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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

July 18, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July18, 2006 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Vice Chairman Lynn Heath called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were Jan Cox, David Martine, Byron Stout, Jeff Syrios and Ray Jessen Jr.  Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Member Quentin Coon and Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll were absent.

Call to order

 

 

Review the minutes of the June 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0 with David Martine abstaining.  

Review the minutes of the June 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the June 13, 2006 and June 27, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the July 6, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the July 11, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

 

 

 

Lynn Heath invited newest Planning Commission members Ray Jessen and Byron Stout to join the Subdivision Committee on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. Ray Jessen volunteered to join that committee.

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to defer the election of officers until the next meeting. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

VA-2006-07: Returned from the Andover City Council for further review of the vacation of a portion of the access control to permit one driveway opening located at 1420 N. Fountain Ct.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: (Returned by the City Council to the Planning Commission for further consideration)This petition for vacation of access control on Lakeside Dr. for a garage at 1420 N. Fountain Ct. became an issue when the builder changed the access to the garage from Fountain Ct. to Lakeside Dr. The General Provisions of the Cedar Park PUD prohibit direct access onto Lakeside Dr. This case alone is probably not a major concern, but the precedence set by vacating access control to a collector street could start undesirable similar requests, which would limit the traffic capacity and impede traffic safety on collector streets.

 

Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates represented the applicant. He said additional information was provided at the City Council meeting that was not available at the Planning Commission hearing. Kenny said the applicants are here tonight to speak to the Commission.

 

Eddie Dean 615 N. Main, El Dorado, builder of the house on Fountain Court said he did not realize until the house was completed that there was a problem. He said he has tried to find alternate solutions but it is difficult due to the placement of the house on the site. He said if he had known it was wrong, he would not have designed the structure with the garage opening onto Lakeside. He pointed out the drive that opens to Lakeside will only be used as an entrance to the garage and vehicles will exit the site in front of the house on Fountain Ct. Eddie stated the garage is not deep enough to tear the side door out and put it in the front.

 

David Martine asked for the width of the curb cut onto Lakeside. Eddie said it is 18 feet.

 

Byron Stout asked if all other options have been investigated. Eddie said he has checked out other ideas and nothing else will work. Byron asked if the fire hydrant could be moved to accommodate the double car garage entrance from Fountain Ct. Les said yes it can be moved. Discussion continued.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if it is an option to widen both driveways to encompass most of the grassy area and move the fire hydrant towards Lakeside. Les said to move the hydrant would be around $3,000. Jeff Syrios asked if making the driveway bigger on the Fountain Court side would solve the family’s problem. Eddie Dean said that is not what the homeowner wants to do. Jeff Syrios continued to state the issues arising in this case such as precedent and safety on Lakeside. Eddie Dean continued to argue the properties across the street and others in Andover have access onto collector streets. 

 

Ray Jessen Jr. was concerned about the safety issue of the backyard fence in the vision triangle. He also suggested changing the fence from wood to wrought iron to improve the visibility on the curve.

 

Byron Stout was disappointed the builder did not come to the meeting with solutions instead of expecting the Planning Commission to do that for them.

 

Jeremy White owner of 1420 Fountain Ct. said changing the openings of the garage will cause encroachment into the building setback lines. He stated changing to the wrought iron fencing is an option. Jeremy continued to tell the Commission the reason for buying this house is for the 3 entrances into the garage, and discussed the mobility problem of his mother-in-law who is their day care provider. Jeremy stated the Andover City Attorney did not feel granting this variance would set precedence.

 

David Martine asked if the 3rd car garage will be parked in by the mother-in-law. Jeremy said no, it will only be used for bikes and storage. There was further discussion about vehicles not backing out of this driveway onto Lakeside.

 

Alissa Seib of 1335 N. Robin Ct. said she is speaking on behalf of the Cedar Park and Mystic Point homeowners associations. She said they want to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible because the driveway on Lakeside being dug out but not finished is a danger to the children in the neighborhood. She said the Board supports the Lakeside access to this property.

 

Ray Jessen asked how well the speed limit is marked around the Lakeside curve. Alissa said it is marked well, but the HOA is asking for additional speed limits signage, and “Slow, children at play” signs. Alissa said this neighborhood calls the police often to report speeders and etc.

 

Deborah Miller of 2200 S. Rock Road in Wichita is the disabled day care provider for the applicant’s family. She said her issue is the potential entrance from Lakeside since she drives an SUV and would provide her access into the garage without the threat of ice or snow on her injured foot. She discussed the expense her daughter and son-in-law have gone through to landscape the yard and build the fence to meet the visual standards of the residents of Andover. She asked the Commission to consider any additional expenses being placed on this homeowner.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Ms. Miller if the driveway on Fountain was widened, could she maneuver her SUV into the garage. Ms. Miller said she could not manage that sharp turn and she does not think the additional concrete will enhance the aesthetic view of the house.

 

Doris Harrison with Prudential Denning Beard and the on site sales agent representing Randy Dean Construction submitted a letter from Mr. Dean with his opinions. She said there is no problem with the line of site and the fence location as it exists today. Byron Stout said he stood in the driveway on Lakeside and he insists the vision is blocked by the fence.

 

Jeff Bridges asked Doris Harrison if she had a copy of the PUD. She said she does now, but she did not when this property was sold. Jeff asked if PUD’s show up in the title work during the closings. She said no they do not. Jeff stated a PUD is a recorded document. She said no one told her that.

 

Doris said she was present during the inspections of framing, basement foundation, etc. and no one brought the location of the driveway to her attention.

 

Les said the 2nd access onto Lakeside Drive was not revealed to anyone until the forms were set to pour the concrete. Les said normally it is shown on the plot plan if the builder is planning 2 access points, but on this plan, there is no indication of the 2nd access. Jeff Syrios asked if this is normal procedure. Les said no, and that after talking with the 2 inspectors, no one revealed there would be a 2nd access.

 

Eddie Dean said when he got the building permit for the property at 1420 Fountain Ct. he submitted the plans for the house. When he came to pick up the permit they gave it back and said it was not needed. The plans show the garage doors facing Lakeside.

 

Lynn Heath asked Eddie if he and his dad have implemented any procedures to prevent this from happening again. Eddie said he will look for the PUD document next time.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue.  Hearing none, he asked the builder to return to the podium to state whether he has implemented any procedures to keep this from happening again. He continued to say the access from Lakeside will not be used for an exit of the property, the circle drive will provide room to exit from Fountain Court.

 

Discussion on the bench continued.

 

Jeff Bridges said the PUD’s are recorded by the County Register of Deeds and available during the title search.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Jeremy White if additional concrete would be an option if the cost was not an issue. Jeremy said it would still be a safety issue. Jeff Syrios disagreed with the safety comment. Jeremy said if more concrete was laid on the Fountain Court site, it would be unattractive.

 

Lynn Heath said the public hearing is officially closed. Discussion continued at the bench. David Martine said he does not see a detriment to the city if this permit is granted.

 

Ray Jessen asked the Homeowner’s Association to put up the additional signs as soon as possible. Les said there are only 2 signs that would be allowed at that location, one black and white speed limit sign, the other would be “drive 25- keeps kids alive”. Les said no signage is permitted that would condone children playing in the street.

 

David Martine made a motion to recommend approval of the vacation of access control to the Governing Body. Ray Jessen seconded the motion. David Martine amended his motion to require the builder to purchase the additional 4 signage requested by the Homeowners Association. Ray Jessen seconded the amendment to the motion. In further discussion, Byron Stout recommended the HOA submit the neighborhood petition to the City Council.  Motion carried 5/1 with Jan Cox in opposition.

 

Jeff Syrios said builders and realtors need to be put on notice that all documents must be discovered and followed before the closing date. He also encouraged all applicants to come to the meetings with the truth to make the process go smoother.

VA-2006-07: to permit one driveway opening located at 1420 N. Fountain Ct.

 

 

Z-2006-06: Public hearing on the establishment of Prairie Creek Planned Unit Development Plan located on 180 acres of the Northeast and Northwest corners of 13th Street North and Prairie Creek Road.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Preliminary General Planned Unit Development Plan of the Prairie Creek Addition This plan has been reviewed and discussed in sketch form by the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission previously. The developer has complied with all of the suggestions made in sketch plan review. The PUD is generally in strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations and only takes exception to the use of one 15 foot setback on one front yard of a corner lot, and it has 19 lots with a net area less than 10,000 square feet. The only concern voiced by adjacent neighbors is the use of private wells for irrigation of the 353 single family lots and homeowner’s association reserves, which could have the affect of depleting the groundwater that the majority of the nearby residences depend on for domestic water supply. Staff supports the proposed PUD with some limitation on the use of private wells for irrigation.

 

David Martine said he will abstain from this case due to a conflict of interest. Lynn Heath asked if anyone else needed to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he declared a quorum is present to decide this case. Lynn Heath stated notification of this case was published in the June 22, 2006 Andover Journal Advocate and sent out to property owners on June 19, 2006. Lynn Heath asked if any ex-parte communications have been received in this case. Hearing none, he asked Les to summarize this case.

 

Les Mangus said this is the formal hearing to decide the zoning in the Planned Unit Development for the Prairie Creek Addition at 13th and Prairie Creek Road. The property has been annexed and they now are ready for the zoning and the PUD to take the next step to plat the property and begin building houses.

 

Lynn Heath asked the applicant to step forward and state his name.

 

Kris Rose of Baughman Company, agent for the applicant, presented the plan. He said there are 353 single- family lots, 27 multiple-family lots, one 3 acre site proposed to zoned B-2 Neighborhood Business. Included will be a 6 acre public park. In the packets were phasing maps, drainage and utility concept, sidewalk and wall exhibit. He said the developer would like to amend some of the minimum lot sizes in the R-2 zoning. There are 50 lots planned to be less than 10,000 square feet requirement. Kris said the wall design and maintenance has been included in the PUD text. The HOA will also be responsible to maintain from the property line to the back of the asphalt road. Kris also discussed the detention ponds and sidewalks planned for this development. Permission has been granted from both of the pipelines to build sidewalks across the pipe lines for flow through the site.

 

Jan Cox asked Kris if the lot count sheet was correct because she counted 121 lots that are less than 10,000 square feet and 2 lots have been omitted from the list. Kris apologized and said he only counted the first column. This would be 34.3% of the lots under 10,000 square feet.

 

Ray Jessen asked what size of home would be built on an 8,500 square foot lot. Kris said he did not know, but the market goal of the developer is for $120,000- $150,000 homes.

 

Jan Cox asked about the minimum lot coverage. Kris said it is 35% for Parcel 1. Kris said the minimum frontage designed is 70 feet with the rest divided between 74, 76, and 78 feet.

 

Jeff Syrios asked about limiting the use of wells in this development. Kris said Les talked to him today about it but he does not have any ideas of how to limit that. Kris said none of the ponds will be filled with wells.

 

Jan Cox asked about paving the 4 lane arterial road. Kris said they will meet city standard which would require a base under the overlay. Les said the makeup of the road and the subgrade stabilization would be determined by traffic volume, type, and life span. Typically this would be 8” of asphalt and another 8” of stabilize subgrade.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there will be curbs. Les said that is a point of discussion. Kris said the developer is working with the city on this issue.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue from the public.

 

David Martine of 1236 Prairie Creek Road said he owns property ¼ mile across the street from this project. He said is in favor of residential use of this land. David stated directly south of this property is an area of 190 acres in which there are 7 homes, now there will be 350 plus the multi-family, which over 33% don’t meet the minimum zoning regulations. The amount of maximum density will affect the quality of life in the existing area. Some issues David said he has with the development are the concrete wall in the General Provisions. He does not understand the reason for a wall around the entire development. The wall needs to be in a designated reserve area to direct the maintenance of the landscaped areas. He said in the adjacent 190 acres with only 7 homes on them, he is sure these 7 rely on wells for their domestic water use, and he is concerned about the existing water supply if everyone in this new development is allowed to drill a well. He suggested only irrigation of the commons areas with wells and no irrigation wells allowed on individual lots.

 

David asked the Planning Commission to make their decision with the existing adjacent property owner’s quality of life in mind.

 

Don Kimble of 2815 E. 13th Street (just east of the Prairie Creek Addition) said he is concerned about losing the quality of his well. He said the developer could write a restriction in the covenant to forbid wells on private lots. He also objects to the small size of these lots. Don also said the road and bridge going over the turnpike to the north are dangerous. He asked for a positive solution to this road during this decision.

 

Vicki Blume of 2922 Prairie View Lane said she lives east and north of this development. She read her prepared statement to the Commission. She said she has concerns about the stress of the increased students on the Andover school system, and more so Andover High than Andover Central due to the Cornerstone Addition on 21st Street coming on line as well. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the request for Prairie Creek Addition at this time with the scarcity of local jobs for entry level homeowners, asked the developer to come back at a later time with a larger price range of homes and larger lot size. She does not want to be in a rapid growth competition with other cities. She has seen a water study done on this area which shows the water table has decreased by ½ foot in the last 3 years.

 

Robert Childs of 1639 Prairie Creek Road said he based his decision to move to Andover on the quality of schools, neighbors lot sizes, safety, etc. He said the bridge is the artery to the turnpike which will create extra volumes of traffic on Prairie Creek Road. Robert asked if this new development has been annexed into the city limits. Jeff said the right-of-way adjacent to this project is, but nothing north. Robert said he is also concerned about the volume of new students into the Andover School system. He said he does not want Andover to begin to look cookie cutter like the City of Maize with the explosive growth. He asked to see larger lots with nicer homes built on them. His next concern is the gas pipe lines running through the property and reminded the Commissioners about the explosions in Hutchinson recently. He was concerned about the local infrastructure, power, sewer, etc. He asked about the impact to the existing neighbors when public utilities are run into this development.

 

Tony Janzen of 1631 N. Prairie Creek Road said he agrees with the public concerns already mentioned. He suggested a current traffic count on Prairie Creek Road, and asked the lots be designed larger. He is concerned about the future quality of life for his neighborhood.

 

Jason McGinnis of 1611 N. Singletree east of the Prairie Creek Addition asked if a developer has also bought the 74 acres behind his house. He also is concerned about who will pay for the improvements to 13th Street, and Prairie Creek Road. Jeff said those are issues to be resolved, right now the properties outside the Andover city limits cannot be assessed by the city, however, if they are annexed in the future, they could be assessed for these projects. There was discussion about the location of the multi-family parcel.

 

David Martine stated there have been several comments made about the poor condition of the dirt road on Prairie Creek and 13th. He said it is obvious that Bruno Township cannot maintain the road approaches for the Turnpike bridge. He asked if the city will take over the maintenance from the area is now.

 

Jeff Bridges said the City will look to the Township to replace the bridge. Jeff said whatever is annexed will have to be maintained by the city. He said there will be a paved connection from the existing paved surface on 13th to this project and will eventually run to the end of the property.

 

Phil Meyer with Baughman Company pointed out Kris Rose was nervous because he is just learning this business and he never intended to mislead anyone about lot sizes. Phil said the average lot size is 12,000 square feet which is above the city requirement. He said he just does not think the layout of the site will function as well if the lots are all required to be over 10,000 square feet. There will be around 8- 12 different footprints of homes in this project with a variety of values. To limit the wells would be a question for the developer. He does know wells will be necessary to irrigate the reserve areas. He said every home in this development will be required to connect to public utilities. The wall is now located in an easement, but they are willing to put it in a reserve. The wall will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Walls will only be built along arterial roads. Phil said there are older people looking to downsize who are looking for entry level homes. He said the impact to the school system is inevitable with any new addition. He said the bridge over the KTA is a problem, but stopping this development will not solve the issue. The requirements from the pipeline companies have been met for separation and building setbacks.

 

Kris Rose stated the Department of Transportation requires a 50 foot building setback from the actual pipeline. The easement in Reserve E is a 50 foot easement and Southern Star running the other direction is a 66 foot pipeline easement. Phil offered to answer any other questions.

 

Lynn Heath closed the public hearing and restricted comments to the Board. Les said the well issue is not new, with concerns from Terradyne and Chateauroux. The way that was addressed was through a General Provision of the Planned Unit Development which state there are no water wells allowed for private irrigation purposes. Terradyne also has an irrigation monitoring requirement. Enforcement of the restrictive covenants and General Provisions is tough, but black & white if in either of those documents. General discussion continued.

 

Les said he has done lots of research during this project. The density numbers on this are almost exactly the same comparing net density and gross density as Cornerstone and Crescent Lakes. Discussion continued. Les said 65 of the first 110 houses built in Cornerstone are the same market of entry level homes comparable to the Prairie Creek Addition.

 

Byron Stout asked for a show of hands of audience who is attending for the Prairie Creek Addition issue. ½ of the room raised their hands. Byron asked what it will take to get the bridge fixed. Jeff said the traffic counts drive the improvements. Les said the largest factor in the allocation of federal money is the cost benefit analysis. The engineers for this project have already calculated the traffic generation numbers for this development.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there is enough right-of-way for a future 4 lane roads on 13th Street. Les said this development will dedicate the standard 50 feet from the section line. There is an existing 30 feet which brings the total to 80 feet of right-of-way and would be tough to build a 4 lane road in.

 

Karen Janzen of 1631 Prairie Creek Road asked when the last traffic count was done. She was very concerned stating a substantial increase in traffic has already occurred since the Butler Community College has grown. Jeff said the bridge is outside this project, there is no money available to fix the 3.5 million dollar bridge, and it is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Andover.

 

Les said the engineer for this project estimates the development will add 1,887 gross vehicles per day on Prairie Creek Road. The peak hour is 10% of the average daily count which works out to around 90 trips per hour and does not justify a lot of improvements to the bridge. The township has no authority to govern speed. Today the legal speed is 55 m.p.h. and the 35 m.p.h. signs there now are just an attempt to slow traffic down.

 

David Martine asked Phil Meyer for reserve area for the wall to hold the plantings on the south side of it. He is concerned about the 5’ of landscaping that would be lost to the future 4 lane road being built.

 

Lynn Heath asked for the benefit of building the wall in a reserve versus in an easement as proposed. Les said it is a matter of separation and about the open space around the wall. Les said what David is looking for is more separation from the road right-of-way to the wall so there can be some landscaping. The wall should be built behind the landscaping reserve, not at the right-of-way line. Les said to just consider the 4 lane and don’t think about the property to the south there would be 26.5 feet of pavement and 6 feet separation from the back of curb and the 10 foot sidewalk. That only leaves 8 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the road right-of-way line. In that 8 feet will be overhead electric transmission lines, cable TV and any other utility with a riser which will not leave much room for landscaping. Discussion continued.

 

Les said an advantage to this development is that the law requires that because that is not a domestic use of water that it be appropriated by the State Department of Agriculture who goes through studies to determine if water is available for that user. Individual homeowner wells are unregulated. The only record is a log report the well digger submits. The usage is not monitored. 

 

Jeff said there is a dedicated 6 acre public park which will need to be irrigated with a well. General discussion continued. Consensus of the board is that the percentage of lot sizes should be bigger for the lots currently at below 10,000 square feet.  Les said the average minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet is very common in Andover. Les explained the cul-de-sacs create the large lots to counteract the small ones. General discussion continued.

 

Lynn Heath began the review of the rezoning report.

Z-2006-06: Public hearing on the establishment of Prairie Creek Planned Unit Development Plan

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-06

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Kick’N’ Development Corp./ Baughman Co.

 

REQUEST:

Butler Co. Ag. To General PUD- R-2, R-3, & B-2

 

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant agricultural land

 

LOCATION:

Northeast & northwest of 13th Street & Prairie Creek Rd.

 

SITE SIZE:

177 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

158 acres Single-Family residences, 14 acres Multiple-Family residences, & 4 acres of   Neighborhood Business

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler Co. RR west of Prairie Creek Rd.- Butler Co. AG elsewhere

South:

Butler Co. RR & AG

East:

Butler Co. AG

West:

City A-1 Agriculture with a Single-Family residence

 

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:

Stated earlier in this report.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Stated earlier in this report.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

People want to move into the Andover community.

 

 

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:

All can be extended to service the subject property.

 

 

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:

 

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 required for the business parcel.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur. On the west and south sides.

 

 

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:

Not in this immediate area.

 

x

PLANNING:

Concur. The closest is Cornerstone at 21st and Andover Rd.

 

 

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:

The business parcel would provide 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:

It is currently being farmed.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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 activity and traffic.

 

 

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:

The Comp Plan makes no mention of potential business uses at this location.

x

 

PLANNING:

There needs to be some type of neighborhood businesses.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposition to the use of private wells for irrigation. Most homes in the area use wells for domestic water.

 

 

PLANNING:

The total number of homes, traffic.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Difficult when dealing with the road and Turnpike bridge that will need to be fixed someday.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

In further discussion, Les said the phasing schedule deserves further review. He thinks Phase 3 should be Phase 6 to flow better. He also suggested changes to the General Provisions. All access points should be served by paved roads and at the conclusion of the development all borders will be paved.

 

Phil Meyer said he would talk to the developer about changes to the phasing schedule, but he was not sure about changing the General Provisions.

 

Phil Meyer said when a 10’ reserve is done for the walls, 10’ will be pulled off of a mile and that is a lot of square feet for the lots. He suggested he could adjust the cul-de-sacs to give the 10’ reserve for the wall if approval could be granted tonight. Phil said the 12,000 square foot average lots are pure lots with no reserves.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Jeff Syrios, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-06  be modified & approved with the following conditions:

  1. Prohibit the use of private wells and restrict the use of ground water to commons areas and the city park.
  2. Require the screening wall on south and west sides from the street right-of-way by 10 feet.
  3. All access points served by paved roads and at the conclusion of the development, all of the pavement shall extend to the borders of the property development.

 based on the findings 9, 11, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Byron Stout

Jeff Syrios amended his original motion to include:

  1. Restriction of lots of 10,000 square feet or less be limited to 33% or less.

Byron Stout accepted the amendment. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Byron Stout made a motion for the Planning Commission to recess for a 5 minute break and to have David Martine return to the Board.

Recess.

 

 

Recommendation to the Governing Body on the annexation of the property located on the south side of US Hwy. 54 between McCandless Drive and Yorktown Road.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Annexation of the Property South of US-54 between Yorktown Rd. and McCandless Street This petition for annexation is the result of the property owner’s application for change in zoning district classification to be heard next on the agenda.

 

Les said a portion of this property was annexed and zoned about 5 years ago. The remainder never finished the process. The property is contiguous to the city on 2 sides (west and north). Water and sewer are available to this property.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone wished to speak on this issue.

 

Greg Allison of MKEC and agent for the owner said he would answer any questions. There was general discussion about the location of this property.

 

Jan Cox made a motion to recommend approval by the Governing Body for annexation of this property. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annexation of the Property South of US-54 between Yorktown Rd. and McCandless Street

 

 

Z-2006-07 & SU-2006-03: Public hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classifications from the Butler County AG (Agriculture) & RR (Rural Residential) Districts to the B-3 Central Shopping and R-4 Multiple Family Residential Districts, and Special Use requested to establish a public elementary school in the R-4 Multiple Family Residential District. Located on the south side of US-54 between McCandless Drive and Yorktown Road.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: This application is a combination of three proposed projects – the Andover branch of the YMCA, a USD385 Elementary School, and a multi-family housing project. Most of the proposed site is already zoned B-3 and B-5 by a previous case when the property was to be platted as the Sunflower Estates Commercial Addition. The developer has done a good job of using the R-4 zoning to wrap around the more intense uses as a buffer. The more complicated issue of access to the site will be addressed in platting. Staff supports the application in general contingent on limiting the size of the buildings adjacent to residential neighbors to the R-3, in lieu of the larger more intense R-4 bulk regulations.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he declared there to be a quorum of the board.

 

Lynn Heath stated this case was published in the June 22, 2006 Andover Journal-Advocate and 69 notices were sent to property owners on June 22, 2006.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there has been any ex-parte communications on this matter. Hearing none, he asked for the Zoning Administrator’s report.

 

Les said a recommendation for annexation gives the Planning Commission jurisdiction to hold this hearing. Les explained the zoning parcel map provided by the applicant.

 

Lynn Heath opened the public hearing and asked to hear from the applicant.

 

Greg Allison of MKEC said he would represent the applicant. He said in the north Parcel A will be the B-3 Central Shopping District. In Parcel B is requested the B-3 Central Shopping District with the special use for the school, and Parcel C the “L” shape piece at the bottom will be the R-4 Multiple-Family zoning. Greg said he is available to answer questions.

 

Lynn Heath asked why the request is for R-4 instead of R-3 zoning. Greg said that is because they plan to build 4 and 6 plex units.

 

David Martine asked for further explanation about the plans for the property. Les said the special use will only cover Parcels B & C.  The school cannot be next to Kellogg. The YMCA would be to the north of the school. Discussion continued.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there were any public comments.

 

Jack Huenergardt of 840 S. McCandless Road asked about entry into the YMCA and the school and whether Yorktown Road would be opened up and continued across Kellogg. Les said there is now an agreement between the City and KDOT about the location of access points to Hwy. 54. The agreement states there will be a full function intersection at Andover Road and Hwy. 54, another interim full function intersection at the ½ mile line which lines up with Yorktown north of Hwy. 54. They further agreed with KDOT that at ¼ mile points, only right in- right out access will be allowed and will not have a cross-over.

 

Terry Buller of 755 S. McCandless Road was concerned about the multi-family zone is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood single-family homes to the east.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there were any other comments from the audience. Hearing none, he declared the public hearing closed and restricted comments to the bench.

 

Les said public buildings and public schools are always added as a special use in any of the residential zones, not an outright permitted use. The R-3 zone limits to 4 family attached dwellings. The R-4 zone allows multi-family housing which could be up to 45 feet in height. Lynn Heath suggested restricting the R-4 zone to 2 stories in height. Les cautioned the height restriction could impair the plans for the school.

 

Terry Buller of 755 S. McCandless was concerned about the McCandless neighborhood with a 200’ buffer zone between the multi-family units. He has no objection to the commercial zoning along Hwy. 54, but does not understand 4 & 6 plexes next to his single-family neighbors. General discussion continued. Les said the Andover Crossing apartments directly abut R-1 single-family lots.

 

Jeff said multi-family projects on a confined lot must be approved by the Site Plan Review Committee.  Les said there is no mandatory screening, but the platting process could require it.

 

Greg Allison said the multi-family units will be on individual lots with public streets. Greg said there is the potential for the units to be individually owned. Jeff Bridges asked if there could be a provision to prevent a 4 plex from having 4 different owners to split the specials between. Greg did not know about that. Les said to be legal, a lot split would have to be filed to divide each of the dwellings from its original parcel. General discussion continued.

 

David Martine said it is difficult to make these decisions to create buffer zones between McCandless neighborhood and the one in Cloud City.

 

Paula Rock of 801 McCandless is concerned about the additional traffic from these new developments and said she cannot get down their dead-end road sometimes because of the traffic.

 

Les reminded the audience of the agreement with KDOT for access points to be contained to right in- right out at ¼ mile point and full access at the ½ miles with full interchanges at the full mile. General discussion continued. Jeff said a signalized full function intersection will be provided at Yorktown.  

 

Paula Rock said she is strongly opposed to 4 & 6 plex units being next to her neighborhood.

 

Terry Buller stated his protest against the 4 and 6 plexes and said it is all about money and wanted the developer to build single family homes instead. He said this is trying to force something in the area that does not belong.

Z-2006-07 & SU-2006-03: Located on the south side of US-54 between McCandless Drive and Yorktown Road.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-07 & SU-2006-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Anna M. McFadden c/o Tuan Nguyen/ Vantage Point Properties

 

REQUEST:

Butler Co. AG & RR to B-3 & R-4 with Special Use for Public Buildings.

CASE HISTORY:

Portions previously zoned & preliminary platted as Sunflower Addition.

 

LOCATION:

South of US-54 between Yorktown Road & McCandless.

 

SITE SIZE:

73.35 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

YMCA, Elementary School & Multiple-Family Residential

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler Co. RR & Commercial

South:

Butler Co. AG

East:

Butler Co. RR- McCandless Single-Family Residences

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residential-Reflection Lakes 2

B-4 Central Shopping- Undeveloped Cloud City Commercial PUD

 

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:

Stated earlier in this report.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Stated earlier in this report.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Expanding commercial & residential area, and needs for additional elementary schools.

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

All can be extended.

 

 

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:

 

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 required between commercial & residential uses.

x

 

PLANNING:

And to require screening between single-family homes and multiple-family units.

 

 

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:

Commercial land is available in the area. Special use for elementary school is not.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

All the proposed uses provide needed services and employment opportunities.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur. Also need additional elementary schools.

 

 

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 in the neighborhood.

 

 

PLANNING:

Unwanted R-3 and R-4 next to the single-family homes.

 

 

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:

The Comp Plan recognizes the need for additional schools, recreation facilities, and a variety of housing types.

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

Most of the opposition is not with the school or commercial area, but with the multi-family, and concern about the increase in traffic.

 

 

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 contingent on satisfactory platting.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

In further discussion, Byron Stout asked if there was any direction from the Comprehensive Plan on community growth. Lynn Heath said there is screening information between uses.

 

Jeff Syrios said the neighborhood is concerned because of the magnitude of this proposed development of multi-family units which the Comp Plan does not make a distinction of.

 

Ray Jessen said it is virtually impossible to make all parties completely happy. He said he is trying to make the best decision for the community at large.

 

Les said Parcel C is 30.6 acres of land, Parcel B is 20.05 acres, and Parcel A is 22.7 acres. Parcel B is planned for the school.

 

There was discussion about restrictions that could be placed on the multi-family units. Les said the only way to add conditions to zoning cases is to add a protective overlay and say a designated number of feet is designated for screening and buffer area. Les said to wait until platting is tougher, because platting is a right as long as they meet the standards of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Jan Cox, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-07 AND SU-2006-03 be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County AG & RR Districts to the B-3, R-3, and R-4 Districts with the following conditions to be added to this recommendation:

  1. With a Protective Overlay as a condition for screening between multi-family and single-family properties to the east and west sides of parcel C for 15 feet for screening.
  2. A 215’ buffer of R-3 going on each side of the protective overlay with the R-4 six plexes in the middle.
  3. The R-4 zone will be restricted to a maximum 6 plex with 2 stories units.

 based on the findings 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.   Motion seconded by David Martine. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

Z-1997-05: Public Hearing on the Amendments to the Amended Cloud City Preliminary Planned Unit Development Overlay District PUD, and Final PUD Plan -First Phase of the Cloud City General Planned Unit Development. Located on the south side of US-54 between Andover Rd. and Yorktown Rd.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Amendments to the Amended Cloud City Preliminary Final PUD Plan and the Final PUD Plan of the First Phase of the Cloud City PUD The new developer of the Cloud City PUD commercial tracts is working toward closing deals with a couple of big box retail stores to kick off the development, but in order to meet the lot areas required by his potential tenants requires some adjustments to the Final PUD already on record. The developer has also purchased an adjacent residential parcel to complete the commercial frontage along Andover Rd. from US-54 to Minneha Ave. The issue of most concern to Staff is the developer’s desire to change the required 130 foot rear setback between the commercial properties and the adjacent Reflection Lake residential properties to 75 feet. The project designer proposes to use a berm, masonry fence, and landscaping material to create a better screen between the two incompatible uses. Staff agrees with the proposal in concept but feels that the buffering plan should be better defined, including a condition that any loading/unloading facilities and trash receptacles be adequately constructed to prevent both light and sound from being a nuisance to adjacent residences.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves from hearing this case.

 

Lynn Heath stated proper notification was sent to 43 property owners on June 20, 2006 and was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on June 22, 2006.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone had received ex-parte communications in this matter. Hearing none, he opened the public hearing. Lynn Heath stated there is a quorum present to decide this case. Lynn asked the Zoning Administrator to brief the Commissioners on this case.

 

Les Mangus gave a brief history of this property. He said this property abuts the property in the previous case. The proposed PUD changes are minor. They are asking for the zones to fit the parcels they would create and add a small parcel for business. They also want to reduce the minimum setback between the strip of retail businesses and the adjacent residences.

 

Lynn Heath asked the applicant to approach the podium.

 

Greg Allison of MKEC represented this applicant also. He said this is housekeeping on the parcel descriptions. Greg said the intention is to keep the main part of the building at the 130 foot setback line. The part of the building that would encroach into the 130 foot setback line would be the loading dock. Greg presented a detailed site plan for clarification. Greg said some kind of wall would be built to attenuate the sound, a 35 foot service drive that would head in an east west direction, build a minimum 4 foot berm in a 40 foot width area with the wall at the top of the berm that would be 6 feet tall and landscaping along the wall.

 

Lynn Heath said they will use evergreen variety for screening. General discussion continued.

 

Greg Allison said he would like to vary the height of the berm to bring more interest to the site. There was discussion about the 35 foot wide road.

 

Jan Cox asked if trucks waiting to unload would be idling on that service road. Greg said he did not know for sure but the dock is designed for 2 trucks to be serviced at the same time. 

 

Byron Stout asked what type of business is planned for this site. Greg Allison said there will be multiple uses available. Byron asked if there would be 24 hour deliveries. Les said this could be a big box store. Jan Cox said if the landscape trees are planted close together they will absorb a lot of noise. General discussion continued.

 

Les said the PUD as it stands today has a 130 foot building setback. What it does not have is a restriction to the accessory structures, such as trash enclosures, storage trailers behind the building, etc. He hopes the 35 feet would be left clear and not encumbered by storage trailers or trash enclosures. Les said the only option he sees is to designate the 35 foot road a fire lane. His next concern was 75 feet encumbered by a landscape easement and a fire lane, how to define the area between there and the 130 feet that would be the principle structure. Would it be a covered or uncovered loading dock, or storage area? He has seen one proposed plan for a covered loading dock, but no plans for the unknown users. Les said that message needs to be conveyed into the future. Les said there are too many details missing from the plan.

 

Greg Allison requested approval so the development can proceed in a timely matter. Greg said he does not plan to use the 35 foot road for storage trailers or trash enclosures. Greg said they are in agreement with all staff comments.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. Hearing none, Chairman Heath closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the board. Lynn Heath said that even though no one was present to speak on this case, it is still the duty of the Planning Commission to make the best decision possible for the neighborhood.

 

Lynn Heath said he wants the loading dock to be completely enclosed. Jan Cox said she wants to insure adequate screening with the wall and landscaping.

 

Lynn Heath began the review of the rezoning report.

Z-1997-05: Amendments to the Amended Cloud City Preliminary Final PUD Plan and the Final PUD Plan of the First Phase of the Cloud City PUD

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-1997-05: Amendments to the Amended Cloud City Preliminary PUD.

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Vantage Andover LLC/ Paul Jackson

 

REQUEST:

Amendments & addition to Cloud City PUD

 

CASE HISTORY:

Numerous revisions to Cloud City PUD

 

LOCATION:

South of US Hwy. 54 between Andover Road & Yorktown Road.

 

SITE SIZE:

63.58 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Retail shopping center

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-3 & B-5 Andover Crossing Shopping Center & Andover Lakes Estates vacant property.

South:

R-2 & R-3 Reflection Lakes Single-Family houses & vacant Multiple-Family property

East:

Butler Co. AG.

West:

B-3 River Addition vacant commercial property

R-1 Single-Family residences.

 

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:

Stated earlier in 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:

Stated earlier in 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:

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

All exist or can be extended.

 

 

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:

 

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 required between commercial & residential uses.

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:

The subject property is currently zoned commercial except for Parcel 3A.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

No change from current zoning except Parcel 3A

 

 

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:

Except Parcel 3A which is surrounded by commercial zoning.

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 is perceived with adequate screening.

 

 

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.

 

 

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 with a detailed screening plan.

 

 

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 David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-1997-05  be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification from the existing District to the requested District as proposed based on the findings 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14  of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

  1. The screening plan approved by the Site Plan Review Committee.
  2. The loading dock is required to be enclosed and soundproof.
  3. Staff comments must all be addressed.
  4. The 35 foot service lane is designated a fire lane.

  Motion seconded by Byron Stout. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ray Jessen seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-04: Public Hearing on an application for variance filed by Wayne Duggan for a 2,000 square foot detached garage located at 117 W. Lafayette.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: The applicant desires to construct a large detached accessory storage building on his property. The proposal doesn’t seem out of the question on the surface, but when comparing the proposed 2,000 sq. ft. building to the nearby residences, the scale of the accessory use dwarfs the existing principal residential structures in the area. The accessory structures bulk regulations permit the cumulative total area of accessory structures to be 600 square feet or equal to the principal structure, whichever is the lesser. In this case the proposed 2000 sq. ft. is considerably larger than the principal structure. Staff feels that there are circumstances, including the adjacent large church and school buildings, which would warrant allowing an accessory structure larger than 600 sq. ft., but that the limit should be set at no larger than the principal structure.

 

Lynn Heath stated there is an existing wooden fence around the perimeter of the back yard. Lynn Heath asked if the existing shed would remain. Wayne Duggan said yes it would and that he has just repainted it. Lynn Heath asked for the height of the proposed structure. Wayne Duggan said it would be 14 feet at the side walls.

 

Wayne Duggan said his house is 2,000 square feet and sits on the north end of the lot. Wayne said he is now planning for a 30x 45 building unless he can get a better price break. He needs the 14’ height to put a car lift inside. Wayne said he is not running a business; it is just to tinker on cars during retirement.

 

David Martine asked about the height of the surrounding houses. Wayne said his is about 20’ and the house across the street is 2 stories.

 

Ray Jessen asked if a driveway would access this structure. Wayne said he will drive in off of Main Street at the existing drive and another will be cut in at the middle of the building.

 

David Martine asked for the total height with a 14’ sidewall and web truss. Les said with a 4/12 pitch it will be about 23 feet tall. David asked for the height with a 10’ side wall and a clear span truss. Les said it would be 14’ tall. David suggested ways to make the building shorter still leaving enough room for the car lift. General discussion continued about other structures in the area.

 

Jan Cox asked if this will be a metal building. Wayne Duggan said he is not sure yet and that he would like the garage to stay in style with his house.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les if staff is opposed to this request. Les is concerned about the 2,000 square feet. He said another existing structure is on the property of 560 square feet which would make a 2,000 square foot house with 2,500 square feet of accessory uses. Les said the accessory regulations state that a cumulative total of all of accessory structures is limited to 600 square feet or the size of the principle structure whichever is the lesser. Les is concerned about a structure being larger than the house. Discussion continued. Wayne Duggan said he applied for the maximum size building but is open to discussion and he does not want this issue postponed to another meeting.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Wayne for the smallest size building he could build and still have room for the car lift. Wayne said no smaller than 30x40 which would enclose 5 or so cars.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he stated notices were published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on June 22, 2006 and mailed to 13 property owners on June 19, 2006. Lynn Heath asked if anyone has received ex-parte communications on this matter. Hearing none, he asked the Zoning Administrator if he has any further comments. Les said he has no further comments.

 

Lynn Heath closed the public hearing and began the checklist.

BZA-V-2006-04: Public Hearing on an application for variance filed by Wayne Duggan for a 2,000 square foot detached garage located at 117 W. Lafayette.

 

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:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

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

X

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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-2006-04 as modified subject to the following conditions:

1. That the maximum square foot of the garage is not to exceed the maximum square feet of the home or 1,500 square feet whichever is lesser.

2. The roof height of 24 feet.

3. 4 trees of 2” in caliper are to be planted to screen the building from the residential area.

Ray Jessen seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and Reconvene the Planning Commission. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

Review the Marketplace East Addition Preliminary Plat located south of US Hwy. 54 between McCandless Rd. & Yorktown Rd.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Preliminary Plat of the Marketplace East Addition. The proposed plat is for the future sites for the Andover Branch of the YMCA and a USD385 Elementary School. Because two tracts not owned by the developer straddle the ¼ section line (future Yorktown Rd.) the ultimate continuation of Cloud Ave. east of Andover Rd. becomes a little convoluted at the future Yorktown Rd. intersection. The developer has made his best effort to continue the reverse frontage road concept on, with Commerce looping the YMCA site back to the north to intersect US-54 at the preferred location of a right-in/right-out intersection halfway between Yorktown Rd. and Prairie Creek Rd. Staff feels that a reserve strip should be left along the east side of Commerce St. to provide some buffering between the YMCA and the residences to the east, and a future street intersection should be planned at the south end of the tract, which abuts US-54 to continue the reverse frontage road over to McCandless St. The area north of Commerce is shown as two lots, but the long narrow lot on the west side exceeds the depth to width ratio allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. No preliminary drainage or utility plans have been submitted, but the developer intends to carry all of the drainage from these to lots south to detention ponds on the multi-family site by underground storm sewer. Staff agrees with the plan conceptually, but there are several items which need solutions before the preliminary plat is accepted.

 

Greg Allison said this is a Preliminary Plat for the portion of property from the earlier zoning hearing. He said they are asking for the platting of  Parcels A & B into 2 lots and to plat the street system that goes around it including Yorktown adjacent to the west side and plat an additional piece between Parcels A & B, and plat the street along the east side of Parcel A. Greg said he would answer questions.

 

David Martine asked if the curves in the road were to preserve the hedge row. Greg said yes it is.

 

Greg explained the proposed YMCA and school sites. General discussion continued. Les showed the reserve platted along the east side of the commercial property.

 

David Martine asked if all staff comments have been satisfied. Greg said they agree with staff comments and the majority has been addressed. David asked if Reserve C is to preserve the hedge row. Greg said yes it is. David asked if there is adequate screening between those homes and that road. Greg said the hedge row is the screening and no other plantings are planned. There was discussion about trimming the existing trees for the utilities on the west side of the road.

 

Les said the Zoning Regulation only require a 10’ landscaping strip buffer between businesses and residential when there is a street in-between. General discussion continued.

 

David Martine was concerned about the one existing residential house being blinded with headlights from traffic on the 2 proposed streets to be built. Greg asked if they could fill in the gaps in the hedge row to protect the residential property. David Martine said that will work. David Martine said to be prepared to add more plantings as conditions warrant.

 

David Martine asked when a detailed screening plan would be provided. Greg said he could have a landscape concept drawing at the next meeting. There was discussion about the reserve property being owned by the homeowners association of these parcels. David continued to be concerned about the quantity and quality of screening for the residential neighborhood.

 

There was discussion about designing a cul-de-sac for the Reflection Lakes third phase for traffic control.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anyone else had comments about this plat. Hearing none, he asked if Les is satisfied with the staff comments. Les said only half have been complied with at this point.

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented with staff comments attached and the sufficient and continuous screening along the entry road of Commerce Place. Byron Stout seconded the motion. In further discussion the street names Commerce and Grant conflict with existing names. Motion carried 6/0 .

Preliminary Plat of the Marketplace East Addition.

 

 

Recommendation to the Governing Body on the annexation of the property located on the Northeast corner of Andover Road and 120th.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Annexation of the Property at the Northeast corner of Andover Rd. & SW 120th Street This petition for annexation is the result of the property owner’s application for change in zoning district classification, which will be heard at the August Planning Commission meeting.

 

Les said this is vacant land and the subject of a zoning case at the next Planning Commission meeting.

 

Byron Stout made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation to the Governing Body as presented. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annexation of the Property at the Northeast corner of Andover Rd. & SW120th Street

 

 

Review & approve the 2007-2011 City of Andover Capital Improvement Plan.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Review of the City of Andover Capital Improvement Plan for 2007-2011 The State Law requires the Planning Commission to approve of the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) before any public improvement projects can be authorized by the Governing Body. The attached CIP summary provides the capital and equipment purchase plans for each department for review and approval by the Planning Commission, before being included in the City of Andover 2007 Budget document.

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to table the Capital Improvement Plan as presented until the next meeting. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0. .

Review of the City of Andover Capital Improvement Plan for 2007-2011

 

 

Review and recommend the adoption by the Governing Body of the suggested updates to the Comprehensive Development Plan

 

From Les Mangus Memo: Annual Review of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Prior to the Planning Commission Meeting the subcommittee charged with making recommendations on the update of the Comp. Plan was held. A summary of the subcommittee suggestions is attached for review and recommendation to the Governing Body for adoption.

 

David Martine made a motion to table the suggested updates to the Comprehensive Development Plan until the next meeting. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annual Review of the Comprehensive Development Plan

 

 

Member Items: none

Member Items

 

 

Jan Cox made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0. .

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 15th day of August 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.