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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 18, 2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met June 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, John McEachern, David Martine, and Joe Robertson.   Charles Malcom and David Ledgerwood were absent. Others in attendance were Sheri Geisler, City Council Liaison, Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Deborah Carroll, Administrative Secretary. 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:00 p.m.

Call to Order

 

 

Review the minutes of the May 21, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion was made to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, as written, by David Martine. Second by John McEachern.  Motion carried 6-0. 

 

Minutes of the May 28, 2002 minutes of the City Council meetings were received and filed.  Minutes of the June 6, 2002 Site Plan Committee minutes and Subdivision Committee minutes of the May 14, 2002 meeting were received and filed. Lynn Heath arrived at the meeting at 7:04 p.m.  Chairman Coon noted that the minutes were accepted as presented.

Review minutes of May 21, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals

 

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  John McEachern had a conversation with Gary Israel, which Mr. Israel stated that Papa John's still does not have the architectural rip rap on the building. Les Mangus explained that there was an aluminum detail on the corners of the columns that was missed in the staff review of the plans when they were submitted that were on the site plans. Mr. Mangus is working with the contractor to get those put on the building.

 

Mr. Mangus stated the Subdivision Committee was to look at the Sullivan's Dream plat however, it was removed. The owner did not want to make all the dedications that would be necessary to plat the property. The owner removed both the plat and the special use from consideration.

 

Committee and Staff Reports. 

 

 

Case Z- 2002- 04 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agricultural to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District on 57.22 acres south of US 54 between Yorktown and McCandless Roads. Chairman Coon asked commission members if they need to disqualify themselves for any reason. John McEachern disclosed that he had a phone conversation with Jack Huengardt about manufactured housing as well as other topics. Joe Robertson, Dave Martine and Chairman Coon also reported phone conversations. Quentin Coon reported they did receive proper notification on this issue. Les Mangus noted that the Commission was given copies of a letter from Frank Jackson stating his opposition to this case and also a summary prepared by Keith Zinn was submitted for the record as well as some information from the applicant on his home of choice.

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come to the podium.  Bob Kaplan who represents James McFadden, the applicant for the MH-2, spoke first. Mr. Kaplan wanted to provide a short overview of the request and to identify the material that Mr. McFadden will be discussing. Mr. Kaplan reminded the Commission that their decision couldn't be based on the plebiscite of a few people but on the interest of the entire community at large. Mr. Kaplan stated that the application presented by Mr. McFadden is for a single- family, owner-occupied subdivision.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this property is no different from any other property in Andover except that under the regulations, the lots in MH-2 may be smaller.   Mr. McFadden has withdrawn his request for Mobile Home Park. This is a request for subdivision.

 

Applicant James McFadden addressed the Commission. Mr. McFadden gave copies of photographs to the entire Commission and these were also posted on the wall for the public to view. A rough drawing of the McCandless tract, the Highland property, and the proposed Sunflower Addition were posted on the wall during the presentation.

 

Mr. McFadden presented the following information:

·        Discussed depreciation of land value with commercial projects- based on information from the assessor on the values of the homes (not including the property) in the area for comparison to this proposed project.

·        Screening- will have to be worked out by the neighbors or in platting.

·        Subdivision is planned to have 160 homes. Smallest lots will be 7,500 sq. feet. He doesn't know what the largest lots will be, but probably 8,400 sq. feet. There will be about 2.66 houses per acre. Homes allowed on this property will be only the ones in the photos distributed to the Commission. Homes are manufactured by Genesis Manufacturing, which is part of Atlantic Homes from Central City, Nebraska. Mr. McFadden stated these homes are approved by HUD, the Uniform Manufactured Home Code, and by the Uniform Building Code.  Mr. McFadden stated he would be in control of the sale of all the homes. Mr. McFadden stated eight model homes would be on display in the area for the Subdivision. All homes will either have basements or foundations, depending on customer requests.

·        All homes will have 2 car garages. Homes will range in square footage from 1,267 up to 2,050. All will comply with city codes. Mr. McFadden proposes the development will be in 3 phases, 50 homes at a time. Wants to have the first house occupied in 2002. Mr. McFadden stated that order time to occupancy of the home is about 75 days. Mr. McFadden will not be using bonding or special assessment financing of improvements through the city. Mr. McFadden will fund the project himself. 

·        Discussed the difference between stick built homes and manufactured homes. Mr. McFadden stated that the manufactured homes are a superior product. These homes have a 10-year warranty, R39 blown insulation in the roof, Phillips windows and cabinets are Merrillat. Inspections will be done before the home is set and if the foundation is not perfect, the house cannot be delivered.

  • Question by Joe Robertson to Mr. McFadden as to whether the garages are part of the factory built product. McFadden stated that Atlantic Manufacturing makes the garages, Genesis makes the home, sets it up in about 4 days, then Atlantic comes behind them and installs the garage. Mr. Roberts asked if all the homes being proposed will have garages. Mr. McFadden said all the homes will have garages attached. Mr. Robertson asked whether the houses would be occupied before the garages are completed. Mr. McFadden replied that the delivery of the garage would be about 4 to 5 days behind the house. Mr. Robertson asking if there is some kind of guarantee that the garage will be attached within a designated time frame. Mr. McFadden replied he expects within 75 to 90 days the house is there, and within 4-5 days of clearing the house (utilities and etc.) then the garage crew is there. He further stated that something could be included in the plat or in the covenants to include that the garage has to be attached to the house prior to occupancy. Mr. Robertson said this would satisfy his question.

·        Mr. McFadden reported that all the homes would have driveways to the curb, concrete floors in the garage, in addition to paved streets, gutters, street lights, just like any other Subdivision in Andover.

·        The smallest home is 1,267 sq. feet with a cost estimate per home of $82,000, which would include the basement. There would be no specials here. The Commission asked the value range average without the lots. Mr. McFadden answered that the smallest house (property excluded) would value at $68,000, expecting that most of the homes built here would be on the smaller side.

·        Joe Robertson asked for clarification on the plan for phasing in the homes and to whether there is any intent to starting on the west side of the area and working to the east.  Mr. McFadden replied this will be a 3 phase development, starting at the north and going south. Mr. McFadden stated that if they find out the cost of doing the work in 3 phases is cost prohibitive, they will do the entire project all at one time. They will sell the lots in thirds within 3 years.

·        Mr. McFadden reported also they are platting the commercial property in front of it now. Specials may be used on commercial properties, but only if necessary.

 

Chairman Quentin Coon read the introductory paragraph to the zoning regulations for an MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District says: "This district is designed to provide for a medium density area of individually owned lots, platted for all types of manufactured and modular homes on permanent type enclosed foundations."

 

Chairman Coon then opened up the podium for public comment. Everyone was asked to state their name and address before speaking for the record. In the interest of time to only bring new issues to the floor and to not be repetitious. The public was thanked for participating. The floor was then opened for public comment.

 

Terry Buller of 755 McCandless voiced his concern that approving MH-2 would be opening the door to single and multiple width manufactured homes.  He was also concerned with the density of homes in the development, and asked for a guarantee that Mr. McFadden will maintain the level of quality that has been promised tonight. Mr. Buller provided photos to the Commission showing the existing mobile home park in town and the condition of some of the homes. He does not believe that the public at large is interested in having MH-2 developments in their area. He is concerned there will be deviation allowed in the platting process as well as traffic and safety issues at the Archer Street intersection with US-54. More photos submitted about the traffic considering both student and adults. Mr. Buller stated there is a visibility problem in the area. Additional photos with the addresses on the back were given to the Commission to document his opinion that if a property needs barriers, there must be something to hide. He does not believe there is really a need for mobile or manufactured homes in Andover. Mr. Buller asked if anyone knows how many manufactured homes there are presently. Chairman referred the question to Mr. Magnus who did not have an accurate count and will be able to provide more precise information when the 2000 census is released. Mr. Mangus stated the last percentage taken in the mid- 90's was estimated at 11-12%.

 

Mr. Buller referred to the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Andover Area Kansas 1995- 2010- pages 6-11. Second paragraph - "According to the 1990 U.S. Census of Housing, the City of Andover had 315 mobile homes and trailers located exclusively in 2 parks inside the city limits. Since this represents 21% of the total housing units in the city, it is believed that Andover has provided its fair share of such housing in the region. In a 3 county Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area the percentage of such homes is 6.1% of total housing units. Andover has almost double the proportionate number of such homes as compared to Butler County, which has 11.9%. Rose Hill 1.1%. Augusta 9.2%. El Dorado 5.0%." He implied that if we add this development as proposed, the Andover percent would rise to 15-20%. He distributed a copy of the page from the comprehensive plan that he was quoting to the Commission.

 

Another concern of Mr. Buller was about the way the City of Andover is being divided between schools, mobile home parks, and apartments. Mr. Buller suggested if this development must proceed, it should be built north of the city on 21st and Andover Rd.

 

Jack Huenergardt of 840 McCandless Rd. - Asked the applicant and his attorney where they got their degrees in engineering. Chairman Coon instructed the speaker to direct all his comments to the Commission and for all questions to be pertinent to the zoning case. Mr. Huenergardt disagreed that modular homes are superior quality to stick built ones. He accused Mr. McFadden of being a greedy developer from Augusta who wants to move this project into our backyard. He is opposed to the density. Mr. Huenergardt was on Board of RWD #8, and asked the question whether the City of Wichita would have restrictions on Andover with regard to how much water they will supply. Jeff Bridges responded in the negative. Mr. Bridges further explained that Andover's percentage of take has to equal what they ration to the residents of the City of Wichita. Only if the City of Wichita gets rationed do we get rationed in the City of Andover by the same percentage.  Another complaint of Mr. Huenergardt was that more residents have been added to the sewer line in his neighborhood and his rate has went up from $9.75 when he moved to the area, to $67.50 quarterly. Mr. Huenergardt stated that people already living in an area end up paying higher rates for new developments due to increased demand on the facilities. He stated that Rose Hill, Bel Air, and Eastborough do not have any mobile home parks, and that the City of Derby does not have any in their city limits.

 

Phillip Yokley of 655 McCandless asked about ways to have controls to keep renters out of this district. Mr. Yokley stated that platting is important. He wants the size of the lot to be specified from the beginning of the project. Mr. Yokley questioned value comparisons supplied by Mr. McFadden, whether the City of Andover inspector would sign off on each property, and who would enforce the covenants? Mr. Yokley questioned the discrepancy of one development having specials and another not.

 

Martin Rock of 801 McCandless stated he is opposed to the development of the property behind him. He questioned the valuation figures supplied by Mr. McFadden the accuracy of the numbers, and as to whether the dollars reported were a matter of public record. Asked whether the screening in the area is going to be used to hide something.

 

Chairman Coon stated for the public the lot size requirement in MH-2 zoning district is a minimum 6,000 square feet for the manufactured homes, lot width is 60 feet, lot depth is 100 feet.

 

Shannon Hill from 819 S. Highland Dr. stated to the Commission her opinion that by putting in a modular home, this provides no financial benefit to the community. The jobs would be going to Center City, Nebraska. She further stated that HUD homes could be built as stick built homes. Ms. Hill went on to argue that Mr. McFadden should have applied for R-2 zoning. She feels this will make the developer stick to the plan. She reminded the Commission of the study done by KDOT of Kellogg and Andover Road, which reported that 40,000 cars go through that intersection daily. Ms. Hill reported that the safety of the added traffic being in the area due to this development would raise the fatality rate.

 

Mike Jeffrey of 645 McCandless voiced his opposition to this development. Traffic is a concern to him. Mr. Jeffrey wants a clause written into the plan for assurance that only what is being presented to the Commission tonight, will actually be what is built in the development. He addressed the issue of water runoff from this proposed development to the McCandless properties.

 

 

Leroy Mannis of 1014 E. Williamsburg questioned the Commission about why the developer is not asking for R-2 zoning in this area? Chairman Coon answered that it is what was applied for. Mr. Mannis stated that an acre is about 44,000 sq. ft., and he has got less than 3 per acre, means his density is in excess of 10,000. If that is the requirement for R-2 then he is trying to figure the math out.

 

John McEachern asked Chairman Coon to clarify a statement made by Mr. Kaplan, which alluded to the fact that the only difference in the zoning is the lot size being smaller which would increase the density.

 

Mr. Mannis continued to ask why the property has been broken up, and what is the trick he is not seeing? Mr. Mannis asked if the only difference truly is lot size, then lets understand the difference the lot size really is and be specific.

 

Chairman Coon re-explained to the public that the zoning on R-2 minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. feet. Mr. Mannis asked further, if R-2 precludes manufactured homes brought in and set on site?

 

Bill Wadsworth of 545 S. Highland Dr. voiced his concerned as to how the homes in the proposed development add to the supply to the tax base for our schools. Will they be taxed any differently than the current property owners? If not, he is opposed to the project. He only supports improvements that will add to the quality of the current educational system. Further stated that if the Commission would not want these types of homes in their back yard, then that is how the current homeowners feel too. Chairman Coon then asked for response from the applicant.

 

James McFadden returned to the podium to restate some of the points he made earlier in the meeting and answer the questions raised by the public. The last site plan was for 7,200 sq. feet per lot. The footprints of their largest homes won't fit on 7,200 sq. foot lots. Don't know yet how large they will have to go to accommodate the largest homes. Mr. McFadden is satisfied that they will not have to go over 8,400 sq. feet. He wants every lot to be able to hold the largest home. Mr. McFadden's reason for not being clear about the driveway issue is because he is not sure if Mr. Mangus is going to make him put sidewalks in. If so, the driveway would go to the sidewalk and then the curb. And if not, then the driveway would just go to the curb. John McEachern asked Mr. McFadden if the minimum size of the lots proposed would hold the largest homes available. Mr. McFadden does not have that information yet from Atlantic Homes. Mr. McFadden explained that screening is really not going to be necessary in this project and promised again that this will be a quality project. Mr. McFadden stated that the maximum number of homes would be 160. The covenant will be enforced by McFadden Development until it is turned over to a homeowners association. Mr. McFadden will not allow their homes to be turned into rental properties. Mr. McFadden has spoken with the county assessor who stated that the homes in this area would be assessed at the same rate as the neighbors.

 

Joe Robertson asked whether the covenant would be specific that there would be no rentals allowed in this neighborhood. Mr. McFadden replied yes, that the issue is no different from junk cars and additional building on the property.

 

Ron Roberts asked what guarantee there would be that only Genesis built homes would be allowed on this property. Mr. McFadden promised this would be a quality project with only Genesis Homes being allowed. Mr. McFadden agreed he could put something into the plat, and that it has to be a UBC approved home.

 

John McEachern commented that he owns rental properties himself and that just because a family rents, does not make them bad people. His experience shows them to be loyal & tidy where some homeowners might not be. Mr. McFadden added that he is in favor of rentals, just not in this subdivision.

 

Joe Robertson reviewed the questions of the public concerning paved streets and utilities being in place. He asked if the property could be occupied before all these items are completed. Questioned Mr. McFadden further as to whether he is planning on specials being billed to these homes and that he is planning to pay for the pavement, curbs, and utilities, throughout this development. Mr. McFadden does not expect the City of Andover to sign the occupancy permit before all items are completed. If the development is done in phases they may be able to do 50 and get occupancy for that, then go to the next 50, and so on. The Chairman did not have any other questions. Mr. McFadden commended the Staff at City Hall for their outstanding job during this complicated application process. They were all very courteous and efficient and Mr. McFadden appreciated that very much.

 

Chairman Coon asked for a point of clarification from Mr. Mangus as to whether he would do his normal final building inspection once the project is complete. Mr. Mangus responded that these would be owner occupied lots, so all the guarantees would have to be in place for the utilities and streets, or all would have to physically be in place and approved before the first building permit was sold. From that point, our inspectors would do field inspection of the foundation or basement, and all of the utility connections. The inspections on the rest of the house would be done by third party, UBC certified inspectors. So with each house would come a certificate that it has been inspected and that it complies with the UBC. Final inspection will occur after everything is in place and complete.

 

Joe Robertson asked Mr. Mangus his opinion of third party inspectors.  Mr. Mangus replied that as long as they are certified inspectors, they are as good or better than we have in the city. Their certification comes from the State of Kansas. Mr. Mangus said the advantage those inspectors have over the city is that they look at the same house plan multiple times during the process. It is much easier for an inspector to do his job when he has seen the same floor plan over and over.

 

Joe Robertson then asked for replies from staff about the taxation issue to be sure that is clear. Jeff Bridges responded that the homes valuation is set by Butler County Appraiser as single family homes as the applicant has indicated through his conversation with the assessor, they would be assessed the same as any other single family home property owner and pay the same percentage. Mr. Bridges said though the valuation differential is there, the same mills are paid, and it is paid as real property, not as personal property as is with mobile homes. Joe Robertson asked how it gets classified as a single family home or is there a chance that it is not. Mr. Mangus responded that it would be based on whether the house is built on a permanent foundation or not. If it is permanently attached to the ground by means of a foundation, then it is real property compared to a mobile home, which is merely tied down. Mr. Robertson asked if the same party has to own the home and the land. Mr. Mangus said this is correct. General discussion was had about the tax base of the homes in the area and that this subdivision would be taxed at the same percent as other real property in the area.

 

Chairman Coon said he would allow a few more public comments to be doing a thorough job. Asked for public comments to be concise.

 

Shannon Hill from 819 South Highland Drive would like to see a copy of the contract Mr. McFadden has with Atlantic Homes. Chairman asked for clarification of the request. She said she wants proof that the homes promised in the development actually are the ones contracted for building and not single wide or doublewides.

 

Terry Buller of 755 S. McCandless asked that the Commission turn this application down and for them to resubmit it as R-2. Mr. Buller says that will be the guarantee that Mr. McFadden will follow through with all the promises made. Repeated concerns voiced previously in the meeting.

 

David Goldack  of 1303 E. Hwy. 54 asked the Commission that if they rezone this the way the applicant would like, and his Commission answered that once a property is rezoned, it stays that way unless it is re-approved as something different. of Reflection Lakes, noted that R-2 zoning is 10,000 sq. foot minimum, and under a PUD which is 7,800 sq. foot minimum lot size. General discussion about making this development a P.U.D.  Chairman Coon said because it was not requested to be a P.U.D.

 

Gene Viterelli representing Tavco Properties, which is the developer plans or financing would fall through, and he would sell this property to someone else, would that allow the new property owner to have mobile homes, or would that new zoning allow them to give them that right or would they have to get it approved again?

 

Phillip Yokley of 655 S. McCandless, complimented the Commission for listening to repetitive questions, and for asking some very important questions that the public had not thought of. Also complimented Mr. McFadden because he had a very good presentation this time. In addition, Mr. Yokley asked whether the covenant includes the landscaping. Chairman Coon said yes. Also said he was concerned about the traffic and safety in the area between 6:00 & 8:00 a.m. when trying to cross Kellogg on McCandless.

 

Bob Kaplan returned to speak to restate Mr. McFadden's willingness to comply with conditions imposed by the City of Andover and that they will remain regardless of who the

owner is. Mr. Kaplan stated further, that they are committing to only UBC homes, not HUD or mobile homes. This will be done by platting restrictions, covenant, or private recorded treaty, anyway the city wants it done and in a document that is recorded and enforceable. And will extend this only to the models shown.

 

Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at this time. The Board has 17 factors and findings to be reviewed before making the decision on the zoning request.

Case Z- 2002- 04 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agricultural to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District on 57.22 acres south of US 54 between Yorktown and McCandless Roads.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-04

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

James W. McFadden

Robert Kaplan, agent

 

REQUEST:

City and County Agriculture to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision

District on 57.22 acres

CASE HISTORY:

Prior application for MH-1 withdrawn

 

LOCATION:

South of U.S. 54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Road.

SITE SIZE:

57.22 Acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Manufactured Home Subdivision

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-3 Central Shopping District with Special Use for indoor Mini-Storage & Butler Co. Agriculture- Homesite

South:

Butler County Agricultural

East:

Butler County Agricultural, legal non-confirming single-family residences.

City A-1 Agriculture, legal non-conforming single-family residences

West:

Cloud City P.U.D., R-2 and B-3 vacant land.

 

 

Background Information:

Owner intends to be the sole source for homes which are factory built Uniform Building Code compliant structures on foundations or basements with  garages on owner occupied lots (7,500- 10,000 sq. ft.)

 

* 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:

North: B-3 Central Shopping District w/special use for indoor Mini-Storage & Butler Co. Agriculture- Homesite, South: Butler Co. Agriculture, East: Butler Co. Agriculture- Legal Nonconforming single-family residential City A-1 Agriculture, West: Cloud City P.U.D. R-2 vacant land.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

North: B-3 Central Shopping District with special use for indoor Mini-Storage & Butler Co. Agriculture- Homesite, South: Butler Co. Agriculture, East: Butler Co. Agriculture- Legal Nonconforming single family residential City A-1 Agriculture, West: Cloud City P.U.D. R-2 vacant land.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

No.

 

x

PLANNING:

No.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Streets, Sewer, and water can be  provided.

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes they can be provided

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

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:

No MH-2 property is available

 

 

PLANNING:

Currently no other MH-2 is available

 

 

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:

N/A

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

No detriment is perceived

x

 

PLANNING:

Access, traffic safety

 

 

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:

Yes

 

 

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:

­Page 6-13 # 5 & 6 Encourage housing choices.

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposition- Perceived property devaluation & loss of rural character  

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition-Increased traffic, density, jobs going out of state, of older homes going in, platting.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

16.   Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Staff recommends approval contingent upon platting

x

 

PLANNING:

Platting to include covenant

 

 

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:

No detriment to the public is perceived.

 

 

PLANNING:

Same as above.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

There was general discussion regarding the speed limits West on Andover Road and 159th.  It was noted that KDOT is in control of the changes.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Joe Robertson, move that we recommend to the Governing Body Case No. Z-2002-04 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County Agricultural District to the R-2 District, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation. Joe Robertson retracted the motion.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body Case No. Z-2002-04 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County Agricultural District to the MH-2 District, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation.   

 

CONDITIONS:           Contingent on approval of the platting.

 

The findings are #6- Sewage, Water, and Streets can be provided; #9- no MH-2 property is available in the area; & #13 this change would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district classifications of these regulations. If the plat is not approved, then MH-2 is not approved.

 

Motion seconded by Dave Martine.

 

After general discussion, the motion passed 4-2.  Joe Robertson and John McEachern voted no.  Chairman Coon called for a 10 minute recess at 9:45 p.m.

 

At 9:55 p.m., Chairman Coon called the meeting back to order.

 

 

 

Motion by Joe Robertson to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals and hear Case No. BZA - V - 2002 - 02. Seconded by John McEachern. Carried 6 - 0.

 

Chairman called the Board of Zoning Appeals to order.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2002-02 Public hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 8 foot sideyard setback to 5 feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 150 Village Road. Andover, Kansas. 

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED: None

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

Notice published in the Andover Journal-Advocate May 23, 2002 and property owners were notified May 28, 2002.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: Les Mangus stated that the applicant, Rodney Barr, is asking for a variance of the required 8 foot sideyard setback to 5 feet to construct a third car garage. Noted that the shape of the lot is pie shaped, and the lot beside it, there is adequate space between the homes. There is a 10 foot utility easement that  Rodney Barr of 150 Village Road stated that he would not be encroaching on the property line of the neighbors, the distance from his house will be in excess of 25- 30 feet. Will encroach on the easement by 1 foot. Plan to come over a little bit on the easement with the driveway to access the new garage. Reason for need is due to having 3 teenagers with vehicles. Park right across from his property causes traffic congestion. He wants to get his vehicles off the street. Stated that all the neighbors have been contacted by him and are in favor of this project. General discussion with the Commission about the property line, no screenings planned, and, iron fencing on both sides of the house. Les Mangus wanted the applicant to understand this board cannot grant the ability to encroach on this easement. They could allow him to go to the easement, but not encroach it. Need to apply for a vacation of easement. Sheri Geisler asked if both could be done tonight. Les Mangus said no. The general discussion continued. Specified that the variance needed is for 3 feet.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were no public comments.

 

CLOSING THE HEARING

 

The public hearing was closed at 10:15 p.m.  There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

The Board will now deliberate the request.  First, we need to determine if the request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize us to grant a variance.  For example, it cannot be a “use” variance.  Those permitted are found in Section 10-107C and are listed as follows:  

 

  1. To vary the applicable minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements.

 

2.      To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements.

 

  1. To vary the dimensional provisions for permitted obstructions in required yards including fences in Section 3-103F.

 

  1. To vary the applicable number of required off-street parking spaces and the amount of off-street loading requirements of Article 5.

 

  1. To vary the applicable dimensional sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding district regulations.

 

  1. To vary the applicable requirements in Sections 10-107 C1 through 5 above in conjunction with conditional use applications for nonconforming, nonresidential structures and uses under provisions of Section 8-105.

 

  1. To vary the applicable provisions permitted by the flood plain district.

 

Based on the application, this request meets the criteria for Section 10-107C pertaining to a variance of the bulk regulations. 

Each of the five findings of fact will be read and our collective opinion will now be summarized for the minutes.  When a condition is not found to exist, the wording may be altered by adding or deleting the word “not” as appropriate.

a)   a.     That the variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant;    True, it is unique to this property.

 

b)  That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents; True.

 

c)   That strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application; True.

 

d)  That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare; True.

 

e)   That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations; Agree to this action with the condition that if in fact the survey proves that it is not required that it be rescinded.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusion required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which the evidence demonstrates that:

 

  1. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced. True
  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. True

 

  1. 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- True
  2. 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- True

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per zoning Regulations Section 10- 5G.

 

DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings, I now call for a motion and, if approved, any conditions that might be attached:

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I, Joe Robertson move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance, for Case No. BZA-V-2002-02 as requested, granting of variance of an 8 foot sideyard setback to 5 foot, however, the variance will be null and void if not supported by the survey.   The resolution will be held until the survey is done.

 

Dave Martine seconded the motion.   There was no discussion.  Motion passed 6-0.

 

Motion by John McEachern to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission. Second by Lynn Heath. Motion passed 6-0.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson stating that Item 6 (review the draft revisions to the R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk Regulations and authorize a Public Hearing to consider the changes to the Zoning Regulations) & Item 7 (Review the information on the Protective Overlay District and consider a change to the Zoning Regulations) of the agenda be deferred until the next regular meeting. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

Les Mangus reported that one additional agenda item was given to the Board about the receipt of a notification from Butler County that they have a platting and zoning case on their agenda for their next meeting. Case at the SE corner of Pawnee and 159th Street of a 57-acre tract. The owner proposes to plat it into 3 lots and to have it rezoned from Agriculture 40 to Rural Residential. Property is bordered on the East by Blazing Meadows Road and on the West by 159th Street.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to make a favorable recommendation to Butler County Planning Commission on the change from AG-40 to Rural Residential. These will be 3 lots of +/- 20 acres each. Contingent on platting.  Second by John McEachern. Motion Carried 6-0.

BZA-V-2002-02 Public hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 8 foot sideyard setback to 5 feet in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 150 Village Road. Andover, Kansas. 

 

 

 

General discussion on R-1, R-2, protective overlays, and lot size.

 

MOTION: Motion by Lynn Heath to have a public hearing for the consideration of an amendment to the zoning regulations, changing the minimum lot size bulk regulations in the R-2 zoning to 8,000 minimum square foot lot with a width of 75 feet, R-1 zoning, change to a 12,000 minimum square foot lot with a width of 65 feet at the August meeting. Second by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 6-0.

General discussion on R-1, R-2,

 

 

Member Item: Dave Martine asking for input from the Planning Commission on the building that was brought before the Site Plan Committee which was going to be put between Andover Auto and Suburban Buildings.  Les Mangus explained the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee.

 

Les Mangus informed the Planning Commission that at the intersection of Central and Shay there has not been a school  zone set yet.  By the time school starts, the area will be annexed into the City and there is to be a crosswalk there Mr. Mangus stated there will be a city resolution to declare a 20 m.p.h. school zone so it will be enforceable. Mr. Mangus stated the full length of Shay will be a school zone. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that the school zone will start just west of Shay Avenue on Douglas Avenue.  

Member Item

 

 

Adjournment: Motion by Joe Robertson to adjourn the meeting. Second by Lynn Heath. Carried 6-0.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

Adjournment: