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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

December 16, 2003

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 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, Jan Cox, Jeff Syrios, Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, and David Martine. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Commission Member Quentin Coon was absent.

Call to Order

 

 

Review the minutes of the November 18, 2003 meeting.

Clark Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Charlotte Bass abstained from voting. Motion carried 6/0/1.

Review the minutes of the November 18, 2003 meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review of the City Council minutes of November 11, 2003 and November 25,2003. Minutes were received and filed.

Staff Report: Les Mangus said he included in the Commission's packets an excerpt from a planning magazine on "The Fairfield Village Green" which he thought was good information. Jeff Syrios said it was a good article and would appreciate more articles like this in the future.

Potential Residential Development Report: Lynn Heath stated the report is Reviewed and filed.

Communications

 

 

Z-2003-03 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District. (418 and 426 E. Douglas)

Lynn Heath said these are the last 2 lots on East Douglas next to Shay Rd. and Sunflower Elementary School.

Lynn Heath asked if proper notification was published for this case. Les Mangus said the Official Notice was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on November 13, 2003 and notices were mailed to landowners within 200 feet on November 11, 2003.

Glenn Tate of 14611 Sport of Kings Lane, Wichita, in the Andover School District presented the case. Mr. Tate said he owns Lots 2-7 on E. Douglas and he feels that Lots 6 and 7 would be appropriate to build duplexes on. He said this would provide a good transition from the Golden Spur Trailer Park to the Single-Family homes on E. Douglas. Lots 3 and 5 currently have Single-Family houses on them that were built 2 years ago and could not be sold due to the area next to the mobile home park. Mr. Tate said it would be an asset for the community to have some alternative housing in the area, close to the school. The proposed duplexes are 3 bedroom, 1,200 square foot duplexes with 2 car garages.

David Martine asked if Lots 2 and 4 are vacant. Glenn Tate said they are.

Jan Cox asked if the houses on Lots 3 and 5 would be rented out. Mr. Tate said he is finishing them out and the day they are done there will be both for sale and for rent signs posted.

Lynn Heath opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. for case Z-2003-03. No one was present in the audience. Mr. Heath asked the Planning Commission if any of them needed to disqualify themselves from voting on the case. Hearing none, Mr. Heath asked the Planning Commission members if any of them have received any ex parte communications prior to this hearing. Hearing none, Mr. Heath asked for the Zoning Administrators report. Les Mangus said this has already been covered. Lynn Heath stated there was no one present for public comment.

Lynn Heath closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m.

Jan Cox said she drove by this property today and it looks like there is a ditch that water is cutting through on the far east lot. She asked where the water would be diverted to after the construction on Lots 6 & 7. Mr. Tate said he does not know at this time, but that it would be dealt with according to the City Code and would work with Les to assure it is done properly.

Jan Cox asked what would be done with the trees on Lot 6. Mr. Tate said the hedgerow would be removed.

Lynn Heath stated Lot 6 is 10,522 square feet and Lot 7 is 10,704 square feet.

Z-2003-03 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District. (418 and 426 E. Douglas)

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2003-03

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Glenn Tate

REQUEST:

Zoning district change R-2 Single-Family to R-3 Multiple-Family

CASE HISTORY:

Replatted as the Hilltop Addition +/- 4 years ago

LOCATION:

NW corner of Douglas Ave. & Shay Rd.

SITE SIZE:

(2) +/- 10,000 sq. ft. lots

PROPOSED USE:

Construction of 2 duplexes

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

MH-1 Andover Estates Mobile Home Park

South:

R-2 Vacant Andover Lakes Estates

East:

A-1 Agriculture Central school campus

West:

R-2 Hilltop Addition single-family residences

 

Background Information:

Originally platted as Golden Spur Addition. Single-Family lots as a buffer to mobile home park. Streets installed recently to service the school campus.

 

* 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:

On the north side is the mobile home park, on the south is open area zoned R-2, to the east is the Central school, and to the west are empty lots are zoned R-2.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

PLANNING:

(North- MH-1) (South- R-2) (East- A-1) (West- R-2)

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:

Streets were only installed a few years ago

X

PLANNING:

Concur

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

X

STAFF:

X

PLANNING:

Concur.

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 construction of the school campus changed the character of the area.

    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:

    All are in place and adequate

    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:

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    X

    STAFF:

    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:

    Not in the immediate area.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Autumn Ridge is nearly 1 mile away.

    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:

    N/A

    X

    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:

    Concur.

    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?
  • X

    STAFF:

    No detriment to the neighborhood is perceived.

    X

    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:

    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:

    Provides a variety of housing types & acts as a buffer between M.H. park and future S.F. residences.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Concur.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

  • What is the support or opposition to the request?
  • X

    STAFF:

    None at this time.

    X

    PLANNING:

    None at this time.

    COUNCIL:

    YES

    NO

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

    STAFF:

    Approval as applied for.

    X

    PLANNING:

    Lynn Heath said staff recommendations are from a objective/ legal point of view and that the Planning Commission is to decide what is best for the community.

    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?
  • X

    STAFF:

    No detriment to the public is perceived.

    X

    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-2003-03 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Ron Roberts. Mr. Nelson stated items 5, 6, 14, 15, and 16 as the basis for the recommendation.

    Keith Zinn was concerned about the zoning going with the land, not the owner. Mr. Zinn quoted Article 4, Paragraph 103, Section A Item 2 states in an R-3 zone permits Single-family attached and two, three, and four-family dwellings.

    Mr. Zinn asked the Commission to consider a Protective Overlay in this case to limit the lots to one and two family dwellings only. Lynn Heath said this was a good point and asked Mr. Mangus for clarification of the regulations in this case.

    Les said 3 and 4 family dwellings require 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit, so the most these lots could support would be 3 family units.

    Clark Nelson said he did not feel this is an appropriate restriction for this application. He further stated there is no one present in opposition, and the rules adequately govern this situation. Mr. Nelson said that at the time building permits are submitted would be the appropriate time to deal with the drainage issue, and Clark sees no reason to deny this application as requested.

    Les Mangus said there is an approved drainage plan for the Hilltop Addition, which is surface grading, no underground storm sewer. The grading is in place but there is some erosion that will have to be corrected at the time of building.

    Jan Cox was concerned about the area becoming too densely populated in the future, and would like to see the applicant restricted to 2 family units.

    David Martine said he agrees with Jan Cox. Ron Roberts said he does not think this is an issue one way or the other.

    Jeff Syrios said he does not want to see the applicant restricted. He said from a policy point of view in terms of intervening in the private ownership of this property. He said there is some protection in the zoning regulations to prevent 4-plexes from being built.

    Charlotte Bass was concerned something could be built overpopulating the area.

    Clark Nelson asked if applying a Protective Overlay would be applied unilaterally. Les Mangus said that it would be because it is more restrictive than the application. Clark Nelson said he would not accept this idea as a friendly amendment to his motion.

    Clark Nelson called for a vote on the motion currently on the floor.

    Clark Nelson, Jeff Syrios, and Ron Roberts voted yes. Charlotte Bass, David Martine, Lynn Heath, and Jan Cox voted no. Motion denied 3/4.

    Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Jan Cox, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2003-03 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential 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. Motion seconded by David Martine. Jan Cox stated items 5, 6, 14, 15, and 16 as the basis for the recommendation.

    1. Limit to duplex units only under the Protective Overlay District.

    Charlotte Bass, David Martine, Lynn Heath, and Jan Cox voted yes. Ron Roberts, Jeff Syrios, and Clark Nelson voted no. Motion carried 4/3.

     

    Update on the progress on the Comprehensive Plan Update.

    Les Mangus said there has not been another meeting of the Comp Plan Committee. Over the last couple of months we have received over 1,300 of the Community Surveys and staff has been busy tabulating them. The data collection forms have been submitted to Foster and Associates so he can begin to update all the historical and statistical information in the plan.

    Clark Nelson asked what percentage of return there has been. Mr. Bridges said it was one-third.

    There was general discussion about Terradyne. Les Mangus said the office building recently sold to a Limited Liability Company. Mr. Mangus said there is some discussion about the sale of the country club.

    Update on the progress on the Comprehensive Plan Update.

     

     

    Member Items: Jeff Bridges said the date for the annual appreciation dinner has been set for January 10, 2004, at Stooges for "Casino Night". An invitation will be sent to the Planning Commission with further information.

    Keith Zinn said that on behalf of the City Council he appreciated the Planning Commission for all their hard work and dedication to the job. Mr. Zinn wished the Planning Commission a Merry Christmas. Lynn Heath said the Planning Commission appreciated the City Council and wished them a Merry Christmas also.

    Member Items

     

     

    A motion was made by Ron Roberts, seconded by Charlotte Bass, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried 7/0.

    Adjournment

    Respectfully Submitted by

     

     

     

    __________________________

    Deborah Carroll

    Administrative Secretary

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