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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

February 21, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 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 David Martine (arrived at 7:28 p.m.), Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Byron Stout, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.

 

Chairman Coon welcomed new Planning Commission member Byron Stout. He will be fulfilling Clark Nelson’s term of office.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the January 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0/1 with Jeff Syrios abstaining.

Review the minutes of the January 17, 2006 PC meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the January 10, 2006 and January 31, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the February 7, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the February 14, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

VA-2006-01: Recommendation on the vacation of  the north 10’ of the platted 25’ building setback and utility easement on the south side of Lot 24, Block 4 in The Course at Green Valley Greens 8th Addition.

 

Les Mangus explained that the requested vacation of a portion of the building setback and utility easement on Lot 24, Block 4, Green Valley 8th Addition results from the subdivision design engineer platting 25 foot building setback and utility easements along both of the street frontages of this corner lot. No conflicts have been received from either the utility providers or adjacent neighbors. Staff supports the vacation as requested. The developer is having trouble selling the lot because this makes the rear yard tough to fit a house in.

 

There was general discussion about whether this issue should have been caught during platting.

 

Ron Roberts was concerned if this was approved it would make the 15’ setback adjacent to other people’s side yards. Les said this is fairly common in cul-de-sac subdivisions. 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend approval to the Governing Body for this vacation as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/1 with Ron Roberts in opposition.

VA-2006-01: Recommendation on the vacation of  the north 10’ of the platted 25’ building setback and utility easement on the south side of Lot 24, Block 4 in The course at Green Valley Greens 8th Addition.

 

 

Z-2006-01: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the A-1 Agricultural Transition District. (Abandon the Tuscany PUD) on property located north of Pawnee and west of Andover Road.

 

Les Mangus gave a brief history of this property. He said the Tuscany PUD was planned and zoned in the mid-late 90’s, it is about 120 acres with the first phase being slow to fill up. Between 1996 and now, Bill and Jennifer Blair have purchased 40 acres of the 120 acre parcel and have built their own single-family home on that 40 acres. The proposed vacation of a portion of the Tuscany Preliminary PUD Parcel 3 and change of zoning district classification from R-2 to A-1 Agricultural Transition is the result of Bill Blair purchasing +/-40 acres from the current developer of Tuscany. The Blair property is surrounded on three sides by property being used for agricultural pursuits, and would therefore not be any detriment to those properties. The Tuscany PUD is arranged in such a manner as to provide only one future street extension into what is now the Blair property because of a waterway, which makes for little if any effect from the vacation of the PUD on the completion of Tuscany in the future. Staff supports the vacation of the portion of the PUD and the change in zoning classification.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les his opinion of pros vs. cons of this case. Les said he does not see any negatives because the subdivision did not have any interconnection to the north into the existing neighborhood. There is also a “7’ spite strip” between the road right-of-way as platted and the property line from platting in the 60’s along Citation Road that disconnects this property from ever having  connection to Citation Road. No one has ever challenged this in court. The Blair’s home is located in the northwest corner of the parcel. Les said there is a common ingress-egress agreement with the developers of Tuscany for access to the end of the existing street as platted in Tuscany and their property which the Blair’s will maintain. The Blair’s also own a few feet into Parcel 2.

 

Chairman Coon asked the applicant wished to make any further comments. The Blair’s had no comment.

 

Ron Roberts asked if this would create undesirable truck traffic through the residential neighborhood to the south. Les said the restrictions for livestock are strict in the city ordinances. This will be limited to a few animals. The road will be paved through the Single-Family Residential development.

 

There was general discussion about the restrictions for livestock. No precise information was available at this time. Les said 6 horses on a tract of 10 acres or larger is all he knew right now.

 

Quentin Coon asked if this property will remain within the city limits. Les said yes it will and this property is currently connected to rural water and city sewer.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone from the public wished to comment on this application. Hearing none, the Chairman began the review of the Rezoning Report.

Z-2006-01: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the A-1 Agricultural Transition District. (Abandon the Tuscany PUD) on property located north of Pawnee and west of Andover Road.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Bill & Jennifer Blair

 

REQUEST:

Abandon a portion of the Tuscany Preliminary PUD and change zoning district classification from R-2 Single-Family Residential to A-1 Agricultural Transition District.

CASE HISTORY:

Tuscany PUD created in +/- 1996 and first phase still under construction. The applicant purchased +/- 40 acres from the developer for construction of his personal home.

LOCATION:

820 W. 120th Street

 

SITE SIZE:

37.53 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Single-Family Residence

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler County Agriculture

South:

R-2 Tuscany PUD

East:

Butler County Agriculture

West:

R-2 used for polo horse farm on +/- 200 acres.

 

Background Information:

Applicant desires to keep horses on +/- 40 acres as are his neighbors on the north, east, and west.

 

* 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Agriculture on 2 sides

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

R-2 & R-2 to south

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Already connected to public sewer. Water & street will be extended with the completion of the Tuscany PUD

x

 

PLANNING:

Currently connected to Rural Water District No. 8.

 

 

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment to the similar uses in the area.

 

x

PLANNING:

Byron Stout asked if a barn were constructed in the southeast corner and asked if there are any trees on the south border.

Les Mangus said this property is surrounded by hedge trees on all 4 sides.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Jan Cox said the comp plan says to leave the agricultural land alone and develop closer into the city. This is outlying.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for.

 

 

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 the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charlotte Bass, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-01 is approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the A-1 Agricultural Transition District and to abandon the 37.5 acres of the Tuscany Preliminary PUD based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing based upon factors 1, 2, 6, 15, and 17.   Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

 

Z-2006-02:  Public Hearing on the proposed Amendments to the Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

Les Mangus explained the proposed amendments to the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD reflect the Cornerstone Elementary School Site and some reconfiguration of parcel boundaries and densities to compensate for the school. The change of zoning district to B-2 for the school site is strictly a tax advantage to the developer for the partial donation of the school site. The change of zoning district from B-1 to B-2 for the parcel south of the school site is strictly to take advantage of the different bulk regulations in the B-2, since the uses are limited by the text of the Parcel Provisions. The adjustment of the boundaries and density for the apartment site is to compensate for the land in the parcel which has been dedicated to the hospital site. The maximum 200 multi-family dwellings units proposed is less than the 212 units approved with the original PUD. The adjustment of the maximum number of dwelling units in the residential parcel from 388 to 453 reflects the same net density as the residential parcel currently under construction in the Cornerstone 1st Addition. The proposed General Provisions reflect total single family residential dwelling unit count of 803, which is up from the 627 originally approved in 2000, 200 multi-family dwelling units, which is down from the 212 originally approved in 2000, and 78 two family dwelling units, which less than the 167 originally approved. The proposed overall maximum dwelling unit count is 1081 as compared to 1006 in the original approved Decker/Kiser PUD. Staff supports the changes as submitted, with the addition of the limitation of the school site being limited to an elementary school.

 

Les further explained this cause for this amendment is to amend the zoning of the future Cornerstone Elementary School parcel for tax purposes. It is a parcel donation situation by the developer. The net effect will be a single use on the 21+ acres.

 

Lynn Heath said he could not find a Parcel 13 as noted in the Official Notice of Zoning Hearing. Les said a parcel of land along the north end of the existing R-4 parcel and converting it to R-4 and will be a reserve for a retention/detention pond.

 

David Martine arrived at the meeting at 7:28 p.m.

 

Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A. represented the applicant and answered questions for the Commissioners. The uses of the parcels are not changing.

 

Rob said he has corrected the continuity of the 66’ wide collector streets in the residential area.  He has added reserve strips to provide access to the lake areas that are a minimum of 20’ wide up to 50’ wide. They have tried to eliminate lots facing collector streets. As a result of comments from the Subdivision Committee meeting, 2 additional small neighborhood parks will be added in the future with notation of this in #13 of the General Provisions. Actual locations will be provided on the Final PUD.

 

Rob provided the following calculation of lot sizes:

12 lots < 10,000 sf. =                           3% of entire site

306 lots of 10,000 sf. to 16, 000 sf. = 75% of entire site

55 lots of 16, 000 sf. To 20,000 sf. =   13% of entire site

36 lots of 20,000 sf. And above =        9% of entire site

 

Rob stated there is also 26 acres of lake and open spaces designed into this development.

 

Jan Cox asked for Parcel 8 to be designated for an elementary school only. Rob said that would not be a problem. The school is projected to be open in July 2007.

 

Quentin Coon asked about sidewalk requirements. Les said there are General Provisions about the 8’ sidewalks on all collector streets and 5’ sidewalks on all through loop streets.

 

Ron Roberts said Rob Hartman has done a good job in addressing the concerns of the Subdivision Committee.

 

Quentin Coon asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak on this application.

 

Michael E. Smith of 15005 SW Indianola in Augusta said he is the landowner across the street from this project. He wanted clarification that Parcel 8 would only be used for an elementary school and asked if a signalized intersection at the school site would be part of the plan. Les Mangus said the intersection would not require a signal light.

 

Lynn Heath asked about paving in this area. Les said 159th Street will be paved to the north end of the school site with the construction of the school. Les said the paving of 159th will be phased because Parcel 9 is 400+ dwelling units which will be at least 4-5 phases. Les said this may be a trade off of impact fees for actual construction.

 

Michael Smith asked if sidewalks would be required along 21st Street and 159th Street. Les said they will be required on both. Mr. Smith said he supports the application for rezoning and further stated he is employed by Fidelity Bank which holds George Laham as a customer. He is not here in support of George Laham, just the best interest of his own property. Lynn Heath welcomed him to the community.

 

Lynn Heath asked why there is no road planned to the north in this development. Les said this is a conceptual plan and the access control allows a spot for access if in the future that street to the north is desired.

 

Quentin Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. and began the review of the Rezoning Report.

Z-2006-02:  Public Hearing on the proposed Amendments to the Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Kiser Inc.- Reed 127th Commercial- Chestnut Ridge LLC- PEC

 

REQUEST:

See attached notice to Landowners

 

CASE HISTORY:

2000 Decker/Kiser PUD

 

LOCATION:

North of 21st Street & East of 159th Street

 

SITE SIZE:

505 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Mixed use PUD

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler County Agriculture

South:

B-3 & R-4 Kansas Medical Center & vacant Cornerstone PUD

East:

R-2 Cornerstone PUD under construction

West:

Sedgwick County RR- Rural Residential- mostly Agriculture

 

Background Information:

Proposed changes to PUD to accommodate the Cornerstone Elementary School & Reconfigure parcels and density of R-2 Single-Family area, adjust R-4 area & density, rezone school site & adjacent commercial parcel with limited uses.

 

* 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Noted on page 1 of this report

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Noted on page 1 of this report.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Proposed location of Cornerstone Elementary School.

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:

All can be extended as necessary.

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

N.A.

 

 

PLANNING:

N.A.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Increased traffic & activity around the school site.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

1 in support, none in opposition.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for with limitations to an elementary school.

 

 

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:

Opposite is true.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Ron Roberts, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-02  be approved to change the zoning district classification as published in the Official Notice: 1. To change the zoning district classification of a portion of Parcel 13 from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District. 2. To change the zoning district classification of a portion of Parcel 8 from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District, limited to the sole permitted use of an elementary school. 3. To change the zoning district classification of Parcel 7 from the B-1 Office Business District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District. 4. To combine the remaining R-2 Single-Family Residential District portions of Parcels 8 and 13, Parcels 9, 10, 11, and 12 into one parcel; based on the findings 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-01: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 500 square feet from the required 1,000 square foot maximum gross floor area allowed for accessory structures limitation, and a variance of 1200 square feet from the required 300 square foot maximum floor area for a storage structure for the purpose of constructing a 1,500 square detached garage on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District. (126 E. Lafayette)

 

Les Mangus explained this proposed variance of the bulk regulations limiting both the size of a single accessory structure and the total area of accessory structures arises from the applicants desire to construct a detached storage garage for use in the maintenance of the rental housing that he owns in the area. The applicant, Scott Bishop, owns 26 rental units in this neighborhood, including the subject property. The proposed location for the building is located behind several single family homes which face Andover Rd. or Lafayette Street, and behind a commercial building on Lafayette St. owned by the applicant. Staff supports the application as applied for because of the unique ownership of the applicant and his needs for storage.

 

Lynn Heath asked for the total size of this area. That information could not be found during the meeting. Les said Scott Bishop owns everything east of the back of the lots on Andover Road and north of Lafayette Street as well as all the homes that abut East Street on both sides of the street.

 

Scott Bishop of 14838 Sundance Court, Wichita, said he plans to build a 30’ x 50’ structure to store his 38’ RV as well as storage of antique cars. He said he owns all the property to the south and west and the building will not be visible to anyone else. The tree line across the northern side will also screen it. Only electric service will run to the building. The foundation will be concrete.

 

Jan Cox asked if the Gazebo and other open structure to the north would remain. Scott said yes they would and that the rental tenants use this area.

 

Byron Stout asked if this would be a garage or just storage facility. Scott Bishop said it is only for storage.

 

Scott Bishop said the building will be constructed to be consistent with other buildings along Lafayette Street.

 

David Martine asked how he would access this building. Scott said on the vacated portion of Heorman Street which he owns  as well as the property on the right where the structure has been removed. The drive will be gravel.

 

There was discussion about the height of the building and the pitch of the roof. Les estimated it will have a 4/12 pitch roof.  Scott Bishop said this will be a tan or brown metal building with a roof of the same color.

 

Quentin Coon asked if there is any public comment on this application.

 

Jack Cypert of 1521 N. Heorman said he has no problem with the location of the building as planned.

 

Quentin Coon asked if there was any further public comment. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m.  He began the review of the checklist.

BZA-V-2006-01: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 500 square feet from the required 1,000 square foot maximum gross floor area allowed for accessory structures limitation, and a variance of 1200 square feet from the required 300 square foot maximum floor area for a storage structure for the purpose of constructing a 1,500 square detached garage on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District. (126 E. Lafayette)

 

 

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;

Les said it is a unique situation to own 26 houses that are contiguous to each other.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-01 as requested. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

Review of the Final Plat of Eshom’s Addition; a Replat of Lots 52 and 54 Revised No. 2 Mecca Acres.

 

Chairman Coon stated this case has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Review of the Final Plat of Eshom’s Addition.

 

 

Review the Preliminary Final PUD Plan for the Cornerstone School Addition. This plan was presented by Rob Hartman of PEC.

 

Because the final details required to solicit input from utility providers were not available by the distribution deadline, the proposed plat will just be available for comments. Staff supports the plat as drawn pending the resolution of public improvement needs.

 

Les said this plat potentially puts into form all the land that George Laham has under his control from 159th Street, Parcel 8 – school site, Parcel 7 – Business District, Parcel 6 – Business District, Parcel 5a – existing hospital site, Parcel 5 – Multi-Family Residential site.

 

David Martine asked if there would be a screening berm along the collector street onto 21st Street. Rob said it will be on the south side of the street. Les said 60’ of right-of-way will be needed across the entire frontage of 21st Street in lieu of the 50’ that is shown across the apartment site only. This will be a 5-lane road. General discussion continued. Les said 21st Street is planned to be a divided boulevard type street with intermittent left turn bays at major street intersections.  Trees and grass will be planted in the middle. Les said there is an application submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Organization for this 2- 2.5 million dollar project.

 

Les said the developer is anticipating Parcel 9 will come on line in 2012. Les said Ritchie plans to build 2 neighborhood parks in Parcel 9. There was discussion about the future park plan map considering this development.

Review the Preliminary Final PUD Plan for the Cornerstone School Addition.

 

 

Member Items:

 

David Martine- none

Lynn Heath- Welcome again to new member Byron Stout.

Jan Cox-- none

Ron Roberts—Asked what has happened to “Zoning Case Pending” signs that used to be used. Les said he will look them up.

Byron Stout-- none

Quentin Coon—asked Les about the drive in front of Taco Bell. The cement island needs to be painted and marked. Les said this is part of the KDOT project. There is discussion about the cost of this considering it is private property, not a public street. Les said he would see if this is something the city could mark in the interest of safety. Discussion continued.

Jeff Syrios-- none

Charlotte Bass-- none

Member Items

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 21st day of March 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.