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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 17, 2003

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission Members present were Clark Nelson, Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, Jan Cox, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, Dave Martine, and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges.

Call to Order

 

 

Review of the minutes from the May 20, 2003 meeting.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Review of the minutes from May 20, 2003.

 

 

Communications: Review of City Council Minutes from May 13, 2003 and May 27, 2003. Chairman Coon noted the minutes were accepted as presented. Chairman Coon welcomed new member Janice Cox to the Commission.

Review of Site Plan Review Committee minutes from June 3, 2003. Chairman Coon noted the minutes were accepted as presented.

Chairman Coon asked why case SU-2003-02 for Hagemeister Ltd. was not on this agenda. Mr. Mangus said there was no mailing list submitted by the applicant for property owner's notification. This case will be heard in July.

Review of the Potential Residential Development Report.

 

 

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Recess the Planning Commission and convene the BZA.

 

 

BZA-V-2003-03. Continue the Public Hearing on an application for variance of the maximum fence height of six feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential District by Lisa Rollins and Clyde Berg at 324 Koob Lane.

Les Mangus said notice for this case was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on April 24, 2003 and notices were mailed to property owners on April 18, 2003. This case was continued until tonight as the applicant was unable to attend the last meeting.

Les Mangus said the applicant wants to build a taller fence along the rear property line as screening separation from their single-family home and a multi-family home that abuts their property on the north. Mr. Mangus stated the extended fence has already been constructed.

Lisa Rollins, the applicant of 324 Koob Lane, stated the fence is needed for privacy and security. The back yard of this property is lower than the yard of the north duplexes. She stated this fence looks good and that they have planted shrubs along the entire fence line, which will grow tall enough to cover where the extension was added. Ms. Rollins stated she knows of no complaints about this fence by any of the neighbors. Lisa Rollins has lived in this house for 2 1/2 years and it is now up for sale. She stated that if the house is not sold by the end of July, they plan to stay there and build a pool in the backyard and would need the fence to protect the small children in the neighborhood.

Clark Nelson asked how long the fence has been up. Lisa Rollins said it was built last summer/fall and said she did not know she was required to obtain a building permit or variance prior to construction.

Clark Nelson asked if the duplexes were present when Lisa Rollins purchased the house. She said they were there already. Clark Nelson said he drove by this location and asked how the extension was attached onto the current fence. Lisa Rollins said new cedar planks were nailed overlapping onto the existing fence with the highest point being 8'. Clark Nelson asked if she could put up a solid plank 8' board fence if the variance was granted. Lisa Rollins said it depended on whether they decide to continue living there or not. They do not want to put more money into a house they may be selling. There was general discussion about the slope of the back of this property on the west side. Lynn Heath stated that even with the 8' fence, the back wall of the duplex is still visible.

With no other comments from the public, Chairman Coon closed the public hearing.

Lynn Heath stated the 8' fence does not look out of place in this area due to the slope of the backyard.

Clark Nelson stated from the view of the duplex, only the roof of this home is visible.

David Martine asked if there is a building code for fencing. Les Mangus said that there is and fence that exceeds 6' is to be engineered and the lumber is supposed to be graded for windload that it carries. Mr. Martine was concerned this fence could be blown over without another rail being on the top. Les Mangus said the safety concern is greater for the windload on the imbedment of the posts.

BZA-V-2003-03. Public Hearing for a variance at 324 Koob Lane

 

Chairman Coon began review of the findings for Case No. BZA-V-2003-03 at 324 Koob Lane.

 

 

F.

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

1.

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

Clark Nelson said this condition is unique to the property and has been created by the property owner.

There was general discussion whether the trouble with the neighbors in the duplexes at the rear of this property would matter in the decision of this case.

Vote 5/3 (Clark Nelson, Charlotte Bass and Jan Cox voting no.)

X

2.

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

X

Clark Nelson stated there is no one in the audience that is opposing this application but he believes this fence does adversely effect the rights of the adjacent property owners due to being an unsightly fence.

Lynn Heath did not see the fence as adversely effecting the neighbors.

Clark Nelson said this is a beautiful, well-maintained home in the front and back and is surprised by the manor in which this fence was erected.

Vote 5/3 (Clark Nelson, Charlotte Bass and Jan Cox voting no.)

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

There was general discussion about allowing 8' fences in residential neighborhoods.

David Martine said he understands the applicant wants the fence for privacy.

Lynn Heath said the only way to see the construction of this fence is to be in the applicant's back yard.

Clark Nelson said the fence is visible along the entire length of Koob Lane.

Vote 5/3 (Lynn Heath, Charlotte Bass and Clark Nelson voting no.)

4.

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

X

David Martine said that an 8' fence is required to have an engineer's drawing.

Clark Nelson said if the fence is not constructed safely, it would adversely affect the general welfare of the neighborhood.

Les Mangus said the Commission is to act as if there was no existing condition on this property because there has been no permit issued for the 8' extension.

Lynn Heath was concerned about the safety of the fence. Les Mangus stated an inspector would need to look at the post embedment, the size of the posts, and the number of rails.

Vote 6/2 (Clark Nelson and Charlotte Bass voting no.)

5.

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

X

Chairman Coon said the regulation maximum height for fences is 6', which intend to give the property owners privacy.

Vote 6/2 (Clark Nelson and Charlotte Bass voting no.)

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

Les Mangus stated this decision is to be made as if there was no existing condition and is not permitted.

Lynn Heath said the slope of this property is a physical condition that would create a hardship upon the owner if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

There was general discussion about the slope of this property.

Vote 6/2 (Clark Nelson and Charlotte Bass voting no.)

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

Vote 8/0.

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

Chairman Coon stated there was no opposition to this application at the meeting.

Vote 6/2 (Clark Nelson and Charlotte Bass voting no.)

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

Vote 8/0.

X

H.

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

1.

That the fence be constructed of a single layer, solid board, 8-foot cedar fencing that is similar to the adjacent fences in the neighborhood.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the variance application with the restriction the fence is a single panel, solid board fence. Clark Nelson seconded the motion. There was general discussion about the construction of the fence. Clark Nelson amended the second to state the fence be an 8', cedar board fence that is similar in type and quality to that of the existing fencing materials of the adjacent neighbors. Motion carried 8/0.

Keith Zinn asked if stockade fences were allowed in our regulations. Les Mangus said they are allowed.

BZA-V-2003-04. Public Hearing on an application for variance of the minimum front yard setback of 25 feet to 15 feet on Lot 11, Block 1, Aspen Creek Subdivision.

Les Mangus said this case was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on May 22, 2003 and notices were mailed to property owners on May 19, 2003.

Mr. Mangus said the next item on the agenda is regarding this same lot. He said that in the Aspen Creek Addition, Vail Drive on the south side of the property was platted with a future extension into an adjacent 40-acre tract in mind. The owner of the 40-acre tract recently built a multi-million-dollar house on the property so the chances of the extension of Vail Drive are slim. Vail Drive is now a stub street that will probably never be developed any further. This lot is odd-shaped and the owner/developer of the lot says it is difficult to find a house that is in the character with the rest of the neighborhood that fits within the buildable envelope of the lot with the 25' setback on both Vail Drive and Aspen Creek Road. Les Mangus said the lot goes all the way to the end of Vail Drive. Mr. Mangus said the second portion is to vacate the portion of the utility easement/setback.

There was general discussion about the design of the house. Les Mangus said this proposed house has a 3rd car garage, 8' side minimum setback at the tract, and at the rear of the house there is a 15.5' setback.

Ken Lee with Ruggles & Bohm Engineering, agent of the applicant, explained the design of the house with the 3rd car garage on the side of the house. He said with the current design of the house, they had to go an additional 5 ' beyond the normal front building setback to get the house to fit on the lot, because the lot is so narrow.

David Martine asked if there is a house on the south side of Vail Drive. Mr. Lee said that there is a house there. Mr. Lee said that due to the shape of the lot, if this plan were rotated on the lot, there would not be an adequate rear yard setback. Les Mangus said the minimum rear yard setback is also 25'. If you measure the width of the lot at the base of the building as it is shown it is 75' with a 25' setback on each side which would leave a buildable envelope of 25'.

Quentin Coon asked if any other layout could be used on this lot. Ken Lee said the owners in this neighborhood would rather have large homes with wide curb appeal. Quentin Coon said all the homes in this neighborhood have good separation between them. Les Mangus said all the homes in this area are built near the minimum 25' front setback and the side yards are the typical 8' setback.

Ken Lee said the builder wants the house to face Aspen Creek Road. He said that with the shape of the lot, a "deep" house is not an option if it is faced to the south.

Keith Zinn said there is no guarantee that Vail Drive will dead end at this point and he was concerned about doing away with the easement. Les Mangus said there is a 64' right-of-way plus the 25' building setback and easement. From the road curb it would be 40' to the 25' setback and the utilities are all in place. The 25' easements are placed along the front of these lots so the sewer can be run in the front. The sewer is already installed in this case, and it is in the rear. Ken Lee said there are no other utilities in the easement.

Clark Nelson asked what detrimental impact, if any, would it have if this request were approved this vacation with respect to potential future development on the property. Ken Lee said that with his engineering judgement, a 15' side yard setback is very common, but there is nothing wrong with a 25' setback but there is no requirement this plan be drawn this way. Ken Lee said there would be no negative impact by the approval of the vacation of 10' of the 25' easement.

Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. and began the review of the findings.

BZA-V-2003-04. Public Hearing for a variance on Lot 11, Block 1, Aspen Creek Subdivision

 

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

Vote 8/0.

2.

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

X

Vote 8/0.

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

Vote 8/0.

4.

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

X

Vote 8/0.

5.

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

X

Vote 8/0.

G.

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which the evidence demonstrates that:

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

Vote 8/0.

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

Charles Malcom said it is important to maintain consistency of the neighborhood.

Vote 8/0.

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

Vote 8/0.

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

Vote 8/0.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve BZA-V-2003-04 as requested. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and Reconvene the Planning Commission. Charles Malcom seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjourn BZA- reconvene the Planning Commission

 

 

VA-2003-01. Recommendation on the vacation of 10 feet of the 25' utility easement and building setback on Lot 11, Block 1, Aspen Creek Subdivision.

Les Mangus stated all utilities are in place and that there has been no response from the utility companies of objections to this vacation.

Clark Nelson made a motion to recommend the City Council approve this vacation of utility easement as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

VA-2003-01

 

 

LS-2003-03. Review the proposed lot split of Lot 3, Block 1, Hoover's Tracts Subdivision. Les Mangus said this property is located near the corner of Harry Street and SW 120th. The 60-acre tract of Hoover's Tracts are three 20-acre lots.

Les Mangus said the City of Andover has Subdivision jurisdiction in this area even though it is not annexed into the city. The County has Zoning jurisdiction. Mr. Mangus said he has had conversations with the County Planning Director about Andover regulations allowing the lot split. The property is zoned rural residential, minimum lot size are 5 acres, but they have placed a platting restriction on this such that you could not zone more than 3 lots to rural residential. In this case, Hoover Tracts are platted and zoned 3 lots rural residential.

The county opinion in this case is that it cannot be lot split and could not create a 4th lot. The only way this would be possible is if one of the lots is replatted into the next smaller available residential category which is a Planned Residential District A or B which requires a 25% open space reserve set aside within those lots that is to be owned jointly. The applicant in this case is not interested in that option.

Les Mangus said in his opinion the only remedy to approve this lot split is if this property were annexed into the city. The property would be annexed in as agriculture, minimum lot size would be 5 acres, it is already platted, it would be a legal lot split per the regulations. If this were pursued as a county case, he would have to replat the property and dedicate 25% to open space.

Les Mangus said that this is the furthest lot south of the Hoover's Tracts.

David Martine asked if when this plat was approved, if the access was planned to 159th only. Les Mangus said we access controlled 159th so that all the lots were to access onto Blazing Meadow Road. The next agenda item is to vacate a portion of the access control so the east half of the property could access Blazing Meadow Road, the west half could access County Line Road.

Keith Zinn asked why the county would approve this request if it is against their zoning regulations. Les Mangus said their zoning regulations are geared around forcing more compact developments toward the cities. In implementing the "3 lot maximum" is communication to owners who want to take 80 acres and cut it into 5 acre lots that they need to be doing it in the city limits or adjacent to the city where there is water and sewer available.

David Martine asked why the entire plat would not be annexed. Les Mangus said the other owners are not asking to be annexed. Island annexations are only allowed with the county's permission. This case is not contiguous to the city in any manner.

Philip Chronister is one of the owners of this plat of land and he was under the impression when he purchased this land that the property could be split. He contacted the county, who told him it is zoned rural residential, and allows 5 acre lots. He did not find out until after the engineering plan was submitted to Les, that the county said it is not allowed in this county zoning district. Mr. Chronister stated he is asking also for his property to be annexed into the City of Andover and asking for the lot split of Lot 3 for the purpose of building 2 homes. Les Mangus said the only way this could be approved is with the condition of annexation otherwise it will not be allowed in the county zoning district.

Philip Chronister said he has permission from the county to build a sewage lagoon, and will be served by Rural Water. Les Mangus stated if this property is annexed into the City, the property could be served by Rural Water, and could have a private sewer system because it is a 10-acre lot. Andover Subdivision Regulations allow for private water and sewer facilities if there is more than a net of 5 acres.

David Martine was concerned about the amount of access control that would go to the west and east halves and how many drives are allowed onto both 159th and Blazing Meadow Road. Les Mangus said this is a precedence setting situation because Hoover's Tracts was platted as 3 lots, only because that is the most the owner could do without going to the new PRD zone, which requires the 25% open space reserve. If this is approved and annexed into the city, the Planning Commission will probably see the other 2 lots asking for annexation.

Mr. Mangus suggested cuts for access on 159th only be approved 30'- 40' wide, 1 or 2 per 10 acre lot. Les Mangus said a replat would be required if the 3 lots were split into more than 6. Any further splits will require a replat which kicks in the requirements for public water, public sewer, paved street, open space reserves, entry buffers, etc.

Jeff Bridges asked if water and sewers were to be constructed in Diamond Creek, there would be a requirement that the lots adjacent to that project hook up to city sewer. Les Mangus said the city requirements are for properties to connect to public sewer if they are within 200' of the line. There are no requirements for changing from rural water district to city water service unless there is a plat that would trigger all those improvements.

Jeff Bridges was concerned about encouraging sub-standard water lines protecting and serving potentially 6 residences.

There was general discussion about annexation and the future extension of utilities. Les Mangus said the closest water line is running down 120th Street right-of-way all the way to 159th Street and from 120th Street all the way to Harry Street down the County Line Road.

Les Mangus said the City of Wichita just completed a new loop off their main water line on Harry Street to serve Rose Hill to the south. Jeff Bridges asked if this entire property were annexed, if public water would be available immediately. Les Mangus said it would not as it is not adjacent to 120th Street. This property is 3 lots, which are headed south away from the water line. Through a series of easements, water and sewer could be provided to all the lots if they are annexed.

Jan Cox asked if the homeowners would be required to pay for the 1000' or more water line extension onto their property. Les Mangus said that considering this configuration, it would need to be 2 water lines, 1 on 159th Street and the other on Blazing Meadows Road.

Clark Nelson asked Jeff Bridges recommendation on this case. Mr. Bridges said it is an issue of whether the City of Andover wants to promote the rural water district inside city limits. This area consists of 3-20 acre lots, all of which are platted, and all have private sewage disposal, and rural water.

Keith Zinn said that from the south boundary of the Hoover Tracts, the existing city water line is 1,800 feet from 120th Street.

Les Mangus said the adjacent property owners have been notified of the lot split, but the owner has not petitioned the city for annexation yet.

Clark Nelson made a motion to amend his motion to approve the application for Lot Split as presented subject to the property being annexed into the City of Andover. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.

There was general discussion about access control on these lots. Les Mangus said 2 points of access would serve the average rural residence if they were 30' wide.

There was general discussion about the comments submitted by Bickley Foster and Roger Cutsinger. Les Mangus said Bickley's comments are mostly technical in nature and the items he mentions could be cleaned up with Mr. Chronister if this case proceeds further.

Ron Roberts asked about switching the lots to be split from east to west. Les Mangus said he disagrees, because that would make more access points onto 159th Street. There was general discussion about switching of the orientation of the lots.

Lynn Heath asked about requiring a 20' utility easement down the middle of the lots for future water and sewer line construction. Les Mangus said water could never be run in an easement at the rear of the lots, as it is required to be run adjacent to the roadway. Sewer could be run in the rear. If approved, a separate dedication could be requested for a 20' easement centered on the lot-split line. If all 3 of the lots were annexed, the dedication would need to run all the way to 120th Street. Les Mangus said another easement might be necessary along the north edge of these lots that could provide a typical 20' wide utility access from either the County Line Road or from Blazing Meadows Road. Les Mangus said this property was platted without an easement on the south.

Jeff Bridges asked if the Planning Commission had a recommendation on unilateral annexation of any of the other lots in addition to this property. Les Mangus said that after talking to the Butler County Planning Director, and Roger Cutsinger, there has been debate with the property owners of the other 2 lots about lot splits.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the application for LS-2003-03 subject to annexation, a separate dedication of 20' utility easements along the lots split line and along the north edge of the lots, and further subject to the vacation of the platted access control (30' wide) along County Line Road to 159th Street to access the West half of Lot 3, Block 1, Hoover's Tracts. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Philip Chronister said Mr. Hoover no longer owns the other 2 lots and the 2 individual owners of the remaining property are not interested in splitting their lots.

LS-2003-03.

 

 

Member items. Clark Nelson noted the information received about signage needs to be discussed in the future.

Lynn Heath noted the report on Traffic Counts for the City of Andover. Les Mangus said this is for the Planning Commission's information. Mr. Mangus said the traffic volume is growing around 4% per year, and the national average is around 1% per year.

Member items.

 

 

A motion was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Lynn Heath, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjournment

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

Approved this 15th day of July 2003 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.