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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 20, 2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met August 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, David Ledgerwood, John McEachern, and David Martine. Members Joe Robertson, Charles Malcom, and Ron Roberts were absent. Others in attendance were the City Council Liaison Ben Lawrence, Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Deborah Carroll, Administrative Secretary. 

 

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

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

·        Lynn Heath stated that on page 6, Item 7 the words "final plat" should be corrected to say "preliminary plat".

·        Lynn Heath stated that on page 7, the statement that reads "keep single wide mobile homes out of Andover" should have been "keep single wide mobile homes out of the Sunflower Addition".

·        Lynn Heath stated that on page 9, in the motion stating "Joe Robertson abstained from voting. Second by John McEachern." should have stated "Second by Charles Malcom".

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission as revised. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.  

Review the minutes of the July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the August 6, 2002 Site Plan Review Committee were reviewed as well as the minutes of the August 13, 2002 Subdivision Committee. The minutes were accepted as reviewed.

 

Lynn Heath stated that the Planning Commission has never received the minutes of the July 9, 2002 and the August 13, 2002 City Council meetings. Lynn Heath stated those were the minutes that discussed the City Council returning the McFadden property issue to the Planning Commission. Jeff  Bridges said that this case was heard at the Planning Commission meeting in June, was acted on by the City Council at their first meeting in July, then the Planning Commission is waiting for an opinion from legal council on the plat conditions, tabled the item.

 

Chairman Coon noted that City Council meeting minutes were accepted from July 30, 2002.

Minutes:

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports: Les Mangus said the Commissioners were given the Lot Activity Report which records all the subdivisions, how many lots were platted, how many building permits were issued, and percentages that have certificates of occupancy and are complete. Also included is the continuation of the memo from Bickley Foster regarding the McFadden Annexation and zoning cases. Mr. Mangus stated there is also a copy of the resignation letter from Joe Robertson, which is effective immediately. This will create a vacancy on the Planning Commission and attendance will be very important until the vacancy is filled.

 

Chairman Coon stated that agenda items 5, 6, and 7 are all related. Mr. Coon summarized the Commissions concerns from the previous meeting, which were as follows:

1.      How do we insure that only modular homes are built in that area?

2.      The density issue.

 

Les Mangus said that these cases need to be separated and considered on their own merits, annexation apart from each of the zoning cases. The Commission has the option of sending the original motion on annexation back to the City Council stating that nothing has changed or it can be reconsidered and a new motion can be made.

 

Dave Martine asked if Mr. Mangus had received the opinion from the attorney. Les Mangus said the only issue here is with the MH-2 application, which does not have anything to do with the annexation, other than the applicant does not want to be annexed unless he gets a satisfactory zoning. That is something that can be taken up at the council level.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to resubmit the same motion that was made at the June/July meeting because there is no change and is quoted as follows:

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

 

CONDITIONS:            Contingent on approval of the platting.

 

The findings are #6- Sewage, Water, and Streets can be provided; #9- no MH-2 property is available in the area; & #13 this change would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district classifications of these regulations. If the plat is not approved, then MH-2 is not approved. Motion seconded by Dave Martine. After general discussion, the motion passed 4-2."

 

July meeting-

Motion by Lynn Heath that after reconsidering an annexation of the McFadden property that the Planning Commission re-recommends 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 and 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.

 

Dave Martine seconded the motion. There was general discussion about the letter received from Bickley Foster in regard to McFadden's MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District which was received on August 16, 2002. John McEachern quoted from Bickley Foster's memo the paragraph stating "Mr. Foster would recommend the Council not annex the land and possibly that of the accompanying case without prejudice and provide the opportunity to reapply again without another filing fee. The earliest meeting the applicant could re-file would be October when the revised R-1, R-2, and Protective Overlay District would be in place. If all this procedure is complicated, remember that no matter which recommendation you decide upon other than no annexation, it means that you will need an appropriate set of factors as rational." John McEachern recommended to the Commission that they not approve the annexation and not let him reapply for R-2. Les Mangus referenced Bickley Foster's second memo and said Bickley did not understand that the applicant had agreed to 7,500 square feet minimum lot size, not 8,000 square feet minimum lot size. Then Mr. Foster came back with the opinion that if he has to have 7,500 square feet minimum lot size then it will take a P.U.D. or a Protective Overlay. Chairman Coon called for the vote on the annexation motion and clarified that a yes vote would send this case back to the City Council as a recommendation for annexation.

 

Roll call votes noted as follows: Yes- Dave Martine and Lynn Heath. No- David Ledgerwood, Quentin Coon, and John McEachern. Motion failed 2-3. 

 

Tim McFadden of 703 Dublin Drive addressed the Commission and said that in June this Planning Commission unanimously approved the B-5 zoning and the B-3 with the storage and the annexation. If Staff agrees, go ahead tonight and send this back for annexation on the commercial property as unanimously supported in June, and deny the MH-2 application and the annexation on the back part. Mr. McFadden said the City Council had no problem with the commercial zoning as the Planning Commission approved.

 

Bob Kaplan, representing the applicant, reminded the Planning Commission of their previous vote to approve these cases. He said the applicant has worked for months based on the premise that the City of Andover was going to annex this property, and after voting on the annexation previously you are now denying it. Mr. Kaplan said the MH-2 could be denied, without having to start all over on this project. He understands that the City is probably going to enact a Protective Overlay District. Mr. Kaplan said they can accomplish all the things they can complete this project with all the conditions the Commission wants to impose through the Protective Overlay. He understands this will delay the construction start date because the ordinance is not adopted, but to start over and re-file, and re-notice considering there have been 2 public hearings on this issue already would be unfair. Mr. Kaplan asked the Commission to rescind their motion on the annexation with the recommendation on Agenda Items 6 & 7 subject to the Protective Overlay which incorporates all of the conditions that have been previously agreed upon including the lot size, garages, and the UBC standard homes.

 

Chairman Coon asked Les Mangus for direction on how to proceed. Mr. Mangus said there has been a petition for annexation of the entire McFadden tract. Tim McFadden has just stated that he is willing to modify the petition. Mr. Mangus reminded the Commission that they are only here in an advisory capacity to the City Council. If Mr. McFadden brings another petition that shows only the business area to the City Council, they can act on that. The issue with the MH-2 application, the discussions had with Bickley Foster and Mr. Mangus has relayed them on to Bob Kaplan was that he feels that the Commission could proceed on with the MH-2 as if the Protective Overlay was available to you and just ask the City Council to table the issue until the Public Hearing on changing the regulations to add a Protective Overlay District. And the Council adopts that Protective Overlay District. Then they could modify your recommendation on the MH-2,and add the Protective Overlay to it at that point. That will put the applicant out about 6 weeks from tonight. If you choose not to, then the MH-2 portion of his application be removed without prejudice and then he comes back to you again with a new application for R-2 or MH-2 with a Protective Overlay. There was general discussion about the Staff recommendations.

 

Bob Kaplan asked Chairman Coon for further explanation of his request to rescind the motion on denial of the annexation. There was more general discussion on this annexation and the options. Jeff Bridges stated that the Protective Overlay District is on the zoning case not the annexation case. Les Mangus said that it might be cleaner to keep the 2 cases separate as far as annexation. The applicant has stated previously that he does not want to separate the 2 pieces of property into 2 annexations, he either wants both or neither. Tonight Mr. McFadden has said he is willing to separate those, and that may be the cleanest way to go to annex the business property, make the recommendation on it allowing it to stand on it's own merits, and leave the MH-2 to stand on it's own. There was more general discussion. Lynn Heath stated that the City Council had a problem with the 6,000 square foot lots and wanted it clarified what type of homes would be built in this Subdivision. John McEachern stated again that he wants to follow the advice of Bickley Foster as in his memo to the Commission.  Les Mangus stated that zoning this property as R-2 won't accomplish the 7,500 square foot lot size as desired by this Applicant. The only other option other than the MH-2 with the Protective Overlay would be a PUD in which you would make exception to the minimum lot size down to 7,500 square feet. Bickley Foster did not realize that the applicant was persistent on having 7,500 square feet. Les Mangus said you cannot zone this as R-2 with a Protective Overlay and reduce the lot size to 7,500 square feet. A Protective Overlay District can only be more restrictive. 7,500 square foot lots are less restrictive than 8,000. Jeff Bridges said it provides for a higher density in the platted zone. Les Mangus stated that the current R-2 Zoning provides for 10,000 square foot minimum lots. To restrict an applicant down to 7,500 square feet would be less restrictive because it allows them to plat more lots. More restrictive would be to restrict him to 15,000 square feet. Mr. Mangus further stated the only way to get what the applicant is asking for is to approve the MH-2 with a Protective Overlay, or with a PUD. To do a PUD would require that the present application be removed without prejudice and that a new application be submitted and new notices go out, and another public hearing be heard, in what would now be the October 15 meeting. Jeff Bridges said that what is needed here is not a legal opinion but a planning opinion and let the City Council work out the other issues. Chairman Coon stated he sees two options in this case which are: 1. Sends back the whole case 2. Recommend the Protective Overlay as the project proceeds. John McEachern said that a third option would be to divide the property and recommend the annexation of the business property, and that they don't recommend the annexation of the Manufactured Housing lot, without prejudice, which gives the applicant opportunity to reapply without fees. Lynn Heath said to recommend it with the MH-2 and the Protective Overlay. Chairman Coon stated there has been a vote already not to recommend the annexation. He asked the Commission if they wanted to change their decision. Les Mangus stated that annexation is simply about bringing a piece of property into the City. All of the other questions being asked by the Commission are about zoning. Either make a motion to annex the land or don't and then talk about the zoning cases on their merits. It is the Council's job to decide the annexation. Chairman Coon stated the 3-2 vote would stand.

 

Motion by John McEachern to recommend to the council to not annex the McFadden property and that it is done without prejudice, and the applicant can reapply at a later date. Motion died due to lack of a second.

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to recommend to the Council to annex the business property and to not annex the manufactured housing property without prejudice. Motion seconded by Dave Martine.

 

There was general discussion about the split annexation. Jeff Bridges stated that if this motion passes it allows the Commission to proceed with Agenda Item 6. Les Mangus stated that it would allow the applicant the opportunity to remove his application without prejudice and reapply. Bob Kaplan representing Tim McFadden gave his direction to remove the annexation for the MH-2 tract leaving the tracts for the B-3 and B-5 Zoning Districts as applied for.

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

Review the case Z-2002-02 to Reconsider 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). Returned by the City Council for reconsideration and continued from the last meeting.

 

Lynn Heath made motion to return the case Z-2002-02 to the City Council with the prior recommendation (6/18/02) a favorable recommendation. John McEachern seconded motion. Motion Carried 5-0.

Review the case Z-2002-02 to Reconsider

 

 

Review the case 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 U.S. 54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Road. Returned by the City Council for reconsideration of minimum lot size and the possible creation of a protective overlay zone and continued from the last meeting.

 

Les Mangus stated that Agenda Item number 7 has been removed from the agenda without prejudice by the applicant. Tim McFadden addressed the Commission about Agenda Item number 12 concerning the Sunflower Estates Subdivision. He asked for clarification if scheduled for the next City Council meeting, he would appear for the annexation of the B-5 and B-3 with the special use of the storage facility on it. When that is done, will he need return to the Planning Commission with a preliminary plat for that development or what? Jeff Bridges said he would have to split the plat. Les Mangus stated that the Planning Commission would need to consider taking the plat that has been prepared and splitting it into 2. Or if the applicant wants to hold the 2 together and hold the plat up waiting on the final zoning of the remaining 56 acres. Bob Kaplan asked for Agenda Item number 12 to be considered now in the meeting so they could leave. Chairman Coon with the consensus of the Commission agreed to move the review the Sunflower Estates plat next.

Review the case Z-2002-04 to Reconsider

 

 

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision. Kenny Hill Civil Engineer, of Poe and Associates representing the applicant addressed the Commission about the B-5 and B-3 property. He stated that the conditions the Commission have requested were to have access out to Kellogg, and to have cross lot access on these lots adjacent to Kellogg. Providing utilities in this area will not be a problem. Lynn Heath said there is to be a sidewalk along Cloud Ave. Bob Kaplan stated that if the Commission approves the Preliminary Plat tonight, then they will bring in a Final Plat on the commercial plat and that is all that the Commission will see. Lynn Heath stated that there is temporary access across Lot 2. Kenny Hill said there is a median break on Kellogg that lines up with Lot 2.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision commercial area. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried. 5-0.

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision.

 

 

Review the annexation of the Andover Lakes Estates property, +/- 98.7 acres north of US-54 between Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road. Les Mangus stated this item was continued from the last meeting because the petition for annexation hadn't been filed. The petition is now filed is now prepared for recommendation to the City Council. Staff reports that extension of City water, sewer, and streets are possible from existing systems. Mr. Mangus stated that this annexation would be contiguous to the City now on three sides since the school 160-acre property was finally annexed by the City Council at their last meeting.

 

Motion by John McEachern to recommend the annexation of Andover Lakes property +/- 98.7 acres north of US-54 between Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road. Lynn Heath seconded motion. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the annexation of the Andover Lakes Estates property, +/- 98.7 acres north of US-54 between Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road.

 

 

Z-2002-05 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County agriculture to R-2 Single Family Residential District (Tract 1- 42.44 acres), R-3 Multiple Family Residential  District (Tract 2- 8.85 acres), B-2 Neighborhood Business District (Tract 3- 1.40 acres), B-3 Central Shopping District (Tract 4- 8.24 acres), R-4 Multiple Family Residential District Limited to Assisted Living Facility (Tract 5- 7.81 acres), B-3 Central Shopping District (Tract 6- 29.95 acres). Located between US-54 and Douglas Avenue, and Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road, continued from the last meeting pending petition for annexation. Kenny Hill, Civil Engineer from Poe and Associates, representing the applicant, stated that this application is for all of the quarter section except the part that is platted, that is south of Douglas, west of Yorktown, north of Highway 54, and east of Andover Road, except for a 1-acre tract in the middle that is not owned by the applicant. The proposal is for R-2 zoning for all of the area north of Willowbrook Street, and is to be single family lots with 10,000 square foot lots. Kenny Hill further explained there is an 8.85 acre Multi-Family tract which would be zoned R-3 and would be probably developed as duplexes, 4-plexes, or patio homes. There is a B-2 Neighborhood Business District that is 1.4 acres to act as a buffer between the B-3 Zoning and the single family residential zoning north of that. Tract number 5 is 7.81 acres is proposed to be R-4 zoning but limited to assisted living only. The remaining area in Tract 6 would all be B-3 zoning. The property east of Tract 4 is planned to be a YMCA location. Likely that the construction and signalization of the intersection of Yorktown and Kellogg would be expedited by this development. This might be used by the Sunflower Estates Addition. Two of the developers of this project are here tonight to answer questions. There is an existing lake just north of the highway that is planned to be partially filled in and some of it would be used for drainage, but it would not be a pond, and the pond would be moved to the north as shown in the plan received by the Commission.

 

John Greenstreet representing the owner, stated he is intending, once the zoning is in place, to donate to the YMCA the tract of land suitable to build a new facility on for the City. Chairman Coon asked how many acres the YMCA site would be. Mr. Greenstreet said it would be 3.5 to maximum of 5 acres. It would depend on which facility they intend to use. Lynn Heath asked if the property adjacent to Tract 3 is Butler County or City property. Mr. Greenstreet said it is county zoned and that he is in conversation with the owners about acquiring it.  There was general discussion within the Commission about their concerns of the platting design. Kenny Hill said the plan is to provide a wall as a screen between zoning areas. Jeff  Bridges stated the Planning Commission discussed the plans for the wall, but the recommendation that came out of the Planning Commission was to deny the whole application. John McEachern said that the result of the denial of the application then the Council did not make them put up anything. Mr. Greenstreet said that all they are applying for at this time is zoning and that each tract would have to be platted for it's own specific use. John McEachern said he is concerned that because this is an assisted living facility that there would be increased traffic on Willowbrook and Sunset. John Greenstreet stated that there would need to be some access provided to the north. John Greenstreet stated that Dr. Ellis gave a permanent easement to the north for access to the one acre house site. John McEachern stated that in a letter received by the Planning Commission from Dr. Ellis, it said he would prefer it remain this way. John Greenstreet said that Galloway's Drive would have to eventually have to go all the way north. John McEachern stated he is still concerned with R-4 being next to existing residential. There was general discussion about the options for the platting of Tract 5.

 

Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing.

 

Marci Laffen of 301 S. Sunflower Lane, Lot 7 Willowbrook Addition thanked the Planning Commission for all their hard work. Ms. Laffen stated she does not want to look at a wall across from her home, as she does not consider this to be a buffer. She currently has a wheat/ milo field across the street. Ms. Laffen's other concerns are as follows:

·                    The traffic increase on Willowbrook

·                    The businesses using Willowbrook as a back access

·                    Or residents using it as access to their homes off of Kellogg.

·                    There could be an estimated 85 single-family dwellings in this area. She estimates 10 trips per single family dwelling. Multi family dwellings are estimated to generate 12-24 trips per day.

·                    Ms. Laffen said she spoke to the head director of the YMCA and he said if someone was giving them some land, they would consider developing it. The East side YMCA averages 35,000 members going in and out of their facility per month.

·                    She is also concerned with the crime rate increase if this area is developed as planned. She suggests putting the R-4 zone somewhere else and would rather have R-2 abutting her property.

 

Ernie Johnson of 201 Sunset Drive thanked the Planning Commission for serving the community. He stated that Andover has always been a wholesome, eclectic community. He said the Commission needs direction in planning neighborhoods for the future of Andover. Mr. Johnson showed a map to the audience that shows the Willowbrook neighborhood. He is asking the Commissioners to consider the opinions of adjoining property owners when deciding platting and zoning cases. Mr. Johnson is concerned about the volume of traffic on Willowbrook Street and of the speed that the vehicles would be traveling on it. He further stated that the neighbors in Willowbrook do not want Multi-Family housing next to their homes and that it would create higher taxes to existing homeowners for the schools and etc. Mr. Johnson asked the Commission to consider whether

 

Kenneth Boone, 235 S. Sunset Drive, has lived there for 28 years, and thanked the Commission for their time. He is concerned with the safety issue of the street being planned to run north and south through Tract 1 would dead end into his property. Mr. Boone thinks this could be redrawn. He is asking the Commission to not recommend Tract number 1 as it is currently platted for the reason of safety.

 

Xury Hole, 318 Willowbrook Street, Lot 5, showed the original plat of the Willowbrook Addition dated August 8, 1952. He recited the history of the development. Mr. Hole stated there are a nice row of houses along the south side of the development, which is the north side of Douglas, and is used as a buffer to the mobile home park.  He further enjoys the green area between Andover Road and the first row of mobile homes. Mr. Hole is concerned that R-4 zoning next to his neighborhood is not fair, and that the residents of the Willowbrook Addition would be happier if single family homes were built along both Willowbrook Street and Sunflower Lane. He further stated that the R-4 zoning on this tract should be changed to R-2, which would be more compatible with the surroundings.

 

Valeta Hole, 318 Willowbrook Street, Lot 5, recited notes taken from the December 1996 Planning Commission meeting which are as follows: concerning Andover Crossing: "Mr. Kaplan said these are not to be subsidized housing units. The engineer stated landscape buffering would include a masonry wall along the north side from Andover East to adjacent to Galloway's residence. These are comments from Mr. John Greenstreet, a representative for Dr. Ellis. He said this is a commercial venture, which should do very well. The intent is for the balance of the ground to the hedgerow, which is 1/2 mile, would be filled with single family homes, which would soften the blow. There is 1/4 mile along Highway 54 that he does not know what will happen with it. At this time the plan showed single family homes up to Douglas."  Then Mrs. Hole quoted excerpts from the motion at the 1996 meeting made by Doug Oliver, which are as follows: There will be a landscape buffer in R-4 zoning between it and adjacent property. The site committee should consider the addition of 2 feet to 6-8 feet from Andover Road to the north east corner of multiple families. That the property to the north of this development be considered only for single family residential development, that there never be subsidized tax credit or low income housing unless there is an amendment to the PUD." Mrs. Hole asked the Commission why the agenda for tonight's meeting was not advertised on Channel 7 sooner, and why no "zoning pending" signs were placed in the area. She asked for everyone attending concerning the Andover Lake Estates to stand. A majority of the people in the audience stood.

 

Nancy Brocks, 130 Westview, who stated that her backyard faces the wheat/milo field in question. She is concerned about the issue of multiple family residential assisted living situations in her neighborhood. She has been a health care provider for 15 years. Ms. Brocks stated she is strongly opposed to the R-4 Assisted Living area being placed next to the Willowbrook Addition. She stated there will be the traffic flow from 3 shifts of employees, headlights shining in the windows, delivery and biohazard waste trucks, and that this is not desired traffic through the quiet neighborhood. She said a feasibility study of assisted living facilities would show that they continually have empty beds and are not moneymaking businesses. Ms. Brocks stated that if this facility goes out of business, then the area homeowners would be faced with either another rezoning issue or a different commercial business in that area.

 

John Ewing, 412 Willowbrook, stated that Tract 5 is designed to be too abrupt transition from R-1 to R-4 stating that they object to the R-4 zoning application for Tract number 5, of case number Z-2002-05 that is not compatible with R-1 housing. R-2 housing would be considered compatible. He submitted a statement to the Commission that was signed by 43 of the residents in the area.

 

Mike Owen, 135 Westview Road, who stated he is opposed to having so many businesses next to R-1 housing. He is concerned about all the traffic that the businesses would create would be driving through their quiet neighborhood.

 

Tina Turner, 234 S. Yorktown, was concerned about the lack of access to the business district along Kellogg. She stated drivers have to go 1/2 mile from Andover Road, with only a median break at Archer, and is 1/4 mile from where they are proposing to bring Yorktown down to Kellogg. Ms. Turner said that the traffic that missed the driveway to Dillon’s go through Archer and make a U-turn around the median. She said more traffic in this situation would create more accidents. Ms. Turner further commented that drivers cannot turn east out of that area without going to Andover Road and making a U-turn and turning around. She disagrees with the proposed street running north and south through Tract 1 and dead ending into the middle of the block. Ms. Turner asked the Commission to deny the R-3 zoning which would potentially bring in 48 families if they decide to develop with 4 plexes.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 9:03 p.m. He then called for a recess for 5 minutes.

 

Chairman Coon called the Planning Commission back to order at 9:13 and said they would allow a few more of the publics comments if they were kept short.

 

Marci Laffen, 301 S. Sunflower Lane, has spoken to Ms. Journagen, the owner of Lamar's, who said there are too many businesses in Andover empty now. She stated to build more stores that do not remain in business would take away income from the current business owners in Andover. She also encouraged the public to get copies of the Potential Residential Development report from Staff as it shows that there is only 50% have received a certificate of occupancy.

 

Ernie Johnson, 201 Sunset Drive, said that if this development is completed as promised, there has recently been a sales tax increase to help take care of upgrading of roads. He asked that the Commission not ask current residents to pay for the upgrades of the streets in this new addition.

 

Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates suggested some compromises for this development that might address the concerns of the residents in this area, which are as follows:

·         Provide single-family lots along Sunflower Lane and along Willowbrook Street over to Sunset Drive.

·        Leave the remainder of Tract 5 that is intended for Assisted Living as planned.

·        Change the B-2 zoning to B-1 and extend it across to Tract number 5 which would be B-4.

·        The remaining part would remain the same.

There was general discussion of options for this plat.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 9:21 p.m. Mr. Coon asked if any of the Commissioners needed to disqualify themselves.

 

John McEachern stated that he had conversations with Mr. Hole, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Zinn, and Ms. Laffen about this issue, that they did not disclose any information that was not presented during the public hearing, and that it would not affect his decision. Mr. McEachern also stated that he owns property at 151 and 161 Westview Road that does not directly abut this development.

 

Lynn Heath said that he received phone calls on this issue and that it would not change his voting decision.

 

Chairman Coon questioned Les Mangus if this has to be an all or nothing decision. Mr. Mangus said that it is up to the applicant whether to amend his request or not. He said that the Commission could make recommendations on the tracts individually, but it is up to the applicant if he is willing to accept less than what was applied for. Mr. Mangus reminded the Commission about the table of comparability and that it will apply in this case because these are all uses listed as you can move to a lesser zone than what was applied for.

 

Dave Martine asked what the zoning is for the YMCA site area. Les Mangus answered that it is part of Tract 6, B-3 Central Shopping District. Lynn Heath asked Mr. Mangus why Tracts 4 and 6 are separated. Mr. Mangus answered that in the sketch from 6 months ago, Tracts 4 and 6 had different zones. In the latest proposal they have the same zone. Les Mangus said that Dillon’s is zoned B-5, and that B-5 zoning does not include the common service and retail businesses. It is more geared for the highway traffic businesses and that they don't want the threat of a propane construction equipment sales yard being next to their retail store. There was general discussion about how deep business zoning should intrude into residential districts. Les Mangus stated that this project is similar in some ways to the Cloud City development. There was general discussion about the individual tracts in the Andover Lakes Estates development.  Les Mangus stated the existing lake in the plat is larger than shown on the map because the lake does not support itself, due to lack of run off to stay full during the summer, so it dries up. The developer plans to cut it back and make it deeper. Mr. Mangus stated the hydrology says that the runoff area won't support a lake that size so they have scaled it back to fit the amount of runoff. There was more general discussion about this pond and the surrounding traffic and zoning choices.

Z-2002-05 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-05

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Dr. Harvey Ellis

Poe & Associates- Kenny Hill

REQUEST:

Butler Co. Ag. To R-2, R-3, B-2, B-3, and R-4 Assisted Living Facility

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

Between US 54 & Douglas Ave., and Sunset Dr. & Yorktown Rd.

SITE SIZE:

98.7 Acres

PROPOSED USE:

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-2 Hilltop Addition- Developing Single Family Residences

A-1 Agriculture - Sunflower Elementary School

South:

B-3 Cloud City PUD- Undeveloped

R-3 Andover Crossing Apartments

East:

Butler Co. Suburban Residential- Galloway Residence

R-1 Legal non-conforming Countryside Mobile Home Park

Butler Co. Suburban Residential- Bicentennial Addition

West:

R-1 Willowbrook Subdivision.

 

Background Information:

Partially platted as the Willowbrook Addition but vacated in the 1950's.

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Surrounding residential, commercial to the SW, the Sunflower Elementary school to the north of Douglas.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

2.   What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

To the north is R-2, south is B-3 and R-3, west is R-1, east is Butler County Suburban residences.      

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

x

PLANNING:

No.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Developing regional shopping area. Adjacent to new elementary school property.

x

 

PLANNING:

New elementary school north of Douglas, commercial property developing along Kellogg, Dillon’s shopping center has become the center of Andover.  

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Streets, Sewer, and water can be  provided

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Especially where business abuts residential areas

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Similar zoning parcels are available across US-54 in Cloud City

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

10.   If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Services and employment opportunities could be provided.

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Additional traffic, lighting, noise, etc

 

 

PLANNING:

Access, traffic safety, security, and crime

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13.   Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14.   Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

x

 

STAFF:

­Page 8- 13 "commercial expansion on both sides of US 54/ and between Andover Road east to the Augusta airport

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposition- Additional  traffic on Willowbrook Road

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition- Increased traffic, and etc.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

*See Staff Recommendation

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

17.   If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

*Approval conditioned on the limitation of B-2 zoning only adjacent to Willowbrook Street extension in Parcels 3 & 4, and elimination of the street extension which connect parcels 3, 4,, & 6 to Willowbrook Street with access control to parcels 3 & 4 onto Willowbrook Street. And the primary access to Parcel 5 being from US-54 via Sunset Dr. and access control to Sunflower Lane & Willowbrook being limited to one point at the northeast corner of Parcel 5.

 

MOTION:

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body Case No. Z-2002-05 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County Agricultural District to the R-2 District in Tract 1,R-3 in Tract 2 with the duplexes on Willowbrook and the other ones in the middle and the outlet going out to Yorktown instead of Willowbrook, B-1 in Tract 3 which is amended to be running across Willowbrook and would end at the drainage ditch, B-3 in Tract 4 with no outlet to Willowbrook, R-2 in Tract 5 for 2/3 and the other 1/3 be R-3 and all R-2 would face Sunflower Lane and Willowbrook Street, B-3 in Tract 6 with no access to Willowbrook only access to the streets in the other commercial area and Yorktown and Kellogg      based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.

The findings are #5 because of the changing conditions in this area with the elementary school to the north and from the extending commercial on Kellogg and #14 conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and that it is desired to have development to the east and commercial on Kellogg.

 

Motion seconded by John McEachern.

 

The motion passed 5-0. 

 

 

 

Chairman Coon called for a 5-minute recess at 10:18 p.m. Chairman Coon called the Planning and Zoning Commission back to order at 10:30 p.m.

Recess

 

 

Review ZA-2002-01 Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk Regulations. Les Mangus gave the history of this case to the Commission. The last instruction Staff was given was for 12,000 square feet as the change for the R-1 from the existing 20,000 and 75 foot minimum lot width versus the existing 100, and in the R-2 District- 8,000 square feet minimum versus the existing 10,000, and 65 foot minimum lot width versus the existing 75 feet. Also has added in the highway setback which will be added every time a change is made in any zone in the book. Les Mangus further stated there has been a history of approving single family residential R-2 zone PUD's with lot sizes down as low as 7,800 square feet. It seemed as though every case was the exception to get that lot size and the 15-foot side yard on the corner lots. He further stated that there have been no applications for R-1 single family residential zoning in 20 years.

 

Chairman Coon opened up the meeting for Public Hearing.

 

Don Uhlenhop of 612 N. Prosperity Lane, asked John McEachern to read the final paragraph of Bickley Foster's letter to him. "Frankly, what I would do would be to recommend that the Council not annex the land and possibly that of the accompanying case without prejudice and provide the opportunity to reapply again without another filing fee. The earliest meeting that the applicant could re-file for would be October when the revised R-1, R-2 and P-O districts would be in place. If all this procedure is complicated, remember that no matter which recommendation you decide upon other than no annexation, it means that you will need an appropriate set of factors as rational." 

 

Les Mangus stated that the discussion on the changing of R-1 and R-2 regulations have been going on for 6 months. Mr. Uhlenhop stated he is concerned about lot sizes of new developing areas. Les Mangus said the Planning Commission had called the Public Hearing after discussion on the issue by Mike Thompson at the Planning and Zoning Workshop who asked if there is something you are not using why you have it. Mr. Uhlenhop's other concern was of density if the zoning is changed as proposed.

 

Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates said that he is trying to avoid PUD's in residential neighborhoods if the developers could achieve the same goals of the PUD's through the zoning. Mr. Hill said another problem he has is achieving the 15-foot sideyard setback on corner lots. An added problem developers have is of the length of the cul-de-sacs in the Subdivision Regulations.

 

John Laffen of 301 S. Sunflower Lane, said he is against decreasing of minimum lot sizes in the zoning districts. He said he is concerned about the density if this is changed

 

There was general discussion of PUD's and cul-de-sacs. 

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 10:53 p.m.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council as suggested in the draft ordinance number 1179. Motion seconded by John McEachern. There was general discussion about PUD's.  Motion carried 5-0.

Review ZA-2002-01 Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk Regulations.

 

 

VA-2002-03 Recommendation on the vacation of that portion of the Sunset Drive street right of way lying north of the Manor Road intersection at 404 E. Manor Road. Phil Randol, 404 E. Manor Road, addressed the Commission with the history of the area where he lives. Mr. Randol said once this is vacated, that an entry could be made onto Manor Road from the Dr. Ellis adjacent property. Les Mangus said that Westar Energy was the only utility to respond to the notices and that they had no objection to this case. Mr. Mangus stated that half of the right of way would go back to Mr. Randall and half would go to Dr. Ellis.

 

Dave Martine made a motion to recommend the Case No. VA-2002-03, vacation of the property on Sunset Drive to the City Council for approval. Motion seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.

VA-2002-03 Recommendation on the vacation of that portion of the Sunset Drive street right of way

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Green Valley Green Commercial Subdivision. Kenny Hill, Civil Engineer from Poe and Associates, representing the applicant stated that Subdivision Committee has reviewed this plat and had discussions about the access controls to Prairie Dunes and to Onewood. The other access controls have been added to the plans that have been submitted. It was also decided that a traffic study was needed to confirm the location of the access controls and that this has not been received yet. The Subdivision Committee also suggested moving one of the reserves on Onewood Drive to the north, and to move the entry monument toward the residential development north of Tee Time Street.

 

Les Mangus noted there is a right in, right out connection to Kellogg at Prairie Dunes on the plan. Mr. Mangus stated that all developer agreements are City Council decisions. Mr. Mangus said he is reluctant to recommend the approval of this plat without the suggested traffic report and further stated that Onewood will be a signalized intersection until U.S. 54 becomes a freeway. There was general discussion about the intersection on Onewood. Mr. Mangus stated that the city has the approval for the $380,000 grant to improve that intersection with signals.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat of Green Valley Greens Commercial Addition Lots 1 and 2 subject to the traffic report being returned favorable. Motion seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the Final Plat of the Green Valley Green Commercial Subdivision.

 

 

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 3. Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates representing the applicant, stated this is part of an approved Preliminary PUD, is 24.22 acres, 56 single family lots, the average of the total net area of the lots is 11,844 square feet, minimum lot size required is 9,000 square feet. Les Mangus stated that Westar Energy is asking for more easements. Kenny Hill said that would not be a problem. There was general discussion about sidewalks, hedgerows, and the plans for the reserves in the addition.

 

Dave Martine made a motion to recommend acceptance of the Final PUD for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 3 as accepted with the condition of the easements requested by Westar Energy. David Ledgerwood seconded motion. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 3.

 

 

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Roger Cutsinger from Goedecke Engineering representing the owner, Paul Hoover, said that this is a rural subdivision that is in your platting jurisdiction and they have been waiting 18 months due to the county's moratorium on rezoning. Now that it is rezoned, this Commission is hearing the case. From the Subdivision Committee, the only suggestion was to add the setbacks on the pipeline that is shown across Lot 1. This has been done and is shown on the Final Plat. He stated there is controlled access on the north side and the west side and this will force the 3 lots to be accessed off of Blazing Meadows Road which is in place and on the east side of these properties, and there is Rural Water run to these properties at this time. These are 21 acre lots. Les Mangus stated that there have been no comments received from the utility companies at this time. Mr. Mangus said that this Commission would approve this plat but the County Commission, not the City Council, would accept the dedications on it.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Second by John McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Hoover Tracts.

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Roger Cutsinger,  of Goedecke Engineering.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Motion seconded by John McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the Final Plat of the Hoover Tracts.

 

 

Review the information on the Protective Overlay District and set a Public Hearing to consider a change to the Zoning Regulations. Les Mangus stated the Commission has received a letter from Bickley Foster on this issue, and this is his recommendation to ease transitions and micro fit uses into neighborhoods and that he suggests that it is not used on a large scale, and only when a proposal needs refinement. Mr. Foster further stated that the Protective Overlay could only be used to make things more restrictive. It cannot be used to lessen the restrictions in an underlying zone. Jeff Bridges stated that this is the opposite of a PUD. There was general discussion of how this new district might be used. Les Mangus said this is something that can be applied at the time of zoning even if the applicant did not ask for it.

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend this Protective Overlay District be added to the Zoning Regulations, to be granted a Public Hearing at the September 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.

Review the information on the Protective Overlay District and set a Public Hearing to consider a change to the Zoning Regulations.

 

 

Member Items. Dave Martine asked the Commissioners about how to create screening and buffer areas and when should it be done? Les Mangus stated that there are several ways to handle these cases. It could be applied as a condition if it were a special use, or if it is a PUD as a buffer strip between 2 zones, otherwise it should be applied at platting. Mr. Mangus said that it is appropriate to ask for reserves at the time of platting. There was more general discussion on this issue. Les Mangus reminded the Commission that Multi-Family projects must go to the Site Plan Review Committee. 

 

John McEachern said that Doug and Pauline Oliver contacted him with a complaint that people are living in a trailer that is parked on Parallel Drive in their neighbor's driveway. Mr. Oliver is asking for something to be done about this. Les Mangus understood the people are not living in the trailer, that the people that own the house own the motor home. Mr. Mangus said the neighbors seem to be upset about the RV being parked in the driveway but that he has investigated the subject and the trailer is not protruding onto the street. He further informed the Commission that the Regulations state that the trailer may only be parked in that location for 36 hours, and used for habitation during that time. John McEachern asked Mr. Mangus to follow up on this. Les Mangus said that the Code Enforcement Officer has already checked this out and that no one is living in the trailer. Jeff Bridges asked if the trailer was plugged into the house.

 

Lynn Heath asked if a new secretary for the Planning Commission needed to be elected. Les Mangus said that it would be necessary tonight.

 

Lynn Heath nominated Dave Martine as Secretary for the Planning Commission. A Motion was made by Lynn Heath for nominations to cease. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0.  A Motion was made by Lynn Heath to approve Dave Martine for Secretary of the Andover Planning Commission. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0

Member Items.

 

 

Adjourn.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.

  

_____________________________________

Deborah Carroll, Administrative Secretary

Adjourn.