. The owner is simply re-dividing the areas that previously had been 2 lots into 3 lots. In the original configuration, Lot 1 extended from the west edge of what is Goodwill Industries Addition. Lot 2 was the balance. The owner began to get development interest on the eastern 2/3 of Lot 2 as originally platted. Kwik Shop is currently looking at developing on Lot 2. They only needed to purchase the eastern 253 feet of the original Lot 2. A hotel developer is interested in the north half of Lot 1. This could be accomplished from a lot-split. It would be more efficient to replat into definitive lots to meet what was know to be going into Lots 1 & 2. Lubbers Auto Sales Lot that is currently located at this corner is intended to occupy the western 2/3 of Lot 3. So what is left is a space between the car lot and the convenience store to perhaps expand in the future.

    There will be easement that will connect Andover Road to the west, a spur that goes along the dividing line between Goodwill's ownership and Lot 1 to the north. Also an access that will lead down to the opening to Kellogg as it currently exists. All the lots will enjoy access through the development down to the west and the north as well as the lots will be inter-linked through the site design, paved parking areas. There will be a private frontage road that will be developed along the front of these lots.

    John McEachern was concerned about the drainage in the area.

    Mr. Ewy stated Lot 1 would be unique in that part of the drainage will go to the north and part to the south. Drainage flows for the majority of this plat down to this corner. Baughman is proposing to extend storm water pipe up through the easement with an inlet to collect drainage from Lot 1. Some of the drainage from Goodwill Addition was an off site agreement, and was installed as part of the development of this lot. Mr. Ewy stated that Braums does not have outward control of the property, but they do have some control, but the ability to extend storm water sewer was taken care of at the time that Goodwill was accomplished. Mr. Ewy stated a small portion of the drainage would go north to Village. He further stated there is an intervening lot west of Braums before you get to duplex lots, there is a remnant piece of property to go through which is B-1 triangle shaped lot.

    Les Mangus stated the north border of Lot 1 is still 200' south of Village Road and is zoned B-1. There was further general discussion about this lot and it's drainage.

    Russ Ewy stated what he was just describing was the previous drainage plan for the original Prairie Star Addition. Now he will show pipe will be extended up to serve an inlet in Lot 1. As it appears, they will be grading the entire Lot 1 to come to the inlet, the sight will be graded in such a manor as they will not be extending storm water sewer up to the north to connect to the system at Village Road.

    Motion by John McEachern to approve the Final Replat of the Prairie Star Addition as presented. Clark Nelson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

    Review the Replat of the Prairie Star Addition

       

    Review the sketch plan of the first phase of development of the Cloud City Commercial Area. Michael Relihan of 2524 Green Meadow Circle, Wichita stated he has been meeting with Kenny Hill and Andover Staff and presented ideas they have had for this particular site. They are asking for input from the Planning Commission to try to be "good neighbors" in the area to the south as well as there is a setback problem along Andover Road.

    Bill Livingston of 641 Preston Trail, Wichita, of Gossen Livingston Associates Inc., showed plans of what the buildings would look like. Mr. Livingston stated the plan consists of 4 separate buildings all designed around a courtyard area. There would also be a pond for drainage which would be expanded and make it a more "people friendly" space with walking trails and a small play area in the corner that may be used by the neighborhood to the south, and by potential visitors to the center. The trash would have to be kept interior during the day to avoid clutter in the area. It will be connected through inside corridors and collected once a day and taken to a central point to be away from the center.

    The development is envisioned to be a mixed use with retail, restaurant, entertainment on the first level, and on the second level of 2 of the buildings on the east and west center sections would be office space potential. As they looked at the PUD there is a 130' setback along the south edge of the property, with a parking restriction on it. They need to use that area for parking in order to support the square footage and make the project work. The original intent on this property was to have a major retail development "big box" built there which has a high level of deliveries and semi truck traffic to the back side of the store which would be adjacent to that residential area. The proposed development would not have all that, therefore would not need to restrict that as much. There would be proposed an 8- 10' simulated brick concrete serpentine screen wall between the retail, commercial, and residential areas. The PUD now only allows screening by berms and landscaping and would not be as good of screen as if there was a wall built with landscaping around the wall.

    Mr. Livingston also wanted the Planning Commission's input on the west edge of the property there is shown a 100' setback along Andover Road and along the south and north is 35'. They would request that it be reduced to 35', which would allow them to build a better building pad on that end of the property. They are not asking the 130' building setback be reduced, but to remove the parking restriction over the entire 135'.

    Mr. Relihan stated they would stay away from the home on Andover Road on the south. There was more general discussion about how to plan this area. They are looking at about 100,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, commercial space on the 1st level, and about 30,000 square feet on the 2nd level. John McEachern asked about the screening with trees on the north of the wall only or on the south too. Mr. Livingston said the plan is for trees on both sides. There will be a 25 to 30 foot green space with the wall in the center. John McEachern asked how far it would be from the property owners to the wall. Mr. Livingston stated it could be anywhere from 12' to right on the property line. Dave Martine asked about the screening regulation between B-3 and Residential zones. Les Mangus stated it is required to be screened with a fence not less than 6' high, that it does not allow for 90% of the passage of light, or minimum 6' high solid vegetative screening. Les stated this is a Planned Unit Development. They are only asking for Planning Commission opinions so they know how to come back with an amendment to the PUD that’s going to accomplish the plan they are showing tonight. Dave Martine stated he understood the setback was put there because it was intended to be a "big box" area and that would be heavier traffic back there so it was pushed back a lot further. Les Mangus stated the original Cloud City PUD Commercial was a hometown setting with a courthouse square feel geared towards smaller retail and service businesses. The second change that was proposed was to go seek out the "big box" such as Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, etc. Now it is proposed to be scaled back to street scale of businesses. To accomplish this the Planning Commission would have to amend the PUD because the PUD calls for the 100' setback on Andover Road, and the 130' setback along the south edge of the commercial, then have to amend the Final PUD plan that was adopted and recorded that also shows those additional setbacks. To accomplish that, words may have to be added to the PUD that limits the uses so that you don't see one plan tonight, and come back in a year for a "big box" but the wording should not be limiting so as to make the plan unmarketable.

    Lynn Heath was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be traveling in that area late at night which will be 50 - 60 feet from the back of the houses.

    Charles Malcom suggested getting the consent of the owners in advance of construction to avoid community discord.

    Dave Martine was concerned about the zoning of the proposed businesses for this area. Mr. Relihan said they want to have a "nice" restaurant in the center of this development. Les Mangus stated this would be a challenge how to make those restrictions without being too restrictive.

    John McEachern brought up screening at Andover Crossing. In the area by the apartment complex where it was residential to residential, no fencing was built. The single-family residents felt like they were cheated of the fence.

    Les Mangus stated along the back of the Taco Bell and Blockbuster there is screening in-between the business and the wall, and there is landscaping on the back side of the wall and turf in about a 25- 30' landscaping reserve that the developer has trouble getting equipment around to maintain.

    Les Mangus stated the only way he sees to accomplish this is to amend this Parcel of the PUD. He further stated that because this is zoned B-4, the setback is 100 feet in the front because it is geared toward the "big box", not toward individual retail stores. Dave Martine asked if the zoning would change from B-4. Les Mangus said it would not need to, it could be as simple as changing the text in the PUD to state the front setback would be 35' or 50' or whatever is decided.

    General discussion continued about walking connections to the residential area across these lots to the south. Les Mangus stated the lakes would be owned in common between the homeowner's association for the entire residential area so if they saw the need, they could add a sidewalk along the west side of the lake.

    Review the sketch plan of the first phase of development of the Cloud City Commercial Area

       

    Lynn Heath stated that due to the late hour of this meeting, the letter from Butler County Planning would be discussed at the next meeting. Les Mangus said the Planning Commission could offer suggestions of persons to serve on a committee with the County. Dave Martine and Charles Malcom are interested in serving on this Board.

     
       

    Member Items: There were none.

    Member Items

       

    A motion was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Lynn Heath, to adjourn the meeting at 11:27 p.m. Motion carried 5/0.

    Adjournment

    Respectfully Submitted by

     

     

    __________________________

    Deborah Carroll

    Administrative Secretary

    Approved this 18th day of March 2003 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.