|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
- Prohibit the use of private wells and restrict
the use of ground water to commons areas and the city park.
- Require the screening wall on south and west
sides from the street right-of-way by 10 feet.
- 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:
- 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
- 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.
- A 215’ buffer of R-3 going on each side of the
protective overlay with the R-4 six plexes in the middle.
- 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
- The screening plan approved by the Site Plan
Review Committee.
- The loading dock is required to be enclosed and
soundproof.
- Staff comments must all be addressed.
- 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|