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