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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 15, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 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 Jan Cox, Byron Stout, Lynn Heath, David Martine, and Ray Jessen Jr.  Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Member Jeff Syrios was absent.

Call to order

 

 

Review the minutes of the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0/1 with Quentin Coon abstaining.

Review the minutes of the July 18, 2006 Planning Comm. mtg.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the July 11, 2006 and July 25, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the August 1, 2006 AND August 8, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the August 8, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. Jan Cox mentioned the incorrect date on page 1, second line. Deborah will change this. The minutes were received and filed as corrected.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

 

 

 

Z-2006-05: Proposed change of zoning district classification from the Butler County AG-40 District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District for Dan Taylor located at Northeast corner of Andover Road and 120th Street.

 

Chairman Coon asked how many people in the audience were here for this Taylor zoning application. Most of the audience raised their hands (approx. 50+ people).

 

Chairman Coon asked Les Mangus for a summary of this application. Les stated this application was filed on May 12, 2006 but was held contingent upon the annexation petition. That petition was filed in June, and at the July Planning Commission meeting a recommendation was made for approval of the annexation petition to be heard at the City Council meeting on September 12, 2006 along with the zoning case. Notices were mailed to landowners on July 6, 2006 and published on July 13, 2006.  Les said the proposed change of zoning district from Butler Co. AG-40 to B-2 Neighborhood Business District is the owner’s desire to develop a large commercial strip center in the future at the intersection of Andover Rd. & SW120th St.. The property is currently just a portion of the applicants 220 acres of agricultural property at this location. Staff has received several calls and letters from surrounding property owners who feel that a 20 acre commercial strip center is out of character for the neighborhood, which is currently more of a rural/suburban transition area. The Comprehensive Plan mentions the possibility for “limited” commercial areas along Andover Rd., and recognizes the property as a potential commercial location, but also aims to protect the existing three “major” commercial areas at US-54 & Andover Rd., Central & Andover Rd., and 21st St. & Andover Rd. by limiting the amount of scattered commercial zoning at other locations. The 7 acre B-2 Neighborhood Business parcel at the northwest corner of Andover Rd. & SW120th St. is what Staff feels is more of a neighborhood oriented size of shopping area, and more in line with the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan to provide “limited” commercial areas for the convenience of nearby residents. The 20 acre tract at the Southwest corner of SW120th St. and Andover Rd. has been used over the last several years for several agricultural business pursuits, including a horse trainer’s stables, a veterinarian, and a horse trailer conversion operation. If this application is approved, the total of commercially available property at this intersection would be 47 acres, which far exceeds the Staff’s interpretation of “limited” commercial areas. Staff recommends approval of the B-2 Neighborhood Business District limited to 5-7 acres adjacent to the intersection.

 

Chairman Coon asked the Commissioners if any of them needed to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he asked if anyone had received ex-parte communications concerning this case. No one spoke. David Martine said he had verbal contact with people in the area. Chairman Coon said the 2 following letters were received, one on August 8, 2006 and the other August 11, 2006 which will become part of the record.

 

-----Letter number one -----

Les Magnus

Manager City of Andover,

Andover, Kansas                 Re: Zone change NE corner 120th at Andover Rd.

 

I am convinced that the applied for zoning change would not be good for our community for the following reasons.

 

Flint Hills has already a block reserved south of the parcel in an area of rapid splendid development which 1 believe will be more fitting to our properties than those proposed in the change. I missed the meeting Thursday at MKEC as a thunder storm with hail was over our property at the scheduled 6 PM meeting time. I would liked to have been, there if only to find out what the four "pads" on the sketch are as pads have a distinct meaning in cattle country.

 

Our property is in a Agriculture Trust and a family owned corporation "Morco lnc” altogether 200 acres in sections 32 and 33 of Bruno Twp. In the spirit of open space we have managed to clean up the trash trees, cedar trees and even bad weeds that are prone to invade neglected property. We have about One quarter mile of frontage along 120th St..

 

To build something not of the quality of the Flint hills development across the road is to steal from the Flint Hills reputation. I personally appreciate Flint Hills wisdom in waiting For the area to build up with people before building commercial property. Flint Hills has been a good neighbor and continues to be one. For the time being we have plenty of shopping available north in Andover proper. Flint Hills deserves our support in appreciation for what they have brought to our community.

 

The" back side” of a strip mall is no way to improve a community.

 

Louis S. Morgan MD

----- Letter number two-----

 

Mr. Leslie L. Mangus

Zoning Administrator

City of Andover

909 N. Andover Road

Andover, KS   67002

 

Dear Les:

 

We recently received notice from you of a proposed change of zoning on property located on the northeast corner of Andover Road and 120th Street. The zoning application submitted by the owner of the property apparently requested the change of zoning district classification from Butler County AG-40 District to City of Andover B-2 Neighborhood Business district for 20 acres along Andover Road and 120th Street. Through various Devlin Enterprises entities, we own property on the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of Andover road and 120th Street. The property on the southeast corner of Andover Road and 120th Street includes the Flint Hills National Golf course and the surrounding Flint Hills National residential development. We have a tremendous financial investment in both the golf course and the residential development. There are many homeowners at Flint Hills National who have a great deal invested in their homes as well.

 

We personally know the applicant and have the deepest respect for everyone in their group as individuals and as business people. We recently met with the applicant and their representatives in order to obtain a better understanding of the planned use of the 20 acres. We have reviewed a conceptual site plan that includes as much as 60,000 s.f. of inline retail space at the rear of the 20-acre site plus 4 pad sites on Andover Road. The conceptual site plan also set forth two ingress/egress points on Andover Road and two additional ingress/egress points on 120th Street. The proposed re-zoning area is approximately 1,300’ wide (frontage on Andover Road) and 695’ deep.

 

While we certainly understand the common practice to allow commercial zoning at the intersection of major arterials, we are concerned with the size of area the applicant wishes to zone for commercial use. We feel 20 acres is excessive. The undeveloped 15-acre property we own on the northwest corner of Andover road and 120th Street includes only 6 acres of B-2 zoning contained in an area approximately 500’ by 500’. Our undeveloped 20-acre property on the southwest corner of Andover road and 120th Street is not at this time annexed into the City of Andover. We do however, plan at some point to annex this property into Andover and will likely request business zoning on a portion of it.

 

Our concerns over the application to re-zone 20 acres on the northeast corner are as follows:

 

The size of the requested area is excessive. The quantity of retail space and pad sites set forth on the conceptual site plan would create a dangerous amount of traffic in the immediate area. The depth of the proposed B-2 area is excessive. It is too deep to not have an impact on the adjacent residential development.

 

The ingress/egress points on 120th Street will have an impact on both the necessary maintenance of the road and the desirability of the adjacent residences. The conceptual site plan seems to indicate that delivery vehicles are to use the easternmost access drive on 120th Street. 120th Street was likely not designed to handle the delivery trucks and other traffic that will utilize this ingress/egress point. We believe access drives off 120th Street would have a negative impact on traffic safety. 120th Street is a gravel road just to the east of the east line of the proposed rezoning area. A 60,000+ s.f. retail center will generate a great amount of additional traffic. The increased traffic, parking lot lighting, architectural design, potential noise, and business activity well into the evening could all have negative effect on the adjacent residential developments.

 

The design of the retail center will have a tremendous impact on adjacent property. While we know the reputation of the applicant to be very solid, we do not know what style will be incorporated into the design of the center. Flint Hills National contains some of the highest valued homesites in Kansas. Any adjacent commercial development should be compatible with the style and quality of the Flint Hills National development.

 

We respectfully suggest the following as a viable compromise:

 

The area to be re-zoned to B-2 Neighborhood Business district to be limited to a smaller area. The depth on the B-2 zoning should not exceed 500 feet.

 

Ingress/egress drives off of 120th Street may not be permitted.

 

We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council require strict architectural design and landscaping requirements of the commercial development. We request a significant landscape buffer (including berms) along 120th Street to be included in the requirements.

 

We greatly appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom Devlin

 

Jason Gish of MKEC Engineering represented the applicant, Dan Taylor. Jason explained the application and intent of the owner. He said the size of the proposed site was based upon the Comprehensive Development Plan which shows potential commercial development for this area. The second reason is to continue the trend of 20 acre corner zoning like that in Wichita. Jason said this application is far in advance of the need. He said trying to sell this property for commercial use is not practical until the 10- 20 year outlook. The owner is not intending to compete with the existing commercial areas along Andover Road. Jason said the property owners on the mailing list were invited to their office for a briefing of this application and to answer any questions and to be a good neighbor. The quality of this project will be proven during the platting and site plan review process. The businesses chosen will support the neighborhood.

 

David Martine asked why the zoning change is requested now. Jason Gish said experience shows the longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes as more residents move into the Flint Hills area.

 

Quentin Coon asked if there are any specific plans for this property. Jason said it will be similar to the other 2 corners that are not zoned residential in this area (like the Tuscany PUD). Jason said the owner does not want to miss out on an opportunity like Tuscany has.

 

Chairman Coon opened the hearing to the public and asked the public to keep their comments brief and to not repeat specific comments of previous speakers in order to have time for every person to be heard.

 

Attorney Bob Kaplan stated he is here to represent some of the Flint Hills owners within the 200’ notice area. Bob made the following points:

ü      As a city, Andover has already zoned several high quality single-family residential areas along the corridor between Andover and Rose Hill. He said the Flint Hills is an emerging residential area.

ü      Along the corridor, several rural properties have been transitioned into single-family residential quality subdivisions.

ü      The Planning Commission had the opportunity years ago to zone the entire corridor along Andover Road all the way to Rose Hill as the commercial corridor, choosing instead to encourage the developers to put in residential subdivisions.

ü      The character of the subject property is now set as an emerging residential neighborhood all the way south.

ü      Does not believe it is fair to the existing neighbors to change the plan this late in the game from residential to commercial corridor.

ü      This potential commercial development would be 4 times the size of Andover Square shopping center located at Central and Andover Road.

ü      The owner does not believe this zoning change will be approved in the future so he wants to push it through now is not an appropriate reason to upset this neighborhood. Bob said if it is inappropriate in 10 years, it should not be changed now.

ü      Bob asked the Planning Commission to deny this application, because there are other existing commercially zoned vacancies available along Hwy. 54, Central Avenue, and 21st Street which need to be protected.

ü      The Flint Hills property owners have shown they do not want to live adjacent to 1 million square feet of commercially zoned property.

 

Chris Ens of 224 Cedar Ridge Ct., said she and her family are new residents within 200’ of the subject property. After searching for property to buy within the area, they chose the Flint Hills Addition for the environment of wildlife and natural grasses. She said they are mandated to preserve 25% of her property in native grasslands. She asked the Commissioners to consider the existing neighbors concerns.

 

Bill Warren of 3101 E. Flint Hills National Parkway said he could see both sides of the issue. He asked for the following points to be considered:

ü      20 acres of commercial development is improper.

ü      If the Commission does not want a theater built on this corner, they should deny the application to zone it for commercial uses.

ü      No matter how sensitive the owner is towards controlling the outside lighting, and traffic issues, there will still be problems which will change the character of the existing neighborhood.

ü      He asked for the request to be denied.

 

Dr. Lou Morgan of 14848 SW 120th said he has lived here for 38 years, and said he will never sell his property just to protect his neighbors from such changes. He said if this request is approved, it will ruin the most valuable property in Andover. He begged the Planning Commission to use their best judgment and the denial of this application.

 

John Gagnon of 408 E. Flint Hills National Court said his family moved here specifically for the special natural resources and wildlife that are flourishing in the Flint Hills area. John said the Flint Hills homeowners are responsible for the preservation of this resource. He does not want to see this 20 acre corner zoned for commercial use.

 

Dr. Steven Ducharme of 212 E. Cedar Ridge Court, said he thought his property would be a safe real estate investment. He said if commercial zoning is allowed on this corner it will lower his property value. He attended the meeting with Dan Taylor and MKEC and made the following points:

ü      Rezoning in 10- 20 years would be more difficult.

ü      There is no need for this development at this time.

ü      Eminent domain is not a legitimate argument.

ü      Commercial development on this corner would scar the land and ruin the quality of life for the gated neighborhood.

 

Willie Scott of 312 Cedar Ridge Court stated his family moved here from Deleware only to find out this development may make them move again if the commercial zoning is approved. After Mr. Scott’s review of the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Rezoning Report used by the Planning Commission, he made the following comments:

ü      After review of the Comp Plan, he was fairly certain the Flint Hills area would look the same with the exception of more houses.

ü      From the Rezoning Report- The subject property is a natural pasture for horses and wildlife, well maintained, and is in perfect harmony with the surroundings.

ü      #14 of Rezoning Report is critical to answer no. Approval of the request will deteriorate and destroy the surrounding neighborhood.

ü      Comp Plan says that further commercial development along Andover Road should be considered on a case by case basis.

ü      Andover does not need more commercial development and this is a premature application.

ü      He said this development would cause excess traffic, noise, lights, pollution, hazardous conditions, unsightly visual appearances and declining home values.

ü      Asked for this application to be denied and not merely reduced in scope.

 

Tom Mack of 4104 Plum Tree in Wichita, employee of Devlin Enterprises who is the developer of part of Flint Hills and 15 acres to the west of the subject property. He said this request is not similar to their property which is 6-7 acres of commercial zoning with strict restrictions concerning hours of operation, type of uses, and etc. This property was acquired as a buffer to protect Flint Hills National. Devlin Enterprises also owns 20 acres on the southwest corner of 120th Street and Andover Road also acquired as buffer for FHN. Whatever Devlin Enterprises does with their property on this corner will be done to benefit the FHN residents. Mr. Mack said 120th Street is not designed to carry the volume of traffic that a commercial development of this size would generate. He further stated there is no need at this time for this commercial development.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone else from the audience wished to speak. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing at 7:51. He then asked the applicant to respond to the public comments.

 

Jason Gish said he understood the concerns of the neighborhood but thinks this would be a quality development the Flint Hills residents would be proud to use. Jason said it is not fair that the Devlin group was granted commercial zoning in this intersection, without plans to develop, and his client is denied this same opportunity. In response to Mr. Scott’s comments in regards to the Comp Plan intent to preserve natural areas, Jason said this area is at the top end of the watershed with no defined streams and not in ecologically sensitive from a riparian standpoint. Jason said that near some of the most upperscale neighborhoods in Wichita are the most unique and exciting commercial developments are like Wilson Estates and Bradley Fair. He asked the Planning Commission to keep these in mind when making their decision.

 

Chairman Coon began the review of the Rezoning Report at 7:55 p.m.

Z-2006-05: Proposed change of zoning district classification from the Butler County AG-40 District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District for Dan Taylor located at Northeast corner of Andover Road and 120th Street.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.  5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-05

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Taylor Enterprises/ MKEC

 

REQUEST:

Butler Co. Ag-40 to B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

Northeast Corner of Andover Road & SW 120th Street.

 

SITE SIZE:

21 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Future Commercial usage.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler Co. Agriculture- owned by the applicant

South:

R-1 & R-2 /Single-Family Residential.- Flint Hills National Golf Club Subdivision

East:

Butler Co. Agriculture- owned by the applicant

West:

B-2 Neighborhood Business District- undeveloped 7 acre parcel

R-2 Single-Family Residential District. Tuscany Subdivision

 

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 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:

Stated above.

 

 

PLANNING:

Stated above- rural flavor.

 

 

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:

Stated above.

 

 

PLANNING:

Current agriculture with B-2 across the street.

 

 

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:

Increased development activity in the area.

 

x

PLANNING:

No development in that particular area.

 

 

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:

All are nearby and can be extended.

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:

Screening of adjacent residential properties, Site Plan Approval.

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:

7 acres of undeveloped B-2 zoning is available across the street.

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:

Business uses could provide services or employment opportunities.

 

x

PLANNING:

After discussion, more employment opportunities are needed in the Andover area, but it is not needed at this location.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Currently used for agriculture.

x

 

PLANNING:

There are horses there now.

 

 

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, lighting, noise, and activity.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur with staff and the addition of changed character 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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

The B-2 Neighborhood Business District is designed to provide for the retail sale of convenience goods and services in shopping districts of limited size areas near to residential neighborhoods at the intersection of two arterial streets.

 

x

PLANNING:

After discussion, the committee said it is not consistent due to the 20 acre size.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Pg. 8-10 “Major commercial development should continue to group around Andover Road and Central Avenue with East-West commercialization on US-54/400 and further infilling North-South along Andover Road at selected locations.” The Future Land Use Map Fig. 8-D identifies the northeast corner of Andover Road & SW 120th street as a potential commercial location. Pg. 8-14 ”Three distinct commercial areas are recognized” balance neighborhood concerns with traffic access and intensity and design of the commercial enterprise.”

 

x

PLANNING:

The consensus of the committee was to keep commercial development at the intersections of Hwy. 54, Central, and 21st Street and they consider the 20 acre size a “major” development.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Neighborhood opposition to the size of the proposed zoning change.

 

 

PLANNING:

50+ audience members present to oppose the application. Zero in support of the request.

 

 

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 B-2 Neighborhood Business limited to 5-7 acres similar in configuration to the northwest corner of Andover Road & SW 120th.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur from staff and they do not believe this development is “limited”.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-05 be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the AG-40 District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District based on the findings 5, 10, 12, 14, and 15 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Jan Cox. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

Z-2006-08: Proposed amendments to the Amended Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to make the following changes:

 

1.      Change of zoning district classification on Parcel 5 from R-4 Multiple Family Residential to B-1 Office Business District.

2.      Change of zoning district classification on a portion of Parcel 6 from B-3 Neighborhood Business to R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District.

3.      Change of zoning district classification on a portion of Parcel 7 from B-2 Neighborhood Business District to R-4 Multiple-Family.

4.      Residential. Reconfiguration of Parcel 6 & 7 boundaries.

 

General location:  On the Northeast corner of 21st Street and 159th Street.

 

Chairman Coon stated the notice for this case was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on July 20, 2006. He asked if any of the members needed to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he asked if anyone had received any ex-parte communications concerning this case. Hearing none, he asked Les Mangus for a summary of the application.

 

Les Mangus said the proposed amendments to the Cornerstone PUD are the developer’s desire to place the apartment site closer to the arterial street and the elementary school and create an office park as a buffer to the adjacent single family residential parcels. Staff supports the amendments as long as adequate measures are taken to provide for screening and buffering between the office park and the adjacent residential parcels, and traffic engineering to mitigate the potential traffic peak conflicts between the apartment site and the adjacent elementary school site.

 

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to present his case.

 

Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants represented the developer to explain this zoning change. He said the main point is trading the apartment site for office site with a few other slight boundary changes. The 20 acre apartment site will now be 14 acre and max 200 apartment units down to 161. The densities for the apartments will stay the same. The office site will be slightly larger to allow for future expansion of the hospital site.

 

There was general discussion about the location of Keystone Parkway.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak about this case. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m.

 

Lynn Heath stated this case was discussed at the Subdivision Committee and said he is excited about the change taking away the R-4 from the area next to R-1 and R-2 and puts B-1 which is more compatible to residential areas, and the R-4 will be next to the school giving them a shorter walk. He said one concern is the future traffic that will be created along 159th Street.

 

Byron Stout said it will be good to reduce some of the traffic along 21st Street.

 

Chairman Coon began the review of the Rezoning Report at 8:30 p.m.

Z-2006-08: Proposed amendments to the Amended Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.  6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-08

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Kiser Inc./ PEC-Rob Hartman

 

REQUEST:

Zoning district classification change and boundary reconfiguration of Cornerstone PUD Parcels 5, 6, & 7.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Currently platted as Cornerstone School Addition

 

LOCATION:

Northeast corner of 21st Street and 159th Street.

 

SITE SIZE:

62.7 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Apartments, medical offices, & office park.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2 Elementary school under construction & R-2 Cornerstone undeveloped land.

South:

B-3 Quail Crossing undeveloped land & R-2 Quail Crossing Subdivision.

East:

R-2 Cornerstone 1st Addition & B-2 Cornerstone undeveloped land.

West:

Sedgwick County Rural Residential with 2 single-family residences.

 

Background Information:

Ongoing development changes around the Kansas Medical Center.

 

* 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:

Stated above.

 

 

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:

Stated above.

 

 

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:

New hospital and school.

 

 

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:

All can be extended.

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:

Screening & Site Plan required.

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:

No R-4 zoning is available in the area.

 

x

PLANNING:

Only in Green Valley and by the future YMCA along Kellogg.

 

 

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

This seems like an improvement. Traffic flow needs to be monitored.

 

 

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:

Pg. 8- 10 major commercial development at Decker/Kiser (Cornerstone)

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None at  this time.

 

 

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 as applied for.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Lynn Heath asked about the right-of-way from 21st for ¼ mile north and how much control we would have. Les said on 21st north on 159th we will have 150 feet of 75’ right-of-way and the next 75 feet it tapers to 50’ with the exception of the commercial development which is the plat to be heard later in the meeting. It will dedicate 60’. There is the debatable 20’-30’ in Sedgwick County. Lynn Heath asked how wide of a road that would support. Les said the right-of-way as it is to be platted and the existing could easily support 3 lanes. It could be expanded larger at the intersection where the additional right-of-way triangle. General discussion continued about street width.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-08 be approved to change the zoning district classification as presented based on the findings 5, 10, 12, 14, and 15 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Byron Stout. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

SU-2006-04: Special Use request to establish a General Rental Center including outdoor storage located at 328 N. Andover Road.

 

Lynn Heath said he has had a conversation with one of the applicants, but the discussion was restricted to the history of the property and the intent of the general rental center.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves from this case. There were none stated.

 

Byron Stout and Jan Cox said they had verbal communications with one of the applicants.

 

Chairman Coon asked for comments from Les Mangus who stated this application was received on July 13, 2006, notice published on July 20, 2006, notices mailed to property owners on July 13, 2006. This case arises from the contract purchaser’s desire to convert the Action Marine sailboat sales and service center to a rental store. Screening is already in place for the outdoor storage of sailboats. Staff supports the special use as applied for, with the condition that all servicing of equipment is done indoors.

 

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to present his case.

 

Robert Seacat and Ralph Hoyt were present to answer questions. Robert said they have established the business of Andover Rental Center with the newly acquired property at 328 N. Andover Road. The intent is to open a rental center with inventory of contractor and homeowner equipment, homeowner tools, and some party items. The outdoor storage would be for skid steerers, and mini-excavators, which will be stored to the rear of the building behind the existing fence and screened area.

 

David Martine asked Robert Seacat if the business intends to build a fence along Andover Road. Robert said they have no plans to substantially alter the property layout at all. Owners may decide to install an automatic gate to replace the swinging one.

 

Ray Jessen asked if the rear fence is chain link that can be seen through. Robert said some of the slats are missing out of the chain link fence along the north side. Robert said he believes the site plan requires slatting in the chain link. Along the east side is a 6’ cedar fence. Lynn Heath asked if the cedar fence is in good shape. Robert said he thinks so and stated there are a lot of trees around the fence also.

 

Jan Cox asked the applicant if he plans to assure the screening on the chain link fence is in place. Robert Seacat said he would if that is required. Lynn Heath said the slats should be replaced for the owner’s security.

 

There was discussion about the residential and commercial equipment that will be offered by this rental center. Robert said there is no intention to display items out front along Andover Road.

 

Quentin Coon asked if cement would be offered. Robert said they do not plan to get into that.

 

Chairman Coon asked if anyone from the audience wished to make comments. Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m.

 

Chairman Coon asked for an explanation of Zoning Regulation 4-110. Les read from B-2 special uses: “This district is designed to provide for the retail sale of convenience goods and services in shopping districts of limited size areas near to residential neighborhoods at the intersections of two arterial streets or an arterial and a collector street.”

 

Chairman Coon began the review of the Rezoning Report at 8:47 p.m.

SU-2006-04: Special Use request to establish a General Rental Center including outdoor storage located at 328 N. Andover Road.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.  7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2006-04

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Ralph Hoyt & Robert Seacat

 

REQUEST:

General Rental Center Special Use in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing special use for sailboat sales & service center.

 

LOCATION:

328 N. Andover Road

 

SITE SIZE:

130’ x 305’ = 0.9 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Rental of equipment, tools, & party items.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-1 Single-Family residence

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business car wash

East:

R-1 Single-Family residence

West:

B-2 Neighborhood Business (Sonic & Kentucky Fried Chicken)

 

Background Information:

Currently operated as a sailboat sales/repair facility.

 

* 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:

Stated above.

 

 

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:

Stated above.

 

 

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:

Andover has grown enough to support a rental center.

 

 

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:

All are in place and adequate

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:

Screening is in place.

 

x

PLANNING:

Slats found missing in the chain link on the north side need to be replaced.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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 by the change.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Pg. 8-10 “further infilling north-south along Andover Road.

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

None at this time.

 

 

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 as applied for.

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

General discussion continued about conditions to be included into the motion. Les Mangus said he would not consider the concrete mixing to be an accessory use to a rental storage store. If they want to add that at a later date, the applicant will have to return to this committee.

 

 

 

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 that Case No. SU-2006-04  be modified & approved to establish a General Rental Center including outdoor storage based on the findings 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15  of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

  1. Withdraw the Special Use for the sailboat store.
  2. Storage will be behind the building and inside the existing gated fence.
  3. All service will be done inside the building.
  4. Fence along the north side will be upgraded to meet site plan screening requirements.

 

  Motion seconded by Ray Jessen. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-05: Rob Ramseyer of Chestnut Ridge LLC, pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations, requests a variance of 7 feet 6 inches from the required 10 feet maximum sign height limitation for the purpose of construction of two- 17’6” monument signs on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District on Andover Road and B-3 Central Shopping District at the 21st Street entrance.

 

Chairman Coon asked Les for his comments on this application.

 

Les Mangus said the developer of the Cornerstone residential development desires to construct major entrance monuments to the 21st Street and Andover Rd. entries into the project. The Andover Rd. locations is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential, which limits the maximum height of a sign to 15 feet. Coincidentally the 21st St. entrance is zoned B-3 Central Shopping District, and limits the height of signs to 10 feet. The Site Plan Review Committee has reviewed the proposed monuments, and given approval contingent on the receipt of a variance of the maximum height limitation. Given the locations at the major entrances to the project, and the scale of the landscaping of the sign locations, Staff supports the variances as applied for.

 

Les said this application was received on July 14, 2006, notice was published on July 20, 2006 and notices mailed to the adjoining property owners on July 18, 2006.

 

David Martine asked if these are the same monument signs that were approved at the last Site Plan Review Committee meeting. Les said yes they are.

 

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to present his case.

 

Jason Gish of MKEC explained the tower element as part of the entry monument sign that exceeds regulations.

 

Quentin Coon said the sign looks unbalanced. Jason Gish said the landscape which includes lots of trees, which when they mature, will balance out the visual effect.

 

There was general discussion about the 2 curved entry monument signs which do match. Jason said the monuments need to be this massive to compliment the size of the development. Discussion continued about the size of trees that will be planted.

Quentin Coon asked if the signs will be lighted. Jason Gish said they will have ground lighting.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m.

BZA-V-2006-05: Rob Ramseyer of Chestnut Ridge LLC, pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations, requests a variance of 7 feet 6 inches from the required 10 feet maximum sign height limitation for the purpose of construction of two- 17’6” monument signs on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District on Andover Road and B-3 Central Shopping District at the 21st Street entrance.

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

Quentin Coon said this is created by the applicant.

Jan Cox said it is not unique as far as any other development. Discussion continued.

Les interjected that the condition is unique, because this development only has 2 major entrances to 200 acres of residential development in that area, compared to others who may have 5 or 6.

X

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

X

 

 

3.

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

Several Commissioners stated that without the massive size of the entry monuments, it would not create the same statement.

X

 

 

4.

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

X

 

 

5.

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

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

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

 

 

 

1.

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

Lynn Heath said this should be approved due to the size of the housing development, and the trees that will landscape them will help the signs to blend into the surrounding area.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

Les Mangus said this developer will not own this reserve forever, and then it will belong to the owners in the neighborhood.

Lynn Heath said the lots will sell no matter what, but the monuments make it look more appealing.

X

 

 

3.

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

 Lynn Heath said that is true because it blends in with the proposed landscaping. 

X

 

 

4.

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

Les Mangus said these monuments will be set back from the vision triangles.

Byron Stout said they blend in with the existing landscape.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-05 as requested. David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals at 9:20 p.m.  and Reconvene the Planning Commission. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0. .

 

 

 

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone Commercial Addition located at the northeast corner of 21st St. and 159th St.

 

Rob Hartman from Professional Engineering Co. represented the owner/applicant for this case.  Rob said this plat contains the revisions that were approved earlier in this meeting. He offered to answer questions.

 

Quentin Coon asked Les if everything was in order. Les Mangus said the developer desires to reconfigure the zoning parcels and replat the commercial and multi-family parcels currently platted in the Cornerstone School Addition. The elementary school site would remain unchanged. The PUD amendment to change the zoning is to be heard by the Planning Commission on August 15th. The proposal is to swap the location of the apartment site from an internal parcel east of the hospital site to a location south of the new elementary school and east of 159th St. The current apartment site is proposed to be an office complex. Staff supports the changes in general, but careful attention should be paid to improvements to 159th St. to accommodate the school and apartment traffic because of the competing peak traffic times.

 

Lynn Heath asked about the 8’ sidewalk. Rob said it will be on the east side of Keystone Parkway on the B-1 side.

 

Lynn asked about the entrance to the R-2 off of Keystone by the lake. Rob said they are platting a 100’ wide right-of-way there. Reserve B will permit the right-of-way access.

 

Quentin asked about the drainage easements.  Rob said the new drainage concept will reduce the runoff to other developments.  Les said the drainage from this development is routed over to another lot should be in an easement to follow the path of the grading for drainage. Rob said they are providing a platted easement between the lots 1 & 2 and between 2 & 3 their will be a drainage easement along the south line going east to the lakes along Keystone.

 

Quentin Coon asked Les if all his comments have been satisfied. Les said we don’t have the revisions showing the access to the north and setbacks.

 

Rob Hartman said they agree to all of Les’ comments including the providing of access to the north and drainage easements.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final PUD of Cornerstone Commercial Addition with the condition of all Les’ comments being satisfied. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone Commercial Addition located at the northeast corner of 21st St. and 159th St..

 

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Marketplace East Addition located on the south side of US-54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Street.

 

Greg Allison from MKEC Engineering presented the final plat. Greg said they are in agreement with all Les’ comments on the checklist. There was general discussion about how to serve Yorktown to get it connected as it goes out to US Hwy. 54. He said as Yorktown exits onto 54, the intent is to create a separate document of right-of-way dedication.

 

From Les Mangus Memo: The proposed plat is the result the developer putting together sites for a YMCA and an elementary school. The proposed plat has a lot of issues with the layout and street connections. The two tracts west of the subject are not owned by the developer, which creates a problem for connectivity to the Yorktown Rd. & US-54 intersection, and the logical extension of the reverse frontage road from the Cloud City Commercial PUD. The existing neighborhood east of the subject property makes continuation of the reverse frontage road at this time a problem, which makes the right in / right out access to US-54 very important to adequate traffic circulation around the two heavy traffic generators. Staff believes that a future stub of the reverse frontage concept should be provided along the east property line. The five-way intersection proposed at Yorktown Rd. & Commerce Place and the extension of Yorktown Rd. need a detailed study to determine a suitable alignment. At this point the developer has not closed the purchase of the property and is holding the annexation and zoning contingent on that closing. In Staff opinion the proposed plat still has some details needing attention before accepting the final plat.

 

Les said the only outstanding issue is the final drainage plan that will be generated with the improvement plans for streets.

 

Les said the City Council and the developer have come to an agreement on the connection of Yorktown to 54.

 

Lynn Heath was concerned about the road at the corner of Pattison and Yorktown which will be a free right turn intersection. The Subdivision Committee also asked for the 10’ sidewalk to be built on the school side of Yorktown and Pattison Street going north next to Reserves A & B.

 

Quentin Coon asked if any connections would be made to the west. Greg said no. Les further explained the street connections in this development. General discussion continued to compare the original PUD to the revised plan.

 

Jan Cox said the Subdivision Committee asked for the existing tree row to be preserved and noted on the plat. Lynn Heath said it is shown now.

 

Discussion continued about sidewalks in this development. Greg Allison said all the sidewalk information will be included in the petitions for the developer’s agreement.

 

Greg Allison showed the access point for future connection to another road that would run to the east at Reserve B.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat of Marketplace East as presented with the additional note of the sidewalk being built on the school side of Yorktown and Pattison and on the east side of Pattison going north to Hwy. 54, and conditional upon all of staff comments. This approval is further contingent upon the agreement to build Yorktown north to Hwy. 54. Byron Stout seconded the motion.

 

Greg Allison asked if the Yorktown connection would delay the City Council approval of the final plat. Jeff said the Council will not accept it without a solution in place.

 

Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Final Plat of the Marketplace East Addition located on the south side of US-54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Street.

 

 

 

Member Items:

Lynn Heath- Asked what is being built where Livingstons used to be. Les said it is O’Reilly’s Automotive.

 

David Martine- Asked about the progress on 13th Street. Les explained the Sedgwick County project has water line and storm sewer installed from K-96 all the way to the county line. It is the county’s intention that the mile between 143rd and 159th including the intersection at 159th will be completed this fall. The bridge is scheduled to be completed in late December. We anticipate the construction of the half mile of pavement between the county line and the existing pavement at the concrete plant won’t start until early spring of 2007 and will be a 6 month project. KDOT  thinks this will be finished in Mid-August of 2007.

 

Ray Jessen Jr.- Stated his grandmother who has lived in Andover for 60 years is requesting a public swimming pool.

 

Jan Cox- none

Byron Stout- none

Quentin Coon- none

Jeff Syrios- absent

Caroline Hale- none

 

Les Mangus stated the Sub-Committee appointed to discuss the changes to the R-1 and R-2 zoning district bulk regulations. He would like to meet before the next Planning Commission meeting. This meeting will have to recess until that time and place. Those members are Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, and Quentin Coon. There was discussion about suggested times and locations.  

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50  p.m. to convene here at city hall for a Workshop Session on Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Dinner will be served for the members.  David Martine seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 19th day of September 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.