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

 ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

December 17,2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were Clark Nelson, John McEachern, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, Dave Martine, Charles Malcom, and City Council Liaison Sheri Geisler.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges.  Commission Member David Ledgerwood was absent.

 

Call to Order

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Coon announced the resignation of David Ledgerwood from the Planning Commission due to his move from the Planning Area.

 

 

Review the minutes of the November 19, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Motion by Charles Malcom to approve the minutes as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Ron Roberts abstained from voting because he did not attend the November meeting. Motion carried 5/0.

 

Review minutes of the Nov. 19, 2002 meeting.

·        Les Mangus reported the progress of the survey of other jurisdiction's residential zoning regulations requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting has been solicited and the findings will be submitted at the January meeting.

·        Mr. Mangus further stated over 200 single family building permits have been issued this year. He also reminded the Members of the vacancy created on the Commission and asked for nominations to fill the position be given to Mayor Bush directly.

·        Sheri Geisler stated the Annual Employee Appreciation Dinner is scheduled for January 10, 2003 from 5:30 - 9:30 p.m. at the Prairie Rose Chuckwagon Supper.

Staff Communication and Reports

·        Review of City Council meeting minutes of November 12, 2002, November 19, 2003, and November 26, 2003. Chairman Coon noted they are accepted as presented.

·        Review of Subdivision Committee minutes of September 10, 2003. Chairman Coon noted they are accepted as presented.

·        Review of the Site Plan Review Committee minutes of October 1, 2002 and November 5, 2002. Chairman Coon noted they are accepted as presented.

 

 

Case Z-2002-06: Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition district to R-1 Single Family Residential District by Daniel Flisram of 306 W. Feather Place, to build a 24' x 30' detached garage 10' off the side property line.

 

Daniel Flisram of 306 W. Feather Place addressed the Commission asking for the zoning change on his property stating it would look better for the neighborhood to have the garage a little further from the house. He is also planning to build a patio in that area. Chairman Coon clarified that Mr. Flisram lives on the northwest corner of Feather and Daisy Lane. Mr. Flisram said he needs additional garage space to put his vehicles into and to store his woodworking tools. The privacy fence is not planned to be moved, and the new garage will abut it. The garage will have a double door to the back, 2 windows, a side door, 16' steel door in the front, cement siding will be put on, and a Heritage roof to match the house. Southwestern will build the structure. Chairman Coon asked for any other comments from the Public. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing on the case.

Review case Z-2002-06 Public Hearing / 306 W. Feather Place

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-06

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Daniel Flisram

 

 

REQUEST:

Zoning district classification change from A-1 to R-1

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Recently annexed suburban neighborhood

 

 

LOCATION:

306 W. Feather Place- 1 block west of Andover Road & 2 blocks south of U.S. 54

 

 

SITE SIZE:

120' x 152' = 18,240 sq. ft.

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Single family residence (existing) with detached garage (proposed)

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.

 

South:

A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.

 

East:

A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.

 

West:

A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.

 

 

 

Background Information:

Applicant wishes to construct a detached garage closer than the required 20' side yard required in the A-1 bulk regulations. Recent annexation brings all properties into the City with A-1 zoning.

 

 

 

* 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 an 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:

Suburban single-family neighborhood built in the 1950's with private sewer & water with gravel streets.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

The property was recently annexed and given legal non-conforming A-1 zoning.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

The property is served by private on-site water & sewer disposal systems not in compliance with modern codes.

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur with staff- Public sewer will be supplied in the future.

 

 

 

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:

Dedication of street right of way to minimum standard 32' half R/W.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

Does not meet the 5 acre minimum lot size.

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Would not affect other property.

 

 

 

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:

The subject property does not meet the minimum lot size of 20,000-sq. ft. for the R-1 district.

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

 

PLANNING:

None was stated.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Approval of change to R-2 because of lot size, contingent on Right of Way dedication.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived.

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Motion by John McEachern to approve the request for change in zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition district by Daniel Flisram at 306 W. Feather Place to modify to an R-2 Single Family Residential zone with the condition upon the dedication of the 32' road right-of-way. Reasons supporting the motion were #13- the subject property does not meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. for the R-1 District; #7 contingency upon the dedication of street right-of-way to minimum standard 32' half R/W; #5 the property does not meet the minimum lot size for A-1 zone; #17 No detriment to the public is perceived. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7/0. Mr. Flisram stated he was in agreement of the amendment to his application from R-1 to R-2.

 

 

Case Z-2002-07: Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from R-1 Single Family Residential District to R-3 Multiple Family Residential District by Stan Lawrence at 116 W. Willow Road.

 

Applicant Stan Lawrence of 250 Stephanie St. gave the history of this property to the Commission. He is requesting R-3 zoning and stated his intentions are to remain compatible with the neighborhood in the construction of duplexes on this property. There has been no structure on this property since a fire destroyed the previous home. There was general discussion about the 50' gas easement that runs through the property. Mr. Lawrence stated there will be parking for the homes in the rear due to not being allowed to have it built on the gas easement.

 

Les Mangus stated this gas line is a 20" high-pressure natural gas transmission line. The previous owner got the easement reduced down from a blanket easement. There were negotiations between the previous owner and the Gas Company in the 90's trying to reduce the easement from 50', but no changes have been made.

 

Mr. Lawrence said he will be doing the construction on Lot 1, and he is planning to construct a 26' x 68' building.

 

Chairman Coon asked for comments from the Public.

 

Larry Hromek of 202 W. Willow Road, Leroy Addition, which is straight west of the location being petitioned for an R-3 zoning. He stated he was opposed to a 4 family dwelling in an R-1 district and not in favor of multi family housing at all in the area. He feels like this would create too much noise and traffic in the neighborhood.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. There was general discussion about Protective Overlay Districts including the regulation that the district runs with the title of the land, not the owner.

 

Les Mangus stated that Folger's Gymnastics and the school district transportation center both have a parking lot over the gas easement. Mr. Mangus said the gas company is restrictive in what they allow on the easement, but that they do allow some driveways, parking, landscaping.

 

Larry Hromek stated there is a water drainage problem in the area.

 

Jim Gerher of 223 W. Concord, that the lot being built there as a duplex, does give somewhat of a barrier between the commercial and the housing districts. Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.

 

Review case Z-2002-07/ Public Hearing/ Zoning change from R-1 to

R-3/ 116 W. Willow Road.

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-07

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Stan Lawrence

 

 

REQUEST:

Change of zoning district classification R-1 to R-3

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant lot since original single family home burned in the 1990's

 

 

LOCATION:

116 W. Willow Street

 

 

SITE SIZE:

150 X 133'

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Multiple Family Dwelling

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-1 City Hall

 

South:

R-1 Single Family Residence

 

East:

B-1 Office Business

 

West:

R-1 Single Family Residence

 

 

 

Background Information:

 

 

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded an 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:

Vacant lot in a larger lot residential area built in the 1960's- 70's

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

R-1 to the south, west, and north, B-1 to the east.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

Yes, three different owners have been unsuccessful in selling or building for single family.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

X

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:

Water, sewer, and street are in place. A 50' pipeline easement encumbers the subject property.

 

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:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

Not in the immediate vicinity.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Increased traffic & activity

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Increased traffic, activity, and noise

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

Provides buffer from office business to single family residential

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Provides buffer from office business to single family residential & B-1 is a buffer between single family and business.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Increased traffic & activity. Possible devaluation of nearby property.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

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:

A sketch of the subject property with the pipeline easement & building setback lines is available.

 

 

 

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:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Clark Nelson to approve case number Z-2002-07 to change the zoning classification as requested on the basis of #3 that 3 different owners have been unsuccessful in selling or building for single family, #6 that public utilities are in place and that a 50' gas pipeline encumbers the subject property, and #14 that this development will provide a buffer from office business to single family residential and to subject to a Protective Overlay District which would restrict the property may not be used for more than a 2 family dwelling. Lynn Heath seconded motion

 

There was general discussion about screening on the property. Les Mangus stated it is not required between residential zones.  There was general discussion about drainage on the property.

Motion carried 6/1 with Dave Martine in opposition.

 

 

Case Z-2002-08: Public hearing on an application to amend the Green Valley Final Planned Unit Development Plan to expand the area of Parcel 12 R-4 Multiple Family Residential area to include portions of Parcels 13 and 16 to construct a patio home subdivision.

 

Randy Johnson with Jay Russell Development represented the applicant in this case. He stated there is existing zoning in parcel 12 which allows for patio homes and they want to take a portion of Parcels 13 and 16 and make it the same as the zoning in Parcel 12. Mr. Johnson said that all the applicant is interested in is the construction of only patio homes; leave the Parcel boundaries as they are now up until the property is developed then they would be willing to change the parcel boundaries.

 

Applicant Jay Russell asked Les Mangus to explain the current zoning on the property and stated they are not requesting any multi-family zoning at all. He stated that patio homes are allowed to go right up to the border of the Green Valley 8th Addition Putter Circle. There was general discussion about the expectations of the existing homeowners having only single family neighbors. In the first proposal, they only had 3 neighbors, but the amendment would give them 7 neighbors. Mr. Mangus is in favor of giving the existing neighbors a screening break from this development as a courtesy.

 

Chairman Coon asked for comments from the Public.

 

J.R. Jessen of 915 Putter Circle stated he is opposed to this development due to the already existing problem with water flow in the area of Onewood and Putter Circle. He further stated he bought the home he is in with the understanding that his neighbors to the rear would be homes with 9,000 sq. ft. lots.

 

Jay Russell stated there is mud in the area is due to it being undeveloped land at this time. He further said that when the development begins, a master drainage plan will be submitted and that he did not know of any present problems with water flow.

 

Clark Nelson stated he understood Mr. Jessen was also concerned with density in the area. There was general discussion about lot sizes in the Green Valley area. Jay Russell said that it was for economic reasons they chose to apply for 6,000 sq. ft. lots for the patio homes. Mr. Russell further stated with other similar developments, they had a positive impact on the adjoining neighbors. He stated the approximate size of these homes would be single story 1,000 to 1,600 sq. ft.  Mr. Russell stated that the south part of this Parcel is already approved for patio homes and that the majority of these amended PUD lots are larger than 6,000-sq. ft. minimum.

 

Chairman Coon asked Les Mangus if it would have been more appropriate for the application to have been made for a R-2 with an overlay of 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Mr. Mangus stated that a minor amendment to the Final PUD could not exceed a 5% change in density. He further stated Parcel 16 allows for multi-family dwellings, and single-family detached dwellings down to 5,000-sq. ft. minimum lot size. There was further general discussion about the Parcels in this application.

 

Jay Russell stated a fence would be put up but believes it would be setting a negative precedence for future buildings.

 

J.R. Jessen stated there is water build-up between Onewood and Putter Circle. Les Mangus stated this would be addressed with the builders.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.

 

Review case number Z-2002-08/ Public hearing /  amend Green Valley PUD

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-08

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Green Valley Residential Development, LLC

 

 

REQUEST:

Amend Green Valley PUD to expand Parcel 12. R-4 multiple family areas for a patio home subdivision

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

One of 4 remaining vacant parcels in the Green Valley PUD

 

 

LOCATION:

North of U.S. 54 and west of Onewood Drive

 

 

SITE SIZE:

+- 7 acres

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Patio home subdivision

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-2 Green Valley PUD single family homes

 

South:

B-4 Green Valley PUD vacant business property

 

East:

R-2 Green Valley PUD single family homes

B-4 or R-4 Green Valley PUD vacant property

 

West:

R-2 Green Valley PUD - municipal golf course

 

 

 

Background Information:

 

 

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded an 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:

Green Valley PUD

 

 

 

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:

R-2 to the North & West and B-4 to the South & East

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Market changes

 

 

 

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:

Sewer, water, and streets 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:

Contingent on final plat

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Not required but is requested by the Commission.

 

 

 

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:

No land is available with similar zoning

 

 

X

PLANNING:

No land is available with similar zoning, and the request fills a need in Andover

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment is perceived

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Density

 

 

 

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:

PUD provides for alterations to the zoning regulations

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

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:

Provides a different type of owner occupied single family housing.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Adjacent property owners concerned with drainage

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

See attached staff opinion

 

 

 

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:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

There was general discussion about parking, and front and year yard setbacks in this development. Les Mangus stated that typically if the rear yard setback is 20' then the front yard setback is 20' also. There was further discussion on whether it would be better for this to be dedicated public or private street. Les Mangus recommended when turning off Onewood Drive the street becomes privately owned. Mr. Mangus further reported the applicant is proposing 29' back to back pavement with a 32' right-of-way and the only sidewalk will be on the west side of Onewood Drive, which is a collector street.

 

There was discussion about the memo received from Les Mangus concerning this case and his suggested modifications to the Parcel provisions and Description as follows:

 

 

1.

Revise the Parcel Boundary to include all the area proposed for patio homes in Parcel 12.

 

2.

Limit the permitted uses to single family detached dwellings (patio homes), and two and three family attached dwellings (townhouses).

 

3.

Limit the maximum number of dwelling units to 32.

 

4.

Place a reserve and screening wall between Parcel 12 Lot 24 to Lot 22 that would be constructed of wood and Lot 1 through 19 will be constructed of wrought iron.

 

5.

Limit access to Parcel 12 to the two points on Onewood Drive

 

6.

Establish bulk regulations for the lots:

 

 

a.

Front yard setback: 20 feet except that one front of a corner lot may be 156 feet, and the opening to a garage shall be no closer than 25 feet.

 

 

b.

Minimum Side Yard: 6 feet

 

 

c.

Minimum Lot width: 60 feet measured at the building setback line.

 

 

d.

Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.

 

 

 

e.

Maximum Lot Coverage: 35%

 

 

 

f.

Maximum Height: 35 feet

 

 

g.

Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 s.f. Per single family detached dwelling or 5,000 s.f. Per dwelling unit for two and three family attached dwellings.

 

 

J.R. Jessen states he does not want a concrete wall built in his backyard. There was general discussion about he reserve screening wall.

 

At 9:10 p.m. Chairman Coon called for a 10-minute break in the meeting. At 9:22 p.m. the meeting was called back to order.

 

Jay Russell reported that from the corner of Lot 1 to Lot 8 of the original Green Valley 8th Addition that he has agreed with the owner to put in a 6' wood fence and wrought iron fence from end to end of the back yard. This will be a private street with a minimum 29' width or public with minimum 58'.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I John McEachern move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2002-08 be approved to change the zoning district classification from R-2 district to R-4 district based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. (and that the following conditions be attached to this recommendation) I find that 6, 9, 12, and 14 support the motion. Also in the motion the staff memo as noted above from Les Mangus including all the items as revised and per the application:

 

 

 

1.

Revise the Parcel Boundary to include all the area proposed for patio homes in Parcel 12.

 

2.

Limit the permitted uses to single family detached dwellings (patio homes), and two and three family attached dwellings (townhouses).

 

3.

Limit the maximum number of dwelling units to 32.

 

4.

Place a reserve and screening wall between Parcel 12, Lot 24 down to Lot 1, that would be constructed of wood and Lot 9 will be constructed of wrought iron from edge to edge.

 

5.

Limit access to Parcel 12 to the two points on Onewood Drive

 

6.

Establish bulk regulations for the lots:

 

 

a.

Front yard setback: 20 feet except that one front of a corner lot may be 15 feet, and the opening to a garage shall be no closer than 25 feet.

 

 

b.

Minimum Side Yard: 6 feet

 

 

c.

Minimum Lot width: 60 feet measured at the building setback line.

 

 

d.

Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.

 

 

e.

Maximum Lot Coverage: 35%

 

 

f.

Maximum Height: 35 feet

 

 

g.

Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 s.f. Per single family detached dwelling.

 

 

h.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback of 20'

 

 

 

 

 

Street R.O.W. Private 32' R.O.W. with 29' BB Pavement (Gated Community)

Street R.O.W. Public 58' R.O.W. with 29 BB Pavement on special assessments.

 

Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

Case Z-2002-09: Public hearing on an application to amend the Countryside Final Planned Unit Development Plan to change the zoning district classification of lots 1 and 16 of Block 2 of the Countryside Third Addition from the R-2 Single Family Residential District to the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District, located at the northwest corner of 1st Street and Koob Lane.

 

John McEachern stated he needed to remove himself due to a conflict of interest in this case. He owns one of the lots in the application.

 

Chairman Coon asked for comments from the Public. 

 

Jim Gerher of 223 W. Concord stated he is the owner of Lot 1 in the Countryside Third Addition. He stated the lots have been vacant since the mid 70's, and the protective covenant has been changed which allowed a single car garage with a single parking in front of the house. Housing to the east is multi-family duplexes, and to the west are single family homes, the Post Office is to the east, houses on 2nd Street are duplexes, and the Church along the south side. Mr. Gerher stated the reason these lots are still vacant is due to multi family homes across the street and he thinks it only makes sense to make these duplexes also. He stated the lot sizes are large enough to accommodate what is being asked for.  He further stated that the property values had increased at a faster rate for multi family housing than single family housing. There was general discussion about the existing housing in this neighborhood.

 

Kristi Zuckovich of 304 W. 1st stated she has been a long time resident of Andover. They were pleased to have the opportunity to build their home in an existing neighborhood. She stated that much of this neighborhood was wiped out during the tornado in 1991 and they have rebuilt their home. The values of the homes in this neighborhood run from $120,000 to $190,000. She stated this same type of application has been received by the Commission before and was not approved. She stated there are no problems selling single family lots in Andover. The applicant's lots will back up to single family property. She stated this neighborhood is fearful of becoming a transient area, crime, deterioration of properties, the increased traffic and parking, and the negative impact of multi family neighbors. Ms. Zuckovich does not want to live in a multi family area. She stated that when this application was denied in the past, one of the owners put a doghouse in the middle of the lot and was left there for a number of months. Ms. Zuckovich stated the applicants would be the only ones to benefit from this zoning change and she is opposed to its approval.

 

Phil Howard of 241 Koob Lane, lives next to the applicant's property, stated he has been the one to spray weed killer on the edge of the applicant's property because no one took care of it. He further stated that the property has been mowed more in this last year than it has been in the last 7 years. Mr. Howard does not want duplexes or 4-plexes next to his home. He would only agree with single family homes being built in this neighborhood. Mr. Howard said that this past year the trash has been cleaned up from this property. 

 

Diane Devore of 303 Koob Lane said that she and her husband are very much against this proposed application. She said they moved into their home 6 years ago and that these lots have been vacant, seldom mowed, cluttered with trash and debris, a dog house in the middle of the lot, and the extremely tall weeds were a haven for rats and snakes and potential for injury. She said she has reported her complaints to the city and has worked with a Code Compliance Officer who informed her that the owner had 3 months to clean it up, and if it was not taken care of, the City would take care of it and send the bill to the owner. She said the fall of 2002 is the first time this property was cleaned up. They don't want the property value to drop due to the condition this applicant leaves his land. She said they would not have purchased their home if they had known multi family housing would go in the area. She complained that not everyone was legally notified for this hearing of zoning change. She asked for the Commissioners to say no to this change.

 

Kathy Mendoza of 310 W. 1st Street read a letter she had received from her neighbors to the west, John & Monica Lewis, of 320 W. 1st Street, who could not attend tonight, and their name was not on the notification list. The letter states the Lewis family is opposed to these applicants zoning change. The letter was entered into the record of Public Hearing.

 

Kathy Mendoza then read a letter from her husband and herself stating their protest to this application. Mrs. Mendoza urged the Planning Commission to reject this application for rezoning these properties. The letter was entered into the record of Public Hearing.

 

There was general discussion about the notification area being 200' radius of the applicant's property. She further stated her concerns about the traffic congestion on Koob Street and asked Mr. Mangus if there is a limit on the number of applications allowed for change on the same property. Mr. Mangus stated there is not. There was general discussion about the validity of protests received and whether they were required to be submitted in a particular format.

 

Barbara Martin of 228 W. 1st Street stated her opposition to this application. She stated she was not notified to attend this hearing. Mrs. Martin said she does not want duplexes facing her backyard. She said she lives directly west of Lot 2.

 

Lesa Rollins of 324 Koob Lane stated they had serious reservations when they purchased their home due to the duplexes on the north of the property. Ms. Rollins said she has had to make multiple calls to the police concerning nuisances at the duplexes already and is concerned of increased problems if more are constructed. She asked the Commission to deny this request.

 

Larry Lara of 408 Koob Lane is concerned about the poor condition of the applicant's lots and the embarrassment it causes the neighborhood. He further stated he was penalized on his property valuation for the condition of the duplexes in the area.  Mr. Lara does not want to have any more multi-family housing in the area. He asked the Commission to deny this application.

 

John Juresic of 318 Koob Lane said he was not notified of this hearing. He said there are several vacancy signs posted now for the duplexes in this area. He is concerned about the amount of the traffic already on Koob Lane since the post office has been built. Mr. Juresic complained of vehicles speeding through this residential neighborhood. He asked the Commission to deny the request for this zoning change.

 

Ted Uhlenhop of 319 Koob said they moved to Andover from Wichita to get away from all the rental properties and he does not want this application for zoning change to be approved.

 

Clyde Burg of 324 Koob Lane said the reason he moved to Andover is for the neighborhood. He was under the impression the zoning was going to remain single family in this area. Mr. Burg is concerned about safety issues if more multi-family housing is built.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 10:17 p.m. Clark Nelson was concerned about the lack of public notice and asked to hear from Staff on this issue. Les Mangus said there was 1 property owner that should have been included in the notification process, but that owner has remedied their own problem by showing up tonight. The other people that have spoken tonight are outside of the required area. Les Mangus stated there were 4 other protests received and have been placed in the file for the record.

 

Les Mangus said he received a protest petition today in the mail from Robert & Shelly Claassen of 307 W. 1st. There was general discussion about the history of this PUD.

Review Case No. Z-2002-09/ Public Hearing/ Countryside Final PUD zoning change

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

Agenda Item No. 8

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-09

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

John & Martha McEachern/ Jim Gerher

 

 

REQUEST:

Change zoning district classification from R-2 PUD to R-3 PUD

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Countryside PUD from the 1980's. The same request was denied in 1994.

 

 

LOCATION:

Northwest corner of Koob St. and 1st St.

 

 

SITE SIZE:

Two lots 79.5' X 134' each

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Multiple Family Dwellings

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-3 Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings

R-2 Countryside PUD single family dwellings

 

South:

B-1 St. Vincent De Paul Church

 

East:

R-3 Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings

 

West:

R-2 Countryside PUD single family dwellings

 

 

 

Background Information:

Last two vacant lots in Countryside PUD

 

 

 

* 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 an 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:

Countryside PUD built in the 1980's

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

R-2 & R-3 to the north, B-1 to the south, R-2 to the west, R-3 to the east.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Sewer, water, and streets are in place

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None is available  in the immediate vicinity

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Increased traffic and activity

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Increased traffic, safety, and cohesiveness of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposed to increased traffic & activity. Possible devaluation of nearby property.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposed to the increased traffic, safety, and cohesiveness of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for.

 

 

X

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:

No measurable detriment to the public is perceived.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I, Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2002-09 be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 to R-3 based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing: Number 12- there will be a measurable difference in traffic that will cause a negative impact, safety and the cohesiveness of the neighborhood would be detrimentally affected if this application were approved, and number 15- , additional activity in the area and from past personal experience I feel possible devaluation of nearby property would occur, and there are the reported public oppositions to the application- both which support this conclusion. Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Vote. 5/1 to deny the application with Charles Malcom Clark Nelson  opposed.

 

There was general discussion about the lack of legal support for this motion. Clark Nelson stated he would be opposed to the motion as it was just stated.

 

Jeff Bridges stated this is only a recommendation and the case will now go to the City Council on January 14, 2003. He stated that if anyone was planning to file a protest petition, it still must be filed to have any effect and the City Council has the option to override the decision of the Planning Commission.

 

There was general discussion about the validity of the protest petitions in the notification area. Les Mangus said that staff will verify the petition sufficiency and there will be no further notices required for this case.

 

 

Recess the Planning Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals Motion by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and to Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals at 10:45 p.m.  Motion seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 7/0.

 

Recess the Planning Commission

Case BZA-A-2002-01: Public hearing on an application for an appeal of a decision of the Site Plan Review Committee which required the installation of an underground sprinkler system on all turf and landscaped areas of the Folger's Gymnastics Addition at 121 E. King Street.

 

Dave Martine removed himself from this case due to a conflict of interest.

 

Mark Folger, owner of Folger's Gymnastics stated he is appealing the decision made by the Site Plan Review Committee requiring him to install an irrigation system at his business on 121 E. King Street. Mr. Folger said he is appealing for 2 reasons: 1) Other similar buildings in the area have not been required to put in sprinkler systems and he feels the Site Plan Review Committee should be consistent and fair in their decisions.  2) the lot is 270' deep east to west and the addition involves 80' on the eastern edge and the committee has asked him to retro fit his entire lot with the irrigation system.

 

Mr. Folger stated he added approximately 10 trees per the Site Plan Review Committee, there are 3 now on the part that is not being touched, they are adding some berms and native grasses, bushes. He further said they are owner-occupied and they have been personally watering the plants with a garden hose.

 

Jeff Bridges stated the Chairman of the Site Plan Review Committee, Doug Allison, is in attendance if there are any questions.

 

Doug Allison gave the background history of this case and of the decisions made by the Site Plan Review Committee. He stated the Folger's were notified from the beginning they would be required to install an irrigation system as the Committee was concerned about the size of the property, the number of plants, and the ability of the owners to drag hoses for individual watering sufficient to keep the trees from dying. Mr. Allison stated each case heard by the Site Plan Review Committee is judged on its own merits, and the members have been concerned that this property is in a high profile area along Andover Road and across from the City Building.

 

There was general discussion about other businesses in the area and their method of watering and requirements.

 

Garrett Addison from Smith Construction Co. Inc., the contractor for this project, said there was some confusion during the first meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee, and that the owner was unable to attend that night. It was recommended to Folger's to add trees, a light in the parking lot, and was recommended to install the sprinkler system. Mr. Addison informed the Committee then that he could not approve the additional expense without owner approval. He further accepted the blame for the sprinkler system being printed on the site plans at all, as the owner, Mark Folger never agreed to install it. Mr. Addison stated at the second meeting of the SPRC, the members were impressed by the lighting and plantings but still wanted to see the sprinkler system installed. Mark and his wife assured the committee then that they would water all the trees themselves and would not allow anything to die.

 

Les Mangus stated that all the Board of Zoning Appeals is charged with tonight is determining the reasonableness of the requirement that all of the turf and landscape areas be irrigated with an underground system. There was general discussion about underground sprinkler systems in the area and their effectiveness.

 

Les Mangus said this applicant has over 500' of street frontage, all turf, all landscaped. Mark Folger stated their trees get more water now without a sprinkler system than they would with one, and that he still would drag a hose to give them additional water as a pop up sprinkler system does not allow enough quantity to keep the trees alive. Mr. Folger stated he has met all the requirements of the Committees trying to make this property acceptable.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2002-01 and determined the findings of facts as stated for the record, I, Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution reversing the requirement for an underground sprinkler system imposed on the applicant because it was unreasonable. Charles Malcom seconded motion. Motion failed 3/3 with Clark Nelson, Ron Roberts, and John McEachern opposed.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2002-01 and determined the findings of facts as stated for the record, I, Clark Nelson move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution affirming the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion failed 3/3 with Charles Malcom, Dave Martine, and Lynn Heath opposed.

 

Mark Folger stated he is displeased that decisions are being made on a case by case basis instead of having fair and consistent policies made that all developers can follow.

 

Review the case BZA-A-2002-01/ Public Hearing/ Appeal of SPRC

Adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and Reconvene the Planning Commission Motion by Lynn Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission. John McEachern seconded the motion. Carried 7/0.

 

 

Member Items: Dave Martine asked why the Green Valley PUD did not go before the Subdivision Committee. Les Mangus said the project is in the zoning phase, not platting. 

 

Dave Martine asked if a standards committee has been organized yet. Les Mangus said with the current workload it is not going to be done in the foreseeable future.

 

Member Items:

Motion made by John McEachern to adjourn the meeting. Lynn Heath Seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

_______________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 21st day of January 2003 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.

 

____________________________

Leslie E. Mangus

City Superintendent