|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April
16, 2002
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met April 16, 2002
at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center. Members present were Quentin Coon,
Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, John McEachern, and Joe Robertson. David Martine and David Ledgerwood were absent. Others in attendance were Les Mangus, Zoning
Administrator; Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Wilma Stoltz,
Administrative Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin
Coon at 7:02 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the minutes of the March 19, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Motion was made to approve the March 19, 2002
minutes of the Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals by
Charles Malcom. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
|
Review the minutes of the
March 19, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Committee and Staff
Reports.
Keith Zinn, City Council
Liaison, handed out a report that he researched with help from the school
board and the county treasurer on mobile home parks, apartments, and
permanent residences. The breakdown shows how many taxes were paid and where
the taxes went per student. The Commission thanked Mr. Zinn for the research
done.
Les Mangus informed the
Commission of an upcoming Planning and Zoning Workshop for Municipal
Officials that will be held May 4, 2002 at Wichita State University.
|
Committee and Staff Reports.
|
|
|
|
|
Z-96-07 Public hearing on
an application to amend the Cedar Park Planned Unit Development Parcel
Provisions for Parcel 2 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from
52 to 60.
Chairman Coon opened the
public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Quentin Coon stated notification was published
in the Andover Journal Advocate on March 21, 2002 and notices were mailed to
the applicant and 39 property owners of record in the area of notification on
March 18, 2002. Quentin Coon asked if any commission members needed to
disqualify themselves from this discussion. No one disqualified himself.
Quentin Coon asked if any commission member had any ex parte communications.
No one had ex parte communications.
Les Mangus stated that the
Cedar Park PUD was approved back in 1996 and the Parcel 2 is towards the east
end across the street from the concrete plant and is zoned R-3 Multi Family.
It allowed 1, 2, and 3 family dwelling units. It had a cap placed on the
maximum number of dwelling units. The provisions allowed 3 family dwellings
but it could only average out to 2 dwellings per lot. Now we are at a point
where 21 of the 26 lots are fully developed, the remaining 5 only have 7
dwelling units to share among them. They are zoned to go up to 3 families
per lot. The application is to up the number to make it such that if anyone
of those 5 or all of the 5 wanted to go to 3 family dwellings they could do
that and stay within the maximum number of dwelling units for the parcel. It
would be an amendment to both the Preliminary and the Final PUD document.
John Greenstreet, the
developer of Cedar Park Development, presented information on the
development. Mr. Greenstreet stated that when Mr. Kenny Hill and him
developed that addition it was somewhat of an over sight on that particular
plot. Mr. Greenstreet said he would like to expand that final number to
allow them to finish up the units with duplexes and/or triplexes.
Les Mangus stated that 21
lots are developed and that on those 21 lots there are 45 dwelling units.
Three of those lots have triplexes. Les Mangus stated the remaining 3 lots
are the largest in the parcel up to about 15,000 sq ft. range.
Public Comments. Roy Henry,
1518 Glancey, stated that the lake built there has not helped at all. Mr.
Henry stated that they have had one flood since they have built it. Mr.
Henry stated if they are going to build more houses it would create more
water. Mr. Henry stated he thought the contractors did a poor job.
John McEachern asked Mr.
Henry what he meant when he said it doesn't work. Mr. McEachern said the
design of that was a retention pond, when it rains the water goes to that
pond and then it holds the water and then releases the water slowly.
Mr. Henry stated there was no
regulation on it. Mr. Henry stated that the railroad tracks only have one
outlet, and with all the streets and houses and the heavy rainfall. Mr.
Henry stated the water was really deep. Mr. Henry stated that when the water
gets up to the railroad track and can not run underneath the railroad track
it just builds up to whatever the level of the pond is.
Mr. McEachern asked Mr. Henry
if it went beyond what is capable in that retention pond and if the retention
pond needed to be bigger. Mr. Henry said he did not know anything about
building but that something needed to be done to get the water on the other
side of the railroad track or hold it.
Linda Mason, Plaza Real
Estate, 12221 East Central, Wichita, Kansas. Ms. Mason is the onsite realtor
for Cedar Park. Ms. Mason wanted to clarify that the duplex homes and empty
lots that are being considered tonight do not back up to the lake. The
streets and sewer are already in for that area so the building of these
particular duplexes or triplexes will not affect the lake during a cloudburst
or quick floods of any kind.
Mr. Greenstreet stated that
the retention pond retains the water and meters it out as a retention pond.
However, Mr. Greenstreet, thought the problem is that once it goes over the
railroad track it cannot go north of the railroad track like it was supposed
to because the pipe through the right-of-way is to small. Mr. Greenstreet
stated that needs to be enlarged so that the water can get away and then
there would not be any problem. Mr. Greenstreet stated that Phase 2 they are
building a second retention pond in that particular area to help alleviate
that problem.
Les Mangus stated the dam
outflow runs north and south and drops into an existing creek that goes under
the railroad. The focus of this debate is on a structure that was designed
to detain the water, the rate of runoff from pre- development to post
development. The responsibility of this development is just to make sure it
does not make it worse.
Kenny Hill, from Poe and
Associates, stated that the pond was designed so that the runoff from the
entire addition would not increase during a 100-year storm. It did not solve
the problem downstream, it flooded before and it will flood afterwards, but
it is not going to get any worse because of that detention pond.
Quentin Coon closed the
public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Chairman Coon then stated
that the Planning Commission would now review the Rezoning Report.
|
Z-96-07 Public hearing on an
application to amend the Cedar Park Planned Unit Development Parcel Provisions
for Parcel 2 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 52 to 60.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 5
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-1996-07
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
J.D.G. LLC
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Amend the Cedar Park PUD Parcel Provisions for Parcel 2 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units
from 52 to 60.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
North of 13th St.
between Lakeside Dr. and the Kansas Turnpike.
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
15.5 acres
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Two and three family dwellings.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
R-2
Single Family Residential - Original Town of Andover
|
|
South:
|
I-1
Industrial ArCon concrete plant
|
|
East:
|
R-2
Single Family Residential – Elementary School
|
|
West:
|
R-2
Single Family Residential - Cedar Park PUD Parcel.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
|
|
|
|
* Note: This report is to
assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence
presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the
required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations. The
responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as
necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample
motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the
summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if
any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and
facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.
(As per Article 11, Section 100
of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)
|
|
H.
|
Amendments to Change Zoning
Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning
district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning
Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements
as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the
applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of
the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is
based using the following factors as guidelines:
|
|
|
|
FACTORS AND
FINDINGS:
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
1.
What is the character of
the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to
existing uses and their condition?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
2.
What is the current zoning
of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation
to the requested zoning change?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
3.
Is the length of time that
the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in
the consideration?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Single family dwellings intermingled with 2 and 3 family
dwellings have not been saleable.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
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:
|
No
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
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:
|
All are in place and adequate.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
All are in place and adequate.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
7.
Would the subject property
need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for
rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
Already platted.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Already platted.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
9.
Is suitable vacant land or
buildings available or not available for development that currently has the
same zoning as is requested?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10.
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
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No detriment in an already multi-family zoned area.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No detriment in an already multi-family zoned area.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
13.
Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16.
Is there any information or
are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
17.
If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the
hardship experienced by, the applicant?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having
considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning
application, I, Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body
that Case No. Z-96-07 be approved to amend the Cedar Park Preliminary and
Final Planned Unit Development Parcel description for Parcel 2 to increase
the maximum number of dwelling units from 52 to 60 based on the findings of
the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, to
support the motion include items 3, 6, 13, 14, and 16. John McEachern
seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z-SU-2002-02 Public
Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a 190 foot wireless
communication facility at 2119 E. Harry St. at the Andover Wastewater
Treatment Facility.
Because of the nature of this
case, as the City that owns the land, Les Mangus stated he is going to
abstain from any of the discussion.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
It is 8:30 p.m. and
I now call Agenda item # 6, which is a public hearing on Case No. SU-2002-02
pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a
special use to establish a 190 foot wireless communication facility.
DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:
So at this time we would like to proceed with the
hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want
to disqualify themselves from the hearing, discussing or voting on this case
because they or their spouse’s own property in the area of notification, or
have conflicts of interests, or a particular bias in this matter.
No one disqualified themselves.
NOTIFICATION:
Published in the Andover Journal Advocate on March
21, 2002. The notices were mailed to the applicant and the real estate
property owners of record in the area of notification on March 14, 2002.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I will declare
that proper notification has been given. No one made any comment.
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:
Have any of the Board members received any ex parte
verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to
share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to
disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.
No communication received.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;
None.
APPLICANT’S REQUEST: Kim Edgington with Austin Miller, 355 N Waco, Wichita, KS. Ms. Edgington represents Brad Murray Rentals who is the applicant on
this case. Mr. Murray is a local tower owner and builder. He owns in excess
of 30 towers in the South Central Kansas area. On March 26, 2002 a lease
agreement was entered into between Mr. Murray and the City of Andover to locate a wireless communication facility on this site. Ms. Edgington presented
documentation from Verizon wireless about the need for this facility and
their intent to locate here. Ms. Edgington also provided documentation from
a wireless internet company, Pixius Communications, who intends to locate at
the very top of this tower at 190 feet. Mr. Murray stated in a letter that
this tower would not be lighted. The tower is under 199 feet so is not
required to be lighted by the FAA. There will be no advertising on the tower
other than what the FCC or government agency would require being located
there. Mr. Murray has signed an agreement stating that the tower will be
available for other companies to co-locate on. This tower is designed to
hold up to 5 carriers. Mr. Murray is in the business of renting space to
carriers. The tower is capable of withholding 90 mile per hour wind and 1/2
inch of ice.
Tim Austin, with Austin Miller, spoke to the
Commissions about the technology of the tower.
|
Z-SU-2002-02
Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a 190 foot
wireless communication facility at 2119 E. Harry St. at the Andover
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No.
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-SU-2002-02
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
City of Andover/ Brad Murray
Rentals
|
|
REQUEST:
|
A special use to establish a
190 foot wireless communication facility.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
2119 E. Harry, Andover, KS
|
|
LOCATION:
|
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
To exceed allowed maximum
height for communication tower.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
City A-1 Agricultural
Transition- Andover Wastewater Treatment Facility
|
|
South:
|
City A-1 Agricultural
Transition- Andover Wastewater Treatment Facility
|
|
East:
|
City A-1 Agricultural
Transition- Andover Wastewater Treatment Facility
|
|
West:
|
City A-1 Agricultural
Transition- Andover Wastewater Treatment Facility
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Located
within the 120 acre Andover Wastewater Treatment Facility property.
|
|
|
|
* Note: This report is to
assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence
presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the
required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations. The
responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as
necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample
motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the
summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if
any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and
facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.
(As per Article 11, Section 100
of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)
|
|
H.
|
Amendments to Change Zoning
Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning
district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning
Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements
as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the
applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of
the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is
based using the following factors as guidelines:
|
|
|
|
FACTORS AND
FINDINGS:
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
1.
What is the character of
the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to
existing uses and their condition?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
2.
What is the current zoning
of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation
to the requested zoning change?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
3.
Is the length of time that
the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in
the consideration?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Increase in the demand for cell phone communication.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
7.
Would the subject property
need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for
rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
9.
Is suitable vacant land or
buildings available or not available for development that currently has the
same zoning as is requested?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10.
If the request is for
business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or
employment opportunities?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
More services.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
But would be a slight detriment.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
13.
Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No opposition due to the lack of requirement to notify.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16.
Is there any information or
are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
17.
If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the
hardship experienced by, the applicant?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I, Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2002-02 be approved to
change the District classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition District
to A-1 Special Use to allow for a 190 foot wireless communication facility
based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary
of this hearing, to support the motion include items 5, 10, 13. John
McEachern seconded the motion.
There was no discussion. Motion passed 6-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the Final PUD Plan for the Tuscany Addition
Second Phase. Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates reported on the Second
Phase of an approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development. It consists of 59
single-family lots. The average lot size in this area is 11, 776 sq. ft.
The original plan was modified to add four lots. In Parcel 2 we were allowed
to have 83 lots, that was increased by 5%. The swimming pool has been moved
to Parcel 4. The refinement of the original design will provide an
additional 1.5 acres of open space. Mr. Hill said there would be two ponds
built in this area.
John McEachern asked what the reason for the Reserve A
was. Mr. Hill said it was a pond that was going to be built.
John McEachern also wanted to know about Reserve B. Mr.
Hill said that was a pond.
Motion made by Joe Robertson to approve the Final
PUD Plan for the Tuscany Addition Second Phase. Second by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 6-0.
|
Review the Final PUD Plan
for the Tuscany Addition Second Phase.
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman Quentin Coon called for a recess at 8:50
p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At 9:02 p.m., Motion was made by Joe Robertson and
seconded by John McEachern to adjourn the Planning Commission and reconvene
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion carried 6-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2002-03 Public
hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 75 foot minimum lot
width to 73.5 feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 1635-1653
N. Andover Rd.
DISQUALIFICATION DELCLARED
AND QUORUM DETERMINED: None
NOTIFICATION:
Notice published in the
Andover Advocate March 14, 2002 and 14 property owners were notified March
11, 2002.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
REPORT: Les Mangus reported these lots are part of the Original Town of
Andover. They were platted as 50 foot lots with just a 30-ft right a way
either side of the section line on Andover Rd. When the four-lane
improvement to Andover Rd, around 1995, City of Andover acquired additional
right-of-way off of these lots.
Don Kimble, Architect, P.O. Box 41, Andover, KS. presented information on the property. Tim Wagner, the applicant,
was also present. Mr. Kimble told the Commission that the only thing on the
criteria that it did not meet was the 73.5 foot lot width for zoning. Mr.
Kimble said they were going 20 ft. from the existing structure to the north
to avoid making the north wall a one-hour wall with no openings to be code
book compliance.
Joe Robertson thanked Mr. Kimble for the display and
drawings so that the Commission could see a little more color to the
situation and explanation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
CLOSING
THE HEARING:
The public hearing was closed at
9:35 p.m. There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes
to ask questions to clarify information.
APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:
The Board will now deliberate the request. First,
we need to determine if the request is one of the instances under which the
Zoning Regulations authorize us to grant a variance. For example, it cannot
be a “use” variance. Those permitted are found in Section 10-107C and are
listed as follows:
1. To vary the applicable
minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements.
2. To vary the applicable
bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard
requirements.
3. To vary the dimensional
provisions for permitted obstructions in required yards including fences in
Section 3-103F.
4. To vary the applicable
number of required off-street parking spaces and the amount of off-street
loading requirements of Article 5.
5.
To vary the applicable
dimensional sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and
Section 7-104 regarding district regulations.
6.
To vary the applicable
requirements in Sections 10-107 C1 through 5 above in conjunction with
conditional use applications for nonconforming, nonresidential structures and
uses under provisions of Section 8-105.
7.
To vary the applicable
provisions permitted by the flood plain district.
Based on the application, this request meets the
criteria for Section 10-107C pertaining to a variance of the bulk regulations.
Each of the five findings of fact will be read and
our collective opinion will now be summarized for the minutes. When a
condition is not found to exist, the wording may be altered by adding or
deleting the word “not” as appropriate.
a. That 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 owner or the applicant; Yes, it
is unique to this property.
b.
That granting of the variance
will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or
residents; Because the remaining lot will exceed the 10,000 square feet
minimum lot size.
c.
That 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; Because it will leave a uneconomical remnant of property.
d.
That the variance desired will
not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity or general welfare; Because the minimum lot size will be met.
e.
That granting the variance
desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these
regulations; Because the Board Zoning Appeal is authorized to make
variances to the minimum lot width up to 25%.
DECISION:
Having discussed and reached conclusions on our
findings, I now call for a motion and, if approved, any conditions that might
be attached:
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found
to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107 D 1 of
the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary
for granting of a variance, I, John McEachern move that the Chairperson be
authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance, for Case No.
BZA-V-2002-03 as requested, with no conditions.
Charles Malcom seconded the
motion. There was no discussion. Motion passed 6-0.
Adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene
the Planning Commission.
|
BZA-V-2002-03
Public hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 75 foot
minimum lot width to 73.5 feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential District
at 1635-1653 N. Andover Rd.
|
|
|
|
|
Review the draft revisions to the R-2 Single Family
Residential District Bulk Regulations and authorize a Public Hearing to
consider the changes to the Zoning Regulations. Quentin Coon stated that
the PUD's are somewhat cumbersome. A suggestion was made to change the R-2
down to 7,500 square feet to help address the cumbersome PUD's. Mr. Coon
stated that at last months meeting the Commission did not want to open the
community to allow high density housing.
Les Mangus asked why it was necessary to go to the PUD
and create that cumbersome document when you have a history over the past 10
years of approving lot sizes down to the smallest one being 7,800 square
feet. Les Mangus asked if the Commission was going to make it the rule by
PUD, why not make it the rule by the zoning text so we don't have to create a
PUD.
Discussion followed regarding revising R-1 zoning to
10,000 square feet minimum lot size.
Joe Robertson moved that the Commission table Agenda
Item 9 until next meeting and have staff give the Commission some guidance on
lot sizes in R-1 and R-2 and also perhaps set some guidelines for recreation
and open spaces. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0.
Member items. Lynn Heath spoke of the stop sign
at Bales and Daisy Lane going north and south and the trees, which are
blocking the view at the intersection. Les Mangus told Mr. Heath that the
Code Enforcement Officer has been working with the property owner on getting
rid of those trees.
Charles Malcom made a motion to adjourn this meeting
of the Planning Commission. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried
6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
|
Review
the draft revisions to the R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk
Regulations and authorize a Public Hearing to consider the changes to the
Zoning Regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|