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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

May 23, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a recessed meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.  Commission Members present were Lynn Heath, David Martine, Byron Stout, Ron Roberts and Jan Cox.  Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll.  Commission Members Jeff Syrios and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

Review the minutes of the April 18, 2006 and May 16, 2006 Planning Commission meetings.

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Janice Cox abstained from voting. Motion carried 5/0/1.

Review the minutes of the April 18, 2006 & May 16, 2006 Planning Commission meetings.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the April 11, 2006 and April 25, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes from the joint City Council/ Planning Commission workshop meeting on April 24, 2006. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the May 2, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the May 9, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

 

Election of new officers. Chairman Coon moved the election of officers to the end of this meeting.

 Communications

 

 

SU-2006-01: Special use requested to establish a veterinary clinic in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District located at 545 N. Andover Road. 

From Les Mangus memo: This application arises from the tenant’s desire to operate an out-patient spay and neuter veterinary clinic. Staff supports the special use with limitations on operations within the enclosed building only, and no crematory incinerator.

 

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Dean Loesch, Veterinarian, said he intends to open up an out patient spay and neuter clinic for an estimated 10 animals per day. He explained this service will provide an income and help the community with the problem of over population of pets. He said the animal shelters in Wichita euthanize around 25,000 animals per year because there were no owners for them. He said very seldom will any animals be kept at his clinic overnight.

 

Quentin Coon asked if any other surgeries will be offered. Mr. Loesch said he will offer any elective surgeries, such as de-claw for cats, cropping dog’s ears, and low cost vaccinations.

 

David Martine asked about the current use of this building. Mr. Loesch said currently it is vacant but has had previous retail businesses in it.

 

Jan Cox said the parking lot is difficult to use and she asked if the traffic from the vet clinic would be a problem. Mr. Loesch said the majority of the clients will be dropping off animals early in the morning and picking them up after the rush hour. Mr. Loesch explained the turn around area in the parking lot and he feels it will accommodate the traffic flow and said no cars will have to back out onto Andover Road.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak.

 

Deborah Gafvert, property owner, said there has not been any serious problems with parking in the lot, but admits the parking lot is small. She said the worst traffic problem was at 3:00 p.m. and said the doctor does not expect his clients to pick up pets at that time of day. She said Dean Loesch will only be leasing the building from her.

 

Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. and began the review of the rezoning report.

 

Chairman Coon asked Les if this is to be a special use only for spaying and neutering. Les said it was advertised as an outpatient veterinary clinic.

SU-2006-01: Special use requested to establish a veterinary clinic in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District located at 545 N. Andover Road. 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2006-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Deborah Gafvert/ Dean Loesch

 

REQUEST:

Special use to allow an out-patient spay & neuter veterinary clinic in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

CASE HISTORY:

Existing home zoned & converted to neighborhood business in 1995.

LOCATION:

545 N. Andover Road

 

SITE SIZE:

104’ x 300’- only the east 135 ft. of the property is zoned B-2.

PROPOSED USE:

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-1 Single-Family residence

South:

B-2 w/ Special Use- car wash

East:

B-4 Central Business- Plaza shopping center

West:

R-1 Single-Family

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

On 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

On 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:

 

 

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:

All are in place & adequate.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Right-of-way is dedicated with previous zoning cases.

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

Screening and site plan are existing.

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

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:

Additional services & employment opportunities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

none

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Approval limited to existing B-2 property and limited to indoor uses only.

 

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:

 

Lynn Heath said this special use should be approved as indoor use only, no outside kennels.

 

Les Mangus said only the east 135’ of the property is zoned B-2.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2006-01 be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-2 Special Use District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

  1. Apply this special use to only the existing B-2 zoned portion of the property.
  2. Inside use only.

Based on findings 10 and 14. Motion seconded by David Martine.

 

After further discussion, Lynn Heath amended his motion to include the additional condition to prohibit the use of a crematorium at this facility. David Martine seconded this amendment. Motion and amendment carried 6/0. 

 

 

 

Z-2006-04: Proposed amendments to the Amended Terradyne Preliminary General Planned Unit Development Plan located at 1400 W. Terradyne .

 

From Les Mangus memo: The proposed amendments to the Terradyne PUD include converting the existing hotel rooms to offices, allowing for a future 100 room hotel and conference center, constructing single family zero lot line homes on what is the existing driving range, and reducing the number of townhouses on the vacant land west of the clubhouse. Staff supports the amendments as proposed. A revised final PUD plan will have to be filed for the changes to the existing Terradyne Estates Final PUD Plan, and the townhouse area.

 

Kenny Hill from Poe & Associates presented the plan. He explained this will modify the area surrounding the existing clubhouse and the uses within the clubhouse, and will add a Parcel 1A. The changes will add offices in the clubhouse and provisions for a future hotel, conference center, meeting rooms and a ballroom. The total number of lots that can be developed has decreased from 108 to 101. The effect will be that no additional lots will be platted in Parcel 1. The plans include adding 24- 30 zero-lot line single-family residential units north and west of the clubhouse. These are shown in Parcel 1A. The existing PUD allows uses in the R-5 zero-lot line residential zoning, which are 5,400 square foot lots. Notes have been added to the PUD for parking setbacks and side yards will be those permitted in the R-5 zoning. Streets within the modified development will be either public or private to be determined at the time of platting. Plans for this development include a new practice range on the west side of 159th Street with access across 159th through a tunnel. Other changes include revising Parcel 2 which has been reduced in maximum number of dwelling units from 76 to 32. This will compensate for the additional units that will be added in the single-family patio homes north and west of the clubhouse. The dimensions have also been changed for Parcel 2 to match the proposed plan and the area increased by .4 of an acre. Kenny said Jerry Slack, a partner and golf course architect and urban planner, is also here to answer questions of the Planning Commission and public.

 

There was general discussion about the golf course. Jerry Slack said there will be a 20,000 square foot Himalayan Putting Green with a putting course in it. There will also be a pool here. The zero-lot line homes will surround the putting green. Jerry said additional parking areas will be built as the need arises. He said the hotel conference center is not funded yet.

 

Jerry explained the Sedgwick County side will be developed into a super duper range with 300+ yards long and 200+ yards wide and will be cut into the hill. Plans are for a future golf academy. Excess water from the new pond will be pumped back to the main golf course.

 

Jerry explained the function of the zero-lot line property to David Martine. These lots supply maximum privacy for the owners. These homes will have walk-out basements that face the range and target greens and will look and function like a real golf course.

 

Lynn Heath asked about the size of the zero-lot line properties. Jerry said they are 60’x 100’-120’ and some are 50’x 120’ all with walk out basements. He said the golf course functions as a retention basin and the water will be metered into the storage lake and pump it back up to the existing golf course.

 

David Martine asked for the estimated price of the homes for Parcel of 1A. Jerry said they will be between $350,000- $400,000 median priced. Jerry showed sketches of the town homes.

 

There was general discussion about the homes on the Sedgwick County side.

 

Quentin Coon asked about the pie shaped lots. Jerry said these will be zero lot line also with side entry garages and guest driveway/ turning areas. General discussion continued.

 

Jerry Slack stated the excess dirt from this project will be used to build a 35’- 50’ screening berm to limit the noise from the turnpike.

 

Ron Roberts was concerned about the number of guest parking spaces shown on this plan. Jerry said they are in excess of city requirements and that there are a minimum of 4 guest spaces planned for each lot. There are also additional bump out spaces along the road for overflow parking.

 

There was general discussion about private vs. public streets in this development. Jerry said he has permission for a 21’ wide back-to-back roll curb or soldier column of brick pavers on the edge on the Sedgwick County portion of the project, but no decision has been made yet.

 

There was discussion about the golf cart tunnel under 159th Street. Jerry said some drainage will run through the tunnel as well and will drain into the retention basin on the Sedgwick County side. Jerry said it will be engineered to be expandable for the future 159th Street project. 

 

Les said this configuration as shown does not lend itself to a public street because of right-of-way width. Public right-of-ways are required to be at least 58’. Private streets need to be noted in the text or plans need to be made for public streets. Jerry said they want the streets kept narrow to slow the traffic as much as possible. Discussion continued about the width of the streets shown on this plan.

 

Chairman Coon asked at 7:50 p.m. if anyone else wished to speak.

 

Clark Nelson of 607 Glendevon Place and member of Terradyne Country Club said he expected to hear Jerry Slack discuss his plans for the development of the southern end of the Terradyne PUD. Clark asked Mr. Slack if the covenant between himself and Mr. Slack that would run with the land is still on the table. Mr. Slack said it absolutely is. Clark gave the history of 2004 to the present concerning this covenant. Clark said he is very much in favor of this development north of Terradyne Drive. He said that the current owners of property in Terradyne do appreciate everything that Mr. Slack has done to improve the quality of the development. Clark Nelson said he asked Mr. Slack and Mr. Smith on a number of occasions: 1) Are there any changes planned south of Terradyne Road? Clark was always told no, there is no intention of developing south of Terradyne Road. 2) Whether the boundary line of the golf course would ever be changed. Clark said on a number of occasions he was always told absolutely not, the boundary would not change. Clark said last week he confirmed the plans for development to the south of Terradyne Road. As a result of this information, Clark is representing himself and some other Terradyne residents to protect their own properties which are in the southern end of this development.

 

Clark asked Mr. Slack if he would agree to a covenant running with the land to assure Clark Nelson and others that if they build on the south, there will be certain restrictions to prohibit any modification of the boundary of the golf course. The details of the covenant have not been finalized yet. Some of the points to be agreed on are:

  1. Total access control
  2. No access off of Glendevon, access if any, would be off of Central Avenue.
  3. Nothing to be built behind 607 Glendevon Place or anyone else’s house that backs up to the golf course that will restrict the view.
  4. Intent of what is to be built in the south. Is it one structure for 2 families, 1 story, etc.
  5. Condition of Planning Commission approval be the covenant running with the land be noted and accompanied and filed with any amendments to this PUD.

 

David Martine asked where there is space available for construction unless it would be on a fairway or green of the golf course. Clark said on the 17th hole, par 3, just north of Central. The boundary of the golf course is the brick and iron fence that goes around Central and down Glendevon Road. Clark said Mr. Slack has told him there is more than adequate room to build a home there. Clark said he does not believe the developers have intentionally misled anyone. Clark stated the golf course is what was intended from the beginning so the golf course integrity would not be violated. Clark wants to work with Mr. Slack to resolve these differences.

 

Clark repeated his request for the condition of Planning Commission approval is the covenant running with the land accompanied and filed with any amendments to this PUD. General discussion continued about the covenant running with the land. Clark said the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided copies of the covenant as soon as the final draft is available.

 

Les Mangus said the review of covenants is a part of the Planning Commission responsibility, but rarely are they drafted in time to be included in the packets.

 

Quentin Coon asked how much of the Terradyne PUD is included in this amendment. Les said this is a modification of Parcels 1 & 2. Clark Nelson said today, Parcel 1 is the entire golf course, single-family residences, and clubhouse. The developers have divided it by adding Parcels 1A and 2 for their additional developments in the north end. Everything else is Parcel 1 all the way to Central. Les said all of the golf course and Terradyne single-family estate lots. Discussion continued.

 

Clark Nelson stated it is not his intention to slow down the progress of this development. Clark said he appreciates the planned number of lots being reduced on Parcel 1, but he still wants a written agreement that runs with the land to assure nothing will be built by his house. Clark said he is certain some agreement can be reached.

 

Ron Roberts said there is an existing covenant for Terradyne. Clark Nelson stated this would be a separate agreement between Jerry Slack and himself. Lynn Heath clarified that Clark Nelson is protecting his own interests. Clark Nelson agreed.

 

Kenny Hill said the idea of restricting the total number of dwelling units on Parcel 1 from 108 to 101 is to eliminate the possibility of future houses being built on that parcel without coming back for an additional amendment to the PUD. Kenny asked if it is possible for approval of Parcels 1A and 2, with the provision that any future amendments to the overall PUD are submitted, they would have to submit a covenant agreeable to both parties. Discussion continued about there being 101 built lots today with no vacancies in Parcel 1. Clark Nelson said if this covenant is not done now, then he may be dealing in the future with someone who wants to put even more new lots. Clark explained how this covenant will prevent the development of additional lots south of Terradyne Road unless the terms are agreed to in advance between the developer and Nelson. The lot in question is 1.6 acres, house of 5,000- 6,000 square feet total, and would have been a personal home for Jerry Slack as part of his compensation for this work. He said if he can’t satisfy Clark, he won’t build it.

 

David Martine asked Mr. Slack if he is in agreement with the proposal of a covenant running with the land with Clark Nelson. Jerry Slack said yes, he and the partnership are in agreement with it.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. Hearing no comment, he closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. and began the review of the rezoning report.

 

Chairman Coon asked for direction from Les for action to be taken. Les Mangus stated the zoning is not changing on anything, only changing the PUD overlay permitted uses.

Z-2006-04: Proposed amendments to the Amended Terradyne Preliminary General Planned Unit Development Plan located at 1400 W. Terradyne.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-04

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Terradyne Country Club, LLC/ Kenny Hill of Poe & Associates.

REQUEST:

Amendments to Terradyne PUD- hotel, offices, luxury homes, town houses, etc.

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

159th Street & Kansas Turnpike

 

SITE SIZE:

25 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Country Club, hotel, offices, town houses, single family residences.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Kansas Turnpike- Butler Co. Agriculture

South:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Terradyne 2nd Addition

East:

R-2 Single-Family Residential- Terradyne Golf Course & Terradyne Estates

West:

SF-20 Sedgwick Co. Single-Family vacant land owned by the applicant.

 

Background Information:

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded 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:

On 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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

On 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:

 

 

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:

New owner has plans to expand facilities.

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 are in place or can be extended.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Replat existing and plat the remainder.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Site plan review required of multi-family & office/ hotel expansion.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

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:

Office conversion & golf expansion will create employment opportunities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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 to the neighborhood is perceived.

 

x

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None at this time, only adjustments.

 

 

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:

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:

 

 

 

Chairman Coon asked for additional information from Les Mangus. Les stated the Subdivision Regulations have a “local marginal access street” that is described as 2 moving lanes with no parking on one side plus a parking strip between the curb and the main road right-of-way. He said this has typically been used for frontage roads. He said this developer would like to use a 24’ pavement which is a 25’ back-to-back street on a 50’ public street right-of-way. His reservation from the Fire Code is the restrictions as to the turn arounds for fire truck if the fire access road exceeds 500’ in length. The developer has assured Les they can meet that same 70’ pavement width on the cul-de-sacs at the ends of the cul-de-sac dead end street. He said since this is going to be a one side access street, the narrower right-of-way does not pose a real problem.

 

Byron Stout asked if the turn around cul-de-sacs have an island in them. Les said they have designed these with a loop-type cul-de-sac but the interior median is mountable (brick, concrete, or grass).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-04 be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification as listed in the published notice based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing with the findings of 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14  (and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation).

1.                  1. A covenant running with the land.

2.                  2. The streets will be private if they do not meet the city street standards & city Fire Code.

 

Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Discussion continued about the undefined covenant. David Martine said he supports the covenant because he heard the developer agree to it tonight.

 

Byron Stout asked who will be approving the covenant. Les said it will be between Terradyne Country Club LLC and Clark Nelson. The City has no enforcement mechanism to this covenant, which will be handled in the District Court. Les said the covenant is binding between 2 parties. The PUD is a living document that an application could be filed tomorrow to make another amendment to.

 

David Martine amended his previous motion to include an additional condition: 3. Upon the approval of the Final PUD, the covenant running with the land will be in place. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.

 

Motion and amendment carried 5/0/1 with Jan Cox in opposition to the amendment.

 

 

 

VA-2006-05: Vacation of the North 15’ utility easement located at 607 N. Brentwood Place.

 

From Les Mangus memo: The owner/builder of the home at 607 N. Brentwood Place desires to vacate the unused utility easement along Woodstone Drive in order to allow a water well to be drilled in the area between the house and the street. SBC has responded with a potential conflict, but upon physical locates no cable was marked. SBC is scheduled to re-evaluate. Staff supports the vacation pending the satisfactory response from SBC.

 

There was no applicant present. Les explained that in the response from Westar, they have equipment in the west 10’ of the north 15’ easement.  That area would need to be excluded from this vacation.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend the vacation of the 15’ of utility easement as modified. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

VA-2006-05: Vacation of the North 15’ utility easement located at 607 N. Brentwood Place.

 

 

Serendipity Estates Final Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

From Les Mangus memo: The proposed Final PUD simply places the entire framework established by the Preliminary PUD in the final format. The only point of contention is the dedication of the 50 ft. minimum with the Final PUD. The owner would like the dedication to be contingent on the public need for the R/W, which in staff opinion is just another hurdle to any future road or utility project development. Staff supports the plan with the satisfaction of the comments from the checklist.

 

Bob Kaplan of 200 N. 159th Street East and property owner of Serendipity Estates said he has an agreement with staff to the contingent dedication of the right-of-way. He said the right-of-way will be provided at the time the City of Andover is widening 159th Street. He wants his improvements to stay as built as long as possible because he is in process of selling the other 3 lots in the development and wants the entry to look nice for prospective buyers. Mr. Kaplan also discussed the 20’ wide roadway from lots 1 to 4. He understands the need to move the northern most monuments to provide the 20’ access per city Fire Code. Mr. Kaplan asked for the authority to remove the entry monument or move it to the north.

 

Les said the contingent dedication can be drawn up to his satisfaction in the Developer’s Agreement which would include language about when, where, and how the right-of-way would be cleared for future improvements to the streets or utilities along 159th Street. Les explained the developer’s agreement and stated this will be a private street.

 

David Martine asked if the checklist comments have been satisfied. Les said yes they have been.

 

Ron Roberts asked what action the city would have to take to obtain the right-of-way. Les said there is nothing more to do. The right-of-way is there when the public wants to use it. Les said the only other alternative would be a minor right-of-way privilege where the City Council would say we are going to accept this right-of-way and we will give you the privilege of maintaining your improvements in the public right-of-way. Discussion continued.

 

Ron Roberts asked if all the items on the checklist have been corrected. Les said the only thing he is lacking is the title report. Bob Kaplan said he would get that to Les this week.  

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the Serendipity Estates Final PUD as presented with the condition of the submittal of the Title Report and the contingent dedication of the right-of-way. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Chris Rose from Baughman Co. delivered the Serendipity Estates Title Report to Les Mangus.  

Serendipity Estates Final Planned Unit Development Plan.

 

 

Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan of the Prairie Creek Addition.

 

From Les Mangus memo: The proposed plan is the development of 160 acres of single family homes, 14 acres of multi-family homes, and 4 acres of neighborhood business at the corner of Prairie Creek Rd. and 13th St. The residential plan includes the typical retention/detention ponds and a 5 acre public park site. Staff supports the plan pending the resolution of a few detailed concerns, including the extension of off-site water, sewer, and paved streets. Staff supports the revised plan, with the satisfaction of the comments from the checklist and comments from the Subdivision Committee regarding reserve access, street names, and street intersections.

 

David Martine stepped down from the board due to a conflict of interest.

 

Chris Rose of Baughman Company presented this plan. He said this addition is 355 single-family lots, 27 multi-family lots, and 1- 3 acre commercial lot. There will also be a 5 acre public park. He said the changes have been made from the Subdivision Committee meeting comments. He said access has been made to the reserves, changed street names, aligned some of the streets, modified some of the PUD text, modified the square footage table, and made some of the lots smaller in Block F per Les’ comments.

 

Les said that because of the timing on applications and annexation of property, there will be no formal action required on this case.

 

There was discussion about street names. Ron Roberts was concerned about Windswept, Aster, and Limestone intersecting. Chris Rose agreed to change the street name Aster to Windswept.

 

There was discussion about the commercial property on the corner. Quentin Coon asked why commercial property would be planned in that area. Les said the Comprehensive Plan talks about some limited commercial lots along arterial streets while at the same time trying to protect the existing core business area of Central and Andover Road and to promote a more regional shopping area at Andover Road and US Hwy. 54.

 

Quentin Coon was concerned about splitting up the commercial areas like this. Chris Rose reminded the Commission of the possible industrial area to the north of this addition.

 

Jeff Bridges said he has had discussions with Les concerning the extent of the arterial street improvements and the text as it is written talks about where it will stop at the access points. He said any improvements should be extended to the property lines so there are no unimproved areas that are bordered by the developed property. Les said the paving might be phased, but will eventually extend all the way to the property lines at the half mile. Jeff pointed this out in General Provision No. 13.

 

Jeff also stated there needs to be a provision about public financing being used when available.

 

Ron Roberts complimented Chris Rose for an excellent job providing access into the reserve areas.

 

There was discussion about the detention ponds in the reserve areas.

 

David Martine of 1236 Prairie Creek Road said he is the landowner to the south of this development. He said he is in favor of the project as a whole. He was concerned about the entry areas and how the development will be screened from the arterial roads on 13th Street and Prairie Creek Road. He asked about wall easements. He was concerned about maintenance of the wall area. David submitted photos he has taken of various existing wall areas and entries in Andover.  David Martine said he is opposed to white vinyl fence. He said concrete walls are more secure and aesthetically pleasing. He also said more common area could be provided by the developer for the entry areas to be more consistent with existing developments in Andover. He said he would like to see more details on the final plans for the entry area and wants to know if landscaping will be provided in the island.

 

Chris Rose said the wall could be concrete, vinyl, or adobe, or landscaping trees. Discussion continued about screening walls. None of the members were in favor of a vinyl wall. Consensus was for a concrete wall and trees.

 

There was discussion about Reserves L, M, and N. Chris said they will be for open space, landscaping, streets, utilities, and entry monuments. Les said that without some sort of buffer or screen, you would be looking in the backs of houses for a half mile both on 13th Street and Prairie Creek Road. Les was concerned about the statement of a 5’ wall easement is that becomes each individual homeowner’s responsibility to maintain. Typically there is a reserve with a fence that is under common consistent maintenance of the Homeowners Association. Discussion continued.

 

David Martine said maintenance of both sides of the wall needs to be considered. Consensus was to have the screening wall be in a reserve with specifications of the wall is to be stated in the PUD text. Chris asked who maintains the right-of-way between the property line and the back of the curb. Les said it is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain the space between the property line and the street curb. If there is a continuous reserve along the arterial street, it would be the responsibility of the owner of the reserve (HOA).

 

No action was taken. David Martine returned to the bench.

Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan of the Prairie Creek Addition.

 

 

VA-2006-04: Vacation of the Final Planned Unit Development of the Cornerstone 1st Addition located on the North side of 21st Street between Andover Road and 159th Street.

 

From Les Mangus memo: The vacation of the entire Cornerstone 1st Addition is an effort to cleanup the title work of the area being revised and  replatted as the Cornerstone 2nd Addition. Les said the 2 footprints of the developments are not exactly the same.

 

There was general discussion about why this vacation is necessary. Les said after some conversations with Bickley Foster, this plat should be titled Cornerstone Revised 1st Addition.

 

Byron Stout made a motion to approve the vacation of the Final PUD of Cornerstone 1st Addition. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

VA-2006-04: Vacation of the Final Planned Unit Development of the Cornerstone 1st Addition.

 

 

Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone 2nd Addition, a replat of the Cornerstone 1st Addition.

 

From Les Mangus memo: The proposed Cornerstone 2nd Addition Final PUD provides a better connection between the east and west halves of the Cornerstone residential property. To create more defined “neighborhoods”, and add to traffic calming, the developer proposes to place a roundabout in Cornerstone Parkway (collector street) at the future intersection of another collector street, and to eliminate one of the street crossings across the floodplain in the Cornerstone 1st Addition. The revised plan seems to create a much better flow of the collector streets without great sacrifices to keeping the houses from facing the collector streets. Staff supports the revised plan, with the satisfaction of the comments from the checklist, and the Subdivision Committee.

 

Greg Allison of MKEC Engineering said they agree with all staff comments and have made appropriate changes. He said he would answer any questions the members have.

 

Jan Cox asked about comment C.3 and if it applied to this case. Les stated the flood plain boundary line isn’t indicated on this but is required. In a few months a flood plain revision will be available which will move the existing line. The earth work and dams and control structures that will change the boundaries of the flood plain.

 

Jan Cox asked about the right-of-way on Stonegate Circle and on Cornerstone Parkway at Andover Road. Les said on Stonegate Circle the width is in front of Lot 12, Block 1, Lot 12, Block 2, and again at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1. Greg Allison said on Lot 8, Block 1 also. Les said there is an inset detail on that intersection at Cornerstone and Andover Road because it is a multitude of curves. Discussion continued.

 

Byron Stout asked if the name needs to be changed to Cornerstone 1st Addition. Les said Bickley suggested it be named the Revised Cornerstone 1st Addition.

 

Quentin Coon asked how many parcels are in Cornerstone all together. Greg Allison said with the revised preliminary PUD’s there is 1 single-family residential parcel per side, one on the east and on the west.

 

There was discussion about the 20’ access into reserve areas.

Rob Ramseyer said the reserve areas will be sprinkled by the HOA.

 

Ron Roberts said he would still like to see a pedestrian bridge over the lake. Greg Allison said they plan for the property to the west of the reserve C there will be an access created at that time. There was general discussion about maintenance of the reserve areas and about this being stated in the text of the PUD.

 

Greg Allison said they agree with all staff comments and will change the plan to show the 20’ reserve for pedestrian access located between lots 18 and 19 of Block 5.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final PUD Plan for the Revised Cornerstone 1st Addition with the following  conditions:

1.20’ access on Fieldstone Street as part of Reserve C.

2. Planning Commission Chairman is Quentin Coon.

3. Title report submitted.

4. Provide current lot grading and drainage plans.

 

In further discussion, Rob Ramseyer stated a restrictive covenant will be filed that will address architectural control, assessments, dues, etc. This will also list all reserves with the purpose of it, and designates the homeowners association for the maintenance of the common areas.  There will only be 1 HOA for the entire Cornerstone Development. 

 

Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone 2nd Addition, a replat of the Cornerstone 1st Addition.

 

 

Annual review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

From Les Mangus memo: With the major changes in the area, both in the past and future it may be in the best interest to form a small sub-committee to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. There are a couple of new developments that will have a significant impact on the Planning Area.

 

Les suggested 3 members to discuss the Comprehensive Development Plan and a committee (which could be the same members) to discuss needed changes for the Zoning Regulations.

 

After general discussion consensus was for Comp Plan review to be done by David Martine, Byron Stout, and Jeff Syrios. Review of the Zoning Regulations will be done by Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, and Quentin Coon. Ron Roberts will be the alternate for absences. Les said he will have additional information at the next Planning Commission meeting. Jeff said to become as familiar as possible with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations by the next meeting.

 

Quentin Coon asked about the election of officers. Les said the Planning Commission bylaws conflict with the dates for  mayor’s appointments.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to postpone the election of officers until the June Planning Commission meeting. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annual review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

 

Member Items: Lynn Heath asked when the 13th Street bridge would be closed. Les said soon.  

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 20th day of June 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.