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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

July 16, 2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met July 16, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, John McEachern, David Martine, Joe Robertson, and Charles Malcom.  David Ledgerwood was absent. Others in attendance were Charley Lewis, 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 7:02 p.m.

Call to order.

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the June 18, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Quentin Coon stated that the vote on the rezoning on the MH-2 was a 4-2 vote and the rest of the votes should have been recorded as 6-0 and they need to be corrected in the minutes. Motion was made to approve the minutes as corrected of the June 18, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, as written, by Lynn Heath. Second by Ron Roberts. Charles Malcom abstained from voting. Motion carried 7-0.

Review minutes of June 18, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals

 

 

Minutes of the June 25, 2002 minutes of the City Council meetings were received and filed.  Minutes of the July 2, 2002 Site Plan Committee minutes and Subdivision Committee minutes of the July 9, 2002 meeting were received and filed.   Chairman Coon stated that the minutes are unavailable from the City Council meeting that discussed the Sunflower Estates annexation and zoning was considered. Joe Robertson was concerned that without this information, the Commission would have to rely on the Staff for correct information about the decisions made by the City Council. Chairman Coon noted the minutes were accepted as corrected.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  Les Mangus said there are no staff reports at this time

Committee Reports

 

 

Chairman Coon stated for the audience that the first 3 items on the agenda consider the Sunflower Addition (McFadden property) Moved to item number 5 on the agenda.

 

Joe Robertson was concerned about the conflict of interest for the McFadden property since he sits on the Fire Board with Tim McFadden.  Les Mangus stated that if he stands to make money on the results of the case or if he has a particular bias against the use, then he should abstain from voting on this project. John McEachern mirrored Mr. Mangus statement about any member standing to have personal gain from the project should step down from voting. Joe Robertson asked Tim McFadden if he was an owner of the property in question now.

 

Bob Kaplan stated that the title of the property now lies only with Mrs. McFadden as a result of James McFadden's death. Mr. Kaplan further stated that Tim McFadden has picked up the reigns of his deceased father and will be the developer of the property.  Bob Kaplan stated that he is the representative of the McFadden family, and does consider the McFadden's to be the developer of this property. Joe Robertson stated he would stay on the panel for this hearing. Quentin Coon asked for staffs report on agenda item number 5.

 

Les Mangus said this would be difficult to discuss Agenda Items 5, 6, and 7 separately because the City Council lumped them all together in their motion to send back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration: to annex the 73.75 acres, an application for B-5 case Z-2002-02, and the MH-2 case Z-2002-04), plus the Council discussed platting. Their motion was to send all 3 cases back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the minimum lot size and the possible creation of a protective overlay zone. Mr. Mangus said the correct thing to do would be to look at them one at a time, as they are individual cases.  Mr. Coon asked how they could apply the protective overlay when it has not even been created.

 

There was discussion about lot size and the density of MH-2 property, and very little discussion about the business property.  Chairman Coon asked Charley Lewis if she had any additional information that would help the Commission make a decision. She stated that the council felt that it came down to an issue of density. On the information that the council had received, all three items were presented as one issue. They asked if the applicant would consider breaking them apart. The council decided that based on the facts being presented to them as one item, that they wanted to have a better understanding from the Planning Commission on specifically the density issue. The information that they received at the last City Council meeting. Tim McFadden had presented information about the size of the homes he planned to build and gave members floor plans and had lot sizes and the dimensions of the proposed lots. Tim explained that the smallest lot would be 7,200 square feet. Council felt that if the Planning Commission broke them out into 3 different items, there would be better clarification to be able to make an informed decision.

 

Dave Martine asked if anything has changed from last month's application. Les Mangus stated that the Planning Commission approves the plat and the City Council accepts the dedications that are shown on the plat. He further reminded the Commission that they are on Agenda Item number 5 and that the items will be taken on their individual merits, annexation, B-3 & B-5, and MH-2. Mr. Mangus informed the Commission that it was up to their discretion as to whether to open the meeting up for public hearing or not.

 

Chairman Coon asked Bob Kaplan to present the Commission with any information that might assist them in making a decision. Mr. Kaplan stated that the City Council never got past the annexation issue. He said they did not discuss the B-5, B-3, MH-2 zoning at the Council meeting. Mr. Kaplan stated that McFadden's presented one annexation petition to the council on the entire acreage, which encompassed the 3 tracts, and are Agenda Items 6-8 tonight. James McFadden had directed Mr. Kaplan to handle it this way, as he wanted all of his property in the City of Andover. At this point the Council's attention turned to density and lot size. Bob Kaplan suggested the city change the Subdivision Regulations to a larger lot size in the MH-2 zoning district to avoid all of this confusion

 

Bob Kaplan suggested ways to address the issue of lot size:

1. Make a separate recorded instrument that would commit McFadden to the lot sizes that he is suggesting and not allow these to change except upon public hearing and approval of the governing body.

2. Create a protective overlay if they know what the conditions are.

3. Endorse it on the plat

Mr. Kaplan asked to have Kenny Hill address the Commission to explain what has changed on the plat since the last Subdivision Committee meeting.

 

Bob Kaplan stated that if City Council minutes from the last meeting were available, they would confirm his statements. He also asked for the Planning Commission to request more specificity from the City Council when cases are remanded to them.  He then asked the Planning Commissioners to advance the consideration of the preliminary plat. Les Mangus directed the Commission back to the agenda that they have an annexation petition that needs decided. There was general discussion about the agenda items.

 

Les Mangus said that both of the motions on both of the zoning cases were contingent on satisfactory final platting. Ron Roberts said he would like to see some further discussion on Items 5 & 6 before continuing.

 

Chairman Coon then directed the Commissions attention to Item 5 on the agenda concerning annexation of the McFadden property, +/-73.75 acres on the south side of US-54 between Yorktown and McCandless, returned by the City Council for further consideration. Joe Robertson said he would rather have had the minutes from the council meeting in front of him before making a decision. He said at the hearing last time the applicant, James McFadden, stated that there would not be more than 160 homes on this property. Now the plat shows 209 parcels. That makes a difference in what that annexation was going to reveal. From the City Council, he heard one member say it was a matter of growth, as to whether it is too rapid for the city, and the other issue was whether or not the plats were too flexible in the sense that the density could ebb and flow and be pretty heavy in that area.  He thinks items 6 & 7, which are the zoning issues are separate from an annexation. Stated that the annexation was predicated upon the agreement of the zoning, so had they denied the zoning, then the annexation would have failed. Quentin Coon asked Joe Robertson if he felt that the annexation was tied to density. Mr. Robertson said that he felt like that was what he understood from the council meeting. He again would like to see the printed transcript of the meeting.

 

Chairman Coon asked the board if they feel the land is suitable for annexation. Dave Martine asked for clarification as to whether this is contingent on platting. Les Mangus stated that the annexation should be contingent upon satisfactory zoning.  John McEachern read from the minutes of the prior Planning Commission meeting, which said that Mr. James  McFadden planned to have 160 homes in this subdivision and that the smallest lot will be 7,500 square feet. One half of the lots are below 7,500 square feet.

 

Kenny Hill, Civil Engineer, of Poe and Associates representing the applicants told the Commission that there are a total of 172 lots on the plat. He submitted a spreadsheet to the members of the Sunflower Estates Lot Area Summary. The square foot total of all the lots is correct and the average lot size is 8,389 square feet. He figured there were 27% of the lots that were 7,200 square feet, and he said he was never given the 7500 to prepare the map. Adjustments were made to put the cul-de-sac in place, and he has some lots shown at less than 7200 not knowing that that was what had been agreed to. As far as the 160 lots, there has never been a plan submitted containing only 160 lots. This plan has been revised a number of times but the lot count has always been up around 170. Dave Martine asked how many lots there are now. Kenny Hill answered 172 total. He stated that he has made numerous changes to this plat at the recommendation of the subdivision committee. Lynn Heath said if this is passed as individual items tonight then presented to the city council as a package, then that should answer their questions.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath that after reconsidering an annexation of the McFadden property that the Planning Commission re-recommend to the governing body that the Sunflower Addition also known as the McFadden property be annexed into the city limits contingent upon the zoning. John McEachern said the applicant misrepresented the total number of homes and the size of the lots. Les Mangus made a point of order asked if there was not a second on the motion. Second made by Charles Malcom. Discussion continued about the information being presented by the applicant should match the paperwork. The motion was restated and the second was reaffirmed for the record. The motion carried 7-0.

Joe Robertson asked if the motion is ambiguous to the city council.

 

 

 

Quentin Coon stated that they are moving on to Agenda Item number 6 to reconsider case number Z-2002-02 the application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture to B-5 Highway Business District (Tract 1- 7.97 acres), and B-3 Central Shopping District with Special Use for Mini Storage Facility (Tract 2 - 8.56 acres)

 

Les Mangus clarified that the Commission is just resubmitting the same recommendation that was made at the last meeting, which was contingent on satisfactory platting.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath was restated to include the approval contingency on satisfactory platting. Motion re-seconded by Mr. Martine. The motion carried 7-0.

 

Z-2002-02 the app. for change in zoning from BuCo Ag to B-5 Highway Business District (Tract 1- 7.97 acres), and B-3 with Special Use for Mini Storage Facility (Tract 2 - 8.56 acres)

 

 

Z-2002-04 to reconsider the application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District on 57.22 acres South of US 54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Road.

 

Chairman Coon referred to the minutes of the previous meeting, which stated the single condition upon approval of platting. Lynn Heath stated that the concerns about lot size should be reserved for the Preliminary Plat. There was general discussion about the Planning Commission's ability to control the project at the platting stage. Ron Roberts read from Section 108 Manufactured Home Subdivision District, in the first paragraph states that "this district is designed to provide for a medium density area of individually owned lots planned for all types of manufactured or modular homes on permanent type enclosed foundations". Mr. Roberts does not believe that at the planning stage there is any way to control the type of homes being put on these lots other than by the applicant's word. He further stated that the Planning Commission does not have to approve every application it reviews.

 

Les Mangus stated he has knowledge of 2 manufactured housing subdivisions, one near Derby that is complete, and it is the only one he as known that is from start to finish manufactured homes on individually owned lots. He knows of one other that started out as a manufactured house subdivision that partially through the process, converted over to a manufactured home park through rezoning. Mr. Mangus further clarified that once an area is zoned for manufactured housing or modular home it cannot contain stick built houses. There is a great distinction between modular and manufactured. Manufactured is built to the HUD codes, Modular is built to whatever other codes there are for modular homes. In our case it is UBC built homes.

 

Ron Roberts stated there is not the option at this time of zoning this area with a Protective Overlay. Dave Martine stated he thought this case would only be approved upon platting.

 

Les Mangus stated there are several ways to put restrictions on a plat. Lot sizes are obviously platted. The only way they could be made smaller is to lot split or re-plat, either way, the case would come back to the Planning Commission. So the lot size is locked in to the 7,200 square foot minimum, or larger. Regarding the types of homes, the garages, the UBC homes, both Bob Kaplan and City Attorney Norman Manley are comfortable with covenants. Mr. Mangus stated that the Commission should not approve the plat until they have received a satisfactory covenant and that any aggrieved party can try covenants, whether it be the neighbors, city, or the county attorney. There was general discussion about the enforcement of restrictive covenants and the future image of Andover. Les Mangus stated that there is no different control system in an R-2 neighborhood with covenants. Lynn Heath stated he just wants to keep singlewide mobile homes out of the Sunflower Addition. John McEachern stated that at the last meeting he asked for clarification from Mr. Kaplan about the fact that the only difference in this type of zoning allows for smaller lots.

 

Bob Kaplan stated that for the Planning Commission to deny the zoning on a plat they have not seen is not fair and that if they don't like the covenant on a property, then don't approve the plat.

 

Les Mangus stated in his opinion the only difference between the zoning regulations and a covenant is the site of the venue when it comes to court, whether it is Municipal Court or District Court. Mr. Mangus stated that on a P.U.D. the Commission and the applicant could agree upon the terms. Joe Robertson asked for clarification on R-2, which has a note of manufactured homes being allowed, and must be located on a minimum of 20,000 square foot lot. Mr. Mangus said this is correct but the issue is not that clear. Page 4-3, 102-C allows a manufactured home that is not on a foundation, and anything that meets HUD code in an R-2 zoned lot.  A residential designed manufactured home that meets the standards met by the state, 22' wide minimum 40' long, pitched roof, comparable siding, comparable windows, can be placed in any R-2 platted zone that does not have a covenant that would forbid it.

 

Motion by Joe Robertson that having considered the evidence in the factors of the re-zoning application I Joe Robertson move that we recommend to the Governing Body Z- 2002- 04 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County Agriculture District to R-2 District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Mr. Mangus stated that this change cannot be made. The application was for MH-2, not R-2 and the Table of Comparability does not allow the Commission to shift from the MH-2 that was applied for to R-2. Motion died for the lack of a second.

Z-2002-04 to reconsider the application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District on 57.22 acres South of US 54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Road.

 

 

 

I, Ron Roberts move that we recommend to the Governing Body case number Z- 2002-04 not be approved to change the zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture District to MH-2 district based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing specifically:

1.      4- No, the request would not correct an error in the application of these regulations.

2.      5- No, there are no changing conditions.

3.      11- Yes, the subject property is suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted.

4.      12- The extent the approval of the zoning request would detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood is perceived as being with access, traffic concerns, and some safety issues.

5.      15- The opposition to the request is perceived as being the property valuation, loss of rural character. The Planning Commissions input was opposition was increased traffic, density, going out of state for the construction of the homes, older homes going in than the other ones that were approved in platting.

Motion seconded by John McEachern.

There was general discussion about R-2 and MH-2 zoning and the enforcement of any imposed restrictions. Chairman Coon asked for a roll call vote of the Commission on this issue. Nay votes were recorded from Dave Martine, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Joe Robertson, and Charles Malcom. Yea votes were recorded from John McEachern and Ron Roberts. Motion failed by the vote of 5-2.

 

Lynn Heath asked for a list of restrictions. John McEachern asked for how to enforce and other options in writing & who to enforce.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to have staff defer this to legal counsel and planning consultant to have reported in writing, how to control Modular Homes, UBC standards, 2 car attached garage, no lots less than 7,500 square feet, number of lots, and a plat, restrict houses of 1,267 or more and to table Z-2002-04 until the next meeting or when the Commissioners have the answers to their requests. Dave Martine seconded motion. Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

Chairman Coon asked for a 5-minute recess at 9:00 p.m.

Chairman Coon called the meeting back to order at 9:10 p.m. of the Andover Planning Commission.

 

 

 

Review case Z-2002-05 for Harvey Ellis property, Andover Lakes Estates. This case is a public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County agriculture to R-2, R-3, B-2, B-3, and R-4, could not be heard, as the application for annexation was not received by the city at the time of this hearing. Motion by Lynn Heath to table this case until August 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7-0.

Review case Z-2002-05 for Harvey Ellis property, Andover Lakes Estates.

 

 

Review case VA-2002-02 for Shawn Miller of 220 Bent Tree Court, Lot 26, Block 2, Green Valley 4th Addition- recommendation on the vacation of the north 10 feet of the 20 foot rear yard utility easement to allow for the installation of an in ground pool. Les Mangus received communication from Westar Energy stating that they have no opposition to the vacation of this 10 feet. Mr. Mangus received a verbal confirmation from Cox Communications that they had no objections and said they would send written confirmation. 

Les Mangus stated that the lot backs up to the municipal golf course and substantial drainage exists between these two properties. John McEachern stated he knows the applicant and will still vote on this case. Dave Martine had concerns about the drainage in the area. Shawn Miller said that it would not change after construction.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to recommend the vacation of 10 feet of the 20 foot rear yard easement at 220 Bent Tree Court be approved. Motion seconded by Charles Malcom. Joe Robertson abstained from voting. Motion carries 6-0 with 1 abstention.

Review case VA-2002-02 for Shawn Miller of 220 Bent Tree Court, Lot 26, Block 2, Green Valley 4th Addition- recommendation on the vacation of the north 10 feet of the 20 foot rear yard utility easement

 

 

Motion by Charles Malcom to Recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

Public Hearing for case number BZA-V-2002-04 on an application for variance of the required 25 foot front and rear building setbacks to 5 feet on the front and 20 feet on the rear in the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District at 200 block of East Lafayette Street. Russ Ewy with Baughman Co. P.A. in Wichita, who is the agent for the applicant, Scott Bishop, answered general questions of the Commissioners about the plat. He said they want to develop this property with 3- 4 plex units and the legal number of parking spaces per unit. Mr. Ewy said this variance being approved would be similar to the character of the existing neighborhood. He further stated that this zoning code does not apply to this part of town.

 

Les Mangus stated this property was zoned Multi-Family nearly 2 years ago and has been the subject of some grants from the Kansas Dept. of Commerce and Housing. Most of the homes in this area have some sort of non-compliance according to today's regulations due to the age of the neighborhood. There was general discussion about the possibility of building 3 being moved north 5 feet.  Scott Bishop, the owner of the property addressed the Commission to explain the plot in further detail and of future development of the property.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is required for there to be 2 designated parking spaces per dwelling.

 

 There was general discussion about cause and effect of zoning decisions. Mr. Ewy stated that Building 3 faces the south toward the street. Buildings 1 and 2 will face each other with the front doors facing internally. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 will not have rear doors or patios, gazebos or balconies. They will have windows. Quentin Coon asked what the distance was to the railroad right of way northeast corner of building 3 is. Russ Ewy said that it is approximately 20 feet. He further stated that there is considerable space between the pavement and the building face on Lafayette. There was general discussion of the paving on Lafayette. Mr. Mangus stated that the application was for a variance of the front and year yards from the 25-foot to minimum to a 5' front yard setback for Building 3, a 15' front yard setback for Building 2, and a 20' rear yard setback for Building 1.  Chairman Coon stated the Commission needed to go through the checklist.

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

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.

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

2.      The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Agree.

3.      The strict application of the provisions of these

 

4.      regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property.      owner represented in the application. Agree.

5.      The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; Agree and

6.      Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations. Agree.

 

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

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

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. Yes. Les Mangus said that in his conversation with the applicant, is other option is to go taller with the buildings. R-3 allows for 45-foot maximum height.

3.      The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located,  Yes, it will be less injurious, and

4.      The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Les Mangus stated a point of clarification that the applicant owns the adjacent to the south of the 3rd proposed unit as well. Another adjacent property owner setback from the property line is only 2 1/2 feet. Scott Bishop stated that this plat has been planned so that it does not look like row housing. Yes.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to approve BZA-Z-2002-04 as requested for the variance of the front and year yards from the 25-foot to minimum to a 5' front yard setback for Building 3, a 15' front yard setback for Building 2, and a 20' rear yard setback for Building 1. Motion was seconded by Dave Martine. Motion carried 7-0.

 

Public Hearing for case number BZA-2002-05 on an application for variance of the sign regulations limitation of one ground, pole, or monument sign in the B-1 Office Business District to allow a second sign at 517 West Central Ave. 

 

 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments after the applicant's presentation.

 

Don Kimble, Andover, Kansas resident is representing Gary and Cathy Harmon of the Andover Veterinary Clinic. Dave Martine stated for the record that he knows the applicant but that fact won't affect his judgment on this case. The other Commissioners stated the same fact and said this would not affect their judgment. Don Kimble stated that the Site Plan Review Committee has approved this plan. The applicant is asking for a 6x4 monument sign with "Andover Boarding Kennel" on both sides. Les Mangus said the existing sign is a legal non-conforming pole sign, which was there before the Zoning Regulations changed which limited the sign height to 10 feet. Mr. Kimble said the present signage is an inconvenience for the staff and customers. He showed the Commissioners pictures depicting the view of the sign from Central Ave. and the conflict with the landscaping and screening wall adjacent to the west.

 

There was general discussion about the sign view and the options for changes. Les Mangus stated that the B-1 Zoning District Regulations limit the owner to one ground, pole or monument sign and this application is for 2 signs. This situation is similar to the one presented by the Wichita Clinic and the bank. Charley Lewis asked the Chairman for a point of clarification regarding whether the sign being lowered, will improve or harm the visibility issue. Les Mangus stated there is a 100 square foot maximum surface area for signage. These 2 signs together total 96 square feet.

 

Chairman Coon stated the Commission needed to go through the checklist.

 

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

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.

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

2.      The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Agree.

3.      The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application. Agree.

4.      The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; Agree and

5.      Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations. Agree.

 

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

1.       

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. Yes

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. Yes. It is more for the convenience of the public.

3.      The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located,  Yes, and

4.      The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Yes.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson approve BZA- 2002-05 in regards to the variance to the sign regulations of limitation of 1 ground, pole, or monument sign in the B-1 Office Business District and to allow a second sign at 517 W. Central as described by the applicant/ agent. Motion was seconded by Charles Malcom. Motion carried 7-0.

 

Les Mangus said that it is the applicant's choice whether to return to the Site Plan Committee or to comply with their first ruling to have 2 similar type monument signs.

BZA-V-2002-04 on an application for variance of the required 25 foot front and rear building setbacks to 5 feet on the front and 20 feet on the rear in the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District at 200 block of East Lafayette Street.

 

 

Public Hearing for Case BZA-V-2002-06- Andover Plaza, variance of the 10 foot maximum height sign in the B-4 Central Business District at 500- 600 N. Andover Rd. and 200 E. Central to allow replacement of the existing 9'x30' sign on Andover Rd. with a 10'x 20' sign, and replacement of the existing 8'x 16' sign on Central Ave. with a 10'x20' sign.

 

Tony Utter, who lives in Wichita, is the Vice President of Transamerican Management Co., who manages and leases the Plaza Shopping Center at Central and Andover Road. Their goal is to attract new tenants to the center. Included in that is the plan is to improve the appearance of the center which includes the signs located on Andover Road and on Central. The existing sign on Andover Road is 30 feet high. They have been before the Site Plan Review Committee and will return to them on August 6, 2002. There was general discussion about the character of the existing signage in the area. He stated that according to the Andover Sign Code, any sign, which is more than 200 feet from the intersection, is limited in height to 10 feet. He stated that these are the only 2 signs owned by the center. Lynn Heath asked the applicant if they plan on allowing other tenants to own their own signs. Mr. Utter stated that they don't want other signage competing with theirs and he does not believe the sign code would allow for more. Les Mangus responded to the issue of the number of signs on this particular property.

 

Mr. Mangus said this property is at the maximum for number of signs. The code allows for 1 sign per 300 feet of street frontage and that maximum height is 10 feet because of their distance from the intersection at Central and Andover Road.  He is of the opinion that this case should not be on the same playing field as a business with only a single lot that is only 100 feet wide.

Dave Reilly from George Lay Signs addressed the Committee stated that the other option would be to have 2 signs which are 10 feet high.

 

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

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.

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

2.      The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Agree.

3.      The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application. Agree this plan is better than having 2 signs.

4.      The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; Agree and

5.      Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations. Agree.

 

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

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

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. Yes. It is more for the convenience of the public and for an improved appearance.

3.      The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located,  Yes, and

4.      The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Yes.

 

Joe Robertson asked the applicant if the replacement signs

would be placed in the exact same location. Dave Reilly said they would be in order to use the existing wiring.

 

Dave Martine asked if the signs have to go to the Site Plan Committee. Les Mangus stated that these signs have already been through this process and will be back at the next meeting with more details.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to approve BZA-V-2002-06 in regards to the Public Hearing on the application for variance of the 10-foot maximum height sign in the B-4 Central Business District at 500- 600 N. Andover Rd. and 200 E. Central to allow replacement of the existing 9' x 30' sign on Andover Rd. with a 10' x 20' sign, and replacement of the existing 8' x 16' sign on Central Ave. with a 10' x 20' sign. Motion seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carries 7-0.

Public Hearing for Case BZA-V-2002-06- Andover Plaza, variance of the 10 foot maximum height sign in the B-4 Central Business District at 500- 600 N. Andover Rd. and 200 E. Central

 

 

Review the final plat of the Summerfield Addition. Russ Ewy, agent for the applicant, with Baughman Co. P.A., who stated that this item, was heard at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. In the staff comments there were 4 items that Mr. Mangus listed that have been taken care of which are as follows:

1.      Lot line dimension that was missing on the west side.

2.      Building setback line shown on the plat out of habit.

3.      Alterations to the vicinity map. Revised copies of all these things that have been changed submitted to Mr. Mangus today.

4.      The dedication of minimum half-street right of way was discussed at the Subdivision Committee. All the street right of ways in this area are 60 feet right of ways. The applicant has asked that this provision be waived. He stated the Subdivision Committee did not have a problem with this. Dave Martine asked if there is a preliminary drainage plan on file. Mr. Ewy said that there is.

5.       

Motion by Joe Robertson to approve the final plat of the Summerfield Addition as all 4 items has been cured and there are no additional items necessary. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 7-0. Les Mangus stated that the Secretary's  name on the plat would be corrected.

Review the final plat of the Summerfield Addition.

 

 

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision.

There was general discussion as to whether the applicant met all the requests by the Subdivision Committee. Ron Roberts stated that this case was referred to the Planning Commission without recommendation due to the lack of appropriate access to Yorktown, sidewalks, and density issue.

 

Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates, the representative of the applicants, which are the McFadden's, stated that he has the list of 15 staff comments and wants to discuss them individually for the Commissioners recommendations. The plan that was taken to the Subdivision Committee did address these items. .

1.      Eliminated a long cul-de-sac on Bridget Street and changed the one on Darlene.

2.      Enlarged all the lots from the original plan to a minimum of 7,200 square feet.

3.      Provided 100-foot depth minimum on the lots on Anna Drive.

4.      Changed some street names.

5.      Added a statement about financing that the commercial part will be petitioned through the city for improvements, and that the residential part would either be petitioned or developed and financed privately.

6.      Noted that there would be cross lot access on all the commercial lots.

7.      Have provided a preliminary drainage plan.

8.      Have identified the homes to remain on the side

9.      Noted that the intersection at Kellogg, Bridget Lane, will be right in and Right out only.

10.  Looked at the sewer and water extensions to assure that it is sufficient.

11.  Density on this plan is 3.21 Dwelling Units per acre.

12.  After the Subdivision Committee meeting, the plan was revised so that the street is tied in at Minneha. The ultimate plan is to direct the majority of the traffic onto Kellogg via Yorktown Road. 

13.  Calculated the area of all the lots within the addition and submitted copies to the Commission. The spreadsheet contains incorrect numbers. Mr. Hill stated that 27% of the lots on this plan are 7,200 square feet. 43% are over 8,000 square feet, and 44 lots above 9,000 square feet, 23 lots above 10,000 square feet. If Mr. McFadden is limited to only 160 lots, Mr. Hill said this would hurt his plan.

14.  Provided a concept drawing that shows parking, area designated for mailboxes, drainage, and space for a future recreation area.

 

Mr. Hill stated that the developer has agreed to limit the housing to those complying with the UBC, including 2-car garage, and Mr. Hill suggested an 1100 square foot minimum floor area, but Mr. McFadden had proposed a 1,265 square foot minimum floor area. The developer has also agreed to provide temporary access to Kellogg until the rest of the streets are done.

Mr. Hill asked the Commission for guidance as to what they want to see on this plat. Joe Robertson asked if there were any sidewalks. Mr. Hill replied that there are no sidewalks proposed in this plan. Les Mangus stated this is except for the one that will be required on Yorktown Road . Dave Martine clarified that the stoplight is planned for Yorktown and Kellogg intersection.

There was general discussion about the hedgerow along Yorktown Road, and the plans or the reserve property. Les Mangus stated they are showing a 70-foot right of way from the section line, which is the center of the hedgerow, and they show a 20-foot reserve strip which makes for flexibility in designing the streets to preserve trees. This will be a 37 foot back to back curb and gutter street.

Les Mangus encouraged the Commission to view this project in the futuristic in the sense that there will be a connection at Minneha, one at Yorktown, and there will be another at Anna Street. Drivers will have options, to exit onto Minneha or onto Kellogg at a fully signalized intersection. There is an application in to the Kansas Department of Transportation now for providing for 75% funding for the Yorktown and U.S. 54 intersection. Preliminary approval has been received. City Council will have to address the question as to whether they require that connection or hold it as a petition for future construction. Dave Martine asked why there are no sidewalks. Ken Hill responded that there will be one on Yorktown and one on Cloud Avenue. There was general discussion about how all the sidewalks would tie in to a system, which would connect the schools. 

 

Dave Martine asked if there would be an entry monument. Tim McFadden said he has not gotten that far. Mr. Hill stated that the reserve land is for entry monuments, and mailboxes.  There was general discussion about the quality of this subdivision and the density issue. Chairman Coon asked if a sidewalk can be built up to the curb. Les Mangus answered yes it has to be 6 feet wide. By ADA standards a sidewalk has to be 5 feet wide so that 2 wheelchairs may pass. If you place that adjacent to the street, you have to add one foot.

 

There was general discussion about sidewalks in this subdivision. Les Mangus suggested they follow Anna Drive all the way around on it's length and then make a connection on Minneha over to Yorktown. Tim McFadden said this idea makes his development more expensive. Lynn Heath said the Commission has set some standards for there to be sidewalks in each neighborhood for people to travel on.

 

Les Mangus quoted some research he had done on the density issue Cloud City 4.43 dwelling units per acre, Caywood 1st Addition 4.18 dwelling units per acre, this one est. 3.21, the minimum lot size at Reflection Lake is 7,800 square feet. In the Caywood Addition there are only sidewalks on the collector street.  Les Mangus stated that Caywood Addition has 167 lots on 56.1 acres. John McEachern still not convinced that we need this many small lots in the City of Andover.

Les Mangus stated that Overland Park is the fastest growing community in Kansas containing 40 % of their housing stock is multi-family. And that is a higher density than is what is being requested with the Sunflower Addition. Les Mangus stated that his only reservation with this plan is of the layout of the streets and utilities and Ken Hill has not had the base to start from without tonight's Planning Commission approval.  Dave Martine asked Tim McFadden about his plans to develop the greenspace. Mr. McFadden responded that if this subdivision is done with private money then it will be done in phases estimating 50 homes per phase.

Dave Martine asked where in Phase 1 the traffic will enter. Tim McFadden answered there will be a temporary access through the Commercial area to U.S. 54 and, Bridget Lane will also go out to Hwy. 54. Mr. McFadden said the first thing they plan to do is to petition the City for Cloud Ave. then Cloud, Anna, and Bridget will be constructed to support this development. Commercial is being planned to begin before the residential. He is not planning a frontage road along Hwy. 54. There was general discussion about the drainage of this subdivision and its planned pond.

The consensus of the Committee was to prepare for Tim McFadden a suggested list of improvements in the plat which include:

Sidewalks around Anna Drive up to Cloud Avenue, and on Minneha

1.      Lot size of 7,500 square foot minimum, and not to exceed 172 total lots. John McEachern still did not agree with the total number of lots.

2.      Access to Yorktown on the projected Minneha Ave.

Tim McFadden stated that Reserve D is planned for mailboxes and an entry monument.

Joe Robertson stated that when this project goes to the Subdivision Committee meeting that this revised preliminary plat could be made available to neighbors at McCandless, so they understand the plan in advance and have time to ask questions. Lynn Heath asked that when the legal consultant prepares its report on this issue, that it be released to the public.  Jeff Bridges stated that he wants the applicant and the public to be aware of all current information.

Motion made by Lynn Heath to continue the last 2 items on the agenda until the next meeting. The motion died for lack of a second.

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision.

 

 

 

Dave Martine asking Staff to have a "Potential Residential Development Summary" report issued monthly.

 

 

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to authorize a Public Hearing to consider the changes to the Zoning Regulation revisions to the R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk Regulations. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

Motion by John McEachern to table the review of the information on the Protective Overlay District and consider a change to the Zoning Regulations. Motion seconded by Joe Robertson. Motion carried 7-0.

Protective Overlay

 

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 7-0.

Adjourn