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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

September 19, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Lori Hays and Sheri Geisler.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, Administrative Assistant.  Charles Malcom was absent.

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:03 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Review of the minutes of the August 15, 2000 and August 23, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meetings.

 

Motion to approve minutes as presented by Lynn Heath, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the August 15, 2000 and August 23, 2000 PC mtgs.

 

 

Minutes of the September 12, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the August 29, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   None.

Minutes

 

 

Public hearing on Case No. Z-98-05, Caywood Addition Amended Preliminary Planned Unit Development.  Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates presented on behalf of the developer.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.  Mr. Hill stated some of the reasons for the amendment to the Preliminary PUD.  The reasons include the addition of a parcel approximately 324’ x 638’, and a revision of lot sizes, making them smaller and more affordable. 

 

Mr. Hill stated that the first Phase of the project will be adjacent to 159th Street.   Mr. Hill stated that his developer is working with the City of Wichita to extend a 30” water main from 143rd Street to 159th Street and tie into a 16” water main and extend a 24” water main along 159th Street to the development.  Mr. Hill stated this amendment also changed the street right of ways to current city standards.  Mr. Hill noted that KGE has requested additional easements and they have also been added.  Mr. Hill stated that he met with the Subdivision Committee on September 12, 2000 and agreed to the majority of their suggestions, including providing pedestrian access to the lake, changing the street name of Sumac to Honeysuckle, expand the sideyard from 6’ to 8’, and adding a playground, probably in lot 34 or that general area in the first phase of development, similar to the playground in Quail Crossing with equipment such as swings, things to climb and slides which are in mulch.

 

Les Mangus stated that the developer, Jay Russell, would offer the playground for the 1st Phase as he is reluctant to landscape and develop around the lake until that parcel is developed in Phase 2.  This is a long distance from Phase 1 and is concerned about a path to the lake and has offered to put in a temporary playground in Phase 1 until Phase 2 begins to be developed, at which time the developer would move the temporary playground to the lake area.

 

Mr. Hill stated that in the original Preliminary P.U.D. there were several uses in Reserve E.  He stated all uses have been eliminated other than the drainage and utility easements.  Mr. Hill stated that General Provision #17 has been eliminated; he was not sure why this was on the Preliminary P.U.D.

 

Mr. Hill stated the developer is opposed to the Subdivision Committee’s request for 8’ sidewalks on the collector streets.  He is opposed for the following reasons:

 

1.         The design is tough with the standard design, which would cause the driveway to be too steep and the sidewalk grade would have to be changed,

 

2.         This addition was planned prior to the 8’ requirement became a reality,

 

3.         There are a large number of lots that front on the collector streets, and

 

4.         The concrete gets broken when the home are built.

 

He summarized that this would cause a change in their design standards, costs would be a consideration as they would be higher and there could be utility conflicts as some utilities would be under the 8’ sidewalk.   Mr. Hill stated that he did a cost analysis.  The cost for the 5’ sidewalk 4” thick is $18,500.  The same length of 8’ sidewalk 6” thick would cost $39,600.  The developer wants to keep costs lower in order to have less expensive housing in Andover. 

 

John McEachern asked when the detention/retention pond would be going in.  Mr. Hill stated this would go in during the first phase.    Mr. McEachern stated that in General Provision #18, line 5 it reads as “…water detention ponds, sidewalks, paths, walkways, landscaping, fighting, irrigation,…” and he feels the word fighting should be lighting.  He also stated that Lot 6 could be used for the playground.  He also commented there doesn’t seem to be a location for a pool and if there is to be no pool it should be stricken from the General Provisions.  He also commented that the Planning Commission should require a minimum number of picnic tables to be installed near the playground equipment.

 

Jeff Bridges stated that General Provision 22 states “35 percent of the lots of previously platted phases must have construction of new homes started prior to beginning construction of streets…”.  He stated this should be changed to “35 percent of the lots of previously platted phases must have certificates of occupancy prior to beginning construction of streets…” .  He also stated the current collector street policy for sidewalks is 5’ and the revised draft is 8’.

 

Les Mangus stated that change in the sidewalk widths follows the recommendations of the Streetscapes Guidelines. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if 2 4’ sidewalks would work.  Les Mangus stated that ADA requires the sidewalks need to be large enough for 2 30” paths for wheelchairs to pass.  Mr. Mangus also reminded the Commission that the Park and Recreation goal is to interconnect arterial roads and the park system.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the drainage in Reserve E flows to Reserve D.  Mr. Hill stated that the water comes into Reserve D and flows to Reserve E. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to address the issue of the Caywood Addition Amended Preliminary P.U.D.  There was no one.

 

Lynn Heath asked if the additional parcel was annexed into the city.  Les Mangus stated that is was not but it could be done. 

 

Joe Robertson asked if in Lot 18 going to Reserve D, if Lot 18 was being abandoned or if part of it is being shaved for the easement to Reserve D.  Mr. Hill stated that a 5’ sidewalk easement is being provided on Lot 18.

 

John McEachern asked what the fencing provision for this sidewalk reserve was.  Mr. Hill stated that he did not know as he has not seen the covenants.  Mr. McEachern asked about the sidewalk or “path” provisions for this addition.  Mr. Hill stated he did not know.  Mr. McEachern stated that it looks like the walkway along Lot 18 should have wrought iron fencing, not 6’ cedar fence as this would create a 100’ “tunnel” effect.

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m.

 

Jim Orr wanted to disclose that he was in the notification area for this case and did receive such notification and also has seen the sign out at 159th and 21st Street. 

 

Les Mangus stated that his recommendation is to require the 8’ sidewalks and shift the Basswood Street over.  This would help with the utilities, the grading, water, sewer and storm sewer also.  He stated that the sidewalk would be at the property line not the curb.  He stated that the front edge of the sidewalk should be 6” above the flow line of the curb.  This can be accomplished by off setting the center line of the street.

 

John McEachern asked if there is 66’ right of way needed for the street.  Les Mangus stated that we require a 37’ street with 14 ½ feet on either side of the curb.  Les Mangus stated that projects can take 5-8 years and we want the continuity of the sidewalks now.

 

Quentin Coon asked about two 5’ sidewalks.  Les Mangus stated that this would not accommodate a bicycle and a pedestrian at the same time. 

 

John McEachern reiterated that the fencing to the Reserve should be wrought iron, and that is also an accent to the water and wouldn’t keep it hidden.  He again stated if there is to be no pool, strike the pool information from the General Provisions. 

 

Kenny Hill stated that he will talk to the developer and suggest Lot 6 for the pool area.

 

Lynn Heath asked John McEachern if we should specify the number of picnic tables in Reserve D.  John McEachern stated there should be some type of minimum number required which could be a combination of benches and/or picnic tables. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend to the governing body annexation of the 234’ x 638’ addition (approximately 3.2 acres) of the Caywood Addition Amended Preliminary P.U.D.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  The motion carried 7-0.

 

Ron Roberts stated that he would like to see a larger opening than 5’ maybe perhaps between lots 14 and 15.  Mr. Hill stated that due to the drainage they needed to make lots 14 and 15 the sizes they are. 

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend approval of the Caywood Addition Amended Preliminary P.U.D., zoning case Z-98-05 with the following conditions:

 

1.         General Provision 15 to indicate 8’ sidewalk along the collector street, Basswood.

2.         Modify General Provision 18.  Change line 5, it reads as “…water detention ponds, sidewalks, paths, walkways, landscaping, fighting, irrigation,…” the word fighting should be lighting.

3.         General Provision 22 states “35 percent of the lots of previously platted phases must have construction of new homes started prior to beginning construction of streets…”.  This should be changed to “35 percent of the lots of previously platted phases must have certificates of occupancy prior to beginning construction of streets…”.

4.         Delete General Provision 17.

5.         General Provision 20, reword Reserve E to be drainage and utilities only.

6.         Change the Parcel 1 description from 6’ sideyard to 8’ sideyard.

7.         Note a playground will be on Lot 34, Block 1 during Phase 1 and will be moved to property in Phase 2 near the lake during the development of Phase 2.

8.         Change the name of Sumac to Honeysuckle.

9.         Phase 1, Lots 16, 17 and 18 be condensed into two lots with a 50’ corridor or walkway which is now shown as a 5’ corridor or walkway between Lots 18 and 1 in Block 1.

10.       General Provision 18.  If not pool, remove the wording for pool.  If there is a pool, identify the location and leave the wording in.

 

Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath. 

 

There was general discussion regarding the motion.

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to change the playground area from Lot 34 to Lot 16, 17 or 18 or Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 in Phase 2 in conjunction with the 50’ corridor/walkway.  There was no second.  Motion dies for lack of second.

 

Motion was made by Quentin Coon to amend the current motion to incorporate the playground in reconfigured lot 15, 16, 17, 18 or Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 in Phase 2 and corridor/walkway could be included.  Motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Jim Orr asked when 159th Street from 21st Street to the entrance of Caywood, would be paved.   Jeff Bridges stated that the original P.U.D. required 159th Street to be paved from 21st Street to the Caywood entrance.   Kenny Hill stated that the developer plans to pave all the way to the railroad tracks. 

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to add to the current motion to add into the general provisions that 159th Street be paved within +/- 5’ of the railroad right-of-way.  Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0.

Case No. Z-98-05, Caywood Addition Amended Preliminary Planned Unit Development

 

 

Caywood Addition Final P.U.D. Plan for Phase 1.  Kenny Hill presented information on behalf of the developer.   The changes include changing the name of Cottonwood to another undecided name and Lot 34 being the interim playground. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the Caywood Addition Final P.U.D. Plan for Phase 1 to the governing body with the following conditions:

 

1.         Change the street name of Cottonwood to another name, currently undecided.

2.         Lot 34 becoming the interim playground.

 

Motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

John McEachern asked if Mr. Hill would contact the developer of Cedar Park and find out when the playground equipment will be put in.  Mr. Hill stated he would do that.

Caywood Addition Final P.U.D. Plan for Phase 1. 

 

 

Decker/Kiser Annexation.  Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend to the Governing Body the approval of the annexation of the Decker/Kiser property.  Motion was seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7-0.

Decker/Kiser Annexation. 

 

 

Z-2000-06 Public hearing on establishing the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice was given and official notice in the paper was given.  Les Mangus stated that it had been given.

 

Jeff Bridges stated this is a piece of property approximately 1/8th of the total city size.

 

Rob Hartman from Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A., 303 S. Topeka, Wichita, presented on behalf of the developer.  Mr. Hartman stated that there were some minor changes since the sketch plan was presented to the Planning Commission.  These changes include:

 

1.         More drainage retention added.

2.         Changes in the proposed zoning.

 

Rob Hartman stated that this addition will be approximately 505 acres.  There will be 70 acres of reserves, open spaces and parks.  Parcel 8 will be a 5 acre site dedicated to the City of Andover for a park.   This addition will have 8’ sidewalks along the collector streets, which are a bike/pedestrian path.  Mr. Hartman stated that each neighborhood will have a sidewalk loop and all connect together throughout the whole development.  Mr. Hartman stated there will be no access onto the collector streets and no parking on the collector streets.

 

Mr. Hartman stated that there will be 1006 dwelling units which will consist of 627 single family dwellings, 167 duplexes and the balance in multiple family dwelling units.  The density is 3.14 dwelling units per acre net and 1.99 dwelling units per acre gross.  He stated that the minimum lot size will be 80 x 120, which will be 10,400 sq. feet. 

 

Mr. Hartman stated that the developer will maintain as much of the hedgerow as possible and will remove some only for drainage.   He stated that all open spaces will connect with the access easements or reserve areas.  

 

Joe Robertson asked Les Mangus what would generate the widening of 21st Street.  Les Mangus stated the traffic count would generate the widening of the road.    Mr. Mangus stated that with the 60’ street right of way this would allow for 5 lanes of traffic. 

 

Mr. Hartman stated that this is on a 15 year development plan.  The development will start in the SE corner, and develop to the west then north.  The developer will petition to the City for public sewer, water and streets. 

 

Mr. Hartman stated that KGE has required additional easements.  KGE is responsible for the south half of the property.  Butler County Rural Electric is responsible for the north side.  Mr. Hartman stated that he has not heard from Butler County Rural Electric yet for any easements.  Les Mangus stated that Butler County Rural Electric will ask for any additional easement at the final plat. 

 

Mr. Hartman was asked by someone from the public who he represented.  Mr. Hartman stated he represents George Laham and John Kiser.

 

John McEachern stated that in the General Provisions Item 11, item B, it stated “In no event shall a business or commercial structure be located nearer than 100 feet to a residential building.”  He feels 100 feet is not enough.  Les Mangus stated this is in the P.U.D. requirements.

 

Mr. Hartman also stated that the developer will make a determination as to what type of separation wall will be designated to separate commercial from residential when the final plat is shown for approval.  Jeff Bridges asked Mr. Hartman if he was aware there is a waiting list for financing.  Mr. Hartman stated that he is aware of that.    Mr. Bridges also stated that on General Provision 13 it states “…In the event that the total lots change from what is illustrated on the Preliminary P.U.D. Development Plan a revised plan shall be submitted to the City of Andover.”    Mr. Bridges stated that you many want to choose the wording so a change in one lot will not require a change in the P.U.D.  Les Mangus recommended that if there is a change 10% either way there is no need to submit a revised plan.

 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. 

 

Mr. Harold Scott of 2601 N. Andover Road addressed the Commission.  He stated he and his wife own 40 acres.  He has ponds on their property that overflow.  He stated that on the proposed addition it shows a dam in the middle about 75’ north of the hedgerow.  He said it doesn’t show where the drainage is going.    Chairman McEachern stated that there is a drainage plan required that will show where the drainage will go.  Mr. Scott stated he feels the water will go into the lots south of his property.  He also stated he would like the developer to put a wall up around his property.

 

Mr. John Ingold of 2707 N. Andover Road asked for clarification of the procedure of annexation that had just happened.   Chairman McEachern stated it is the role of the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will either accept the recommendation or not.  Jeff Bridges stated that there is no notification necessary for this annexation because the owners of the land are requesting annexation and this property is contiguous to the City of Andover.  Mr. Ingold asked what effect this would have on the people who were not annexed.  Mr. Bridges stated there would be no effect to the people not annexed.

 

Les Mangus stated that any one living in the area outside the City would continue to follow the Subdivision Regulations for the City of Andover and the County building codes.    Jeff Bridges also stated that land can be unilaterally annexed but notification is required.  Mr. Mangus stated that Kansas has right to farm laws and farmers will be protected.

 

John Ingold stated that the developers need to understand that this is farm land they are developing next too and animals don’t always stay where they belong.

 

Mr. James Gillett of 12703 Horseshoe Trail and his brother own 40 acres that abut the proposed addition.   He asked if water well drilling will be allowed.  Chairman McEachern stated that it would be.  Les Mangus stated it is the State of Kansas Department of Water Resources that regulates wells, not the City of Andover.  Mr. Gillett asked what his recourse on water usage is, he wants it restricted.  Chairman McEachern stated that it not the responsibility of this Commission to regulate the water wells.  Mr. Gillett stated that he didn’t think the Planning Commission could say they can’t control this.  Chairman McEachern stated that the Planning Commission is concerned with zoning and land use.  The regulation of water wells is not the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction or responsibility.  Les Mangus stated that citizens need to correspond with the Division of Water Resources and voice their concerns.  Joe Robertson asked if a permit was required for a well.  Les Mangus stated that every water well has to have a permit.  He also stated that the City of Andover requires a permit for the electricity and the plumbing and the City has no authority over the drilling of wells.    Mr. Gillett stated he is concerned with regards to the drainage on his property.  Chairman McEachern asked if the drainage flows north.  Mr. Gillett stated it does.  Joe Robertson asked him if he wanted to keep it north.  Mr. Gillett stated it is okay if it ends up in a catch pond. 

 

Mr. Harold Scott is worried about water; he has no water from the city. 

 

Mr. Ingold wanted to know the percentage of people who use chemicals on their lawn and wants to know where the chemicals will all go.  He feels the chemicals will end up in the ponds. Mr. Ingold stated “We will suffer for it.”   Les Mangus stated that a final plat of each parcel has to be drawn and the retention/detention has to be approved by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.  Joe Robertson stated that the public needs to also consider that there will be curbs and gutters to direct the water and it will not all be dumping into the ponds.  Mr. Robertson asked if anything is planned for widening Andover Road.  Jeff Bridges stated that Andover Road will have six openings, 2 for school, 3 to the commercial and one open to the residential area north of the school area.

 

Joyce Scott then commented that the houses to be developed to the south and west of her property will use chemicals and the drainage will go to her property and will kill her animals. 

 

Bill Osborne, 908 E. 13th, is the Bruno Township trustee. He stated that he has concerns with the maintenance on the roads on 29th Street when the development starts.  He stated he has talked to Dale Schaeffer, the Benton Township trustee, who is responsible for this road.   They are concerned who will do the maintenance and the township doesn’t see putting money into a road that is to be used by the developers that will be paying the taxes to the City of Andover.   Dale Schaeffer asked Bill Osborne to find out what the traffic pattern will be on 29th Street.

 

Les Mangus stated that the City recommends any parcel up for a final P.U.D. should have access to a paved road.  The last parcel to be developed will be to 29th Street, which will probably be in 15 years.  This should allow ample time for a maintenance agreement with Bruno and Benton Townships.  Jeff Bridges stated that the annexation excludes the road right of way.  Mr. Mangus stated the next step is to go to the Sedgwick County Commissioners and ask permission to annex the road right of way into the City of Andover.  Jeff Bridges stated there is no plan for an entrance into 159th Street at this time.  He also stated when those later phases are platted the road improvements will be done.  Chairman McEachern stated that he won’t allow people driving from developments onto dirt roads, only paved.

 

Joe Robertson stated there won’t be traffic on 159th from this subdivision for 10-15 years and as it becomes developed there will be more road for the City of Andover to maintain.  Bill Osborne stated he wants the City of Andover to assume the responsibility for this maintenance.  Chairman McEachern stated that when the needs and benefits are there, the city will assume responsibility for the roads.

 

Charles Hudson at 2250 N. Andover Road asked about drainage for the four houses north of Butler County Community College.  He stated that when there is a 2” rain the houses all flood, or at the least water gets into the garages.  He asked when Andover Road would be widened and curb and gutter added.   Jeff Bridges stated that the amount of traffic determines the need for those road improvements and there is not sufficient traffic at this time to warrant any improvements.

 

Les Mangus stated that there are lakes being developed in the southeast corner of the proposed development as a control structure for water runoff.  He also stated that the west third of the quarter section drains south across 21st street and it will have a separate drainage area.  Rob Hartman stated that since the preliminary drawing the drainage design has been revised.  He stated that the drainage that comes off of the property will not be increased.  It will be retained on the site.  He stated that the drainage will not increase to any other land and what is on the site will be retained on the site. 

 

John Ingold stated he did not agree.  He believes the containment ponds will not be big enough to handle the water.  The way it is today it isn’t handled.  John McEachern stated there will be a slight decrease in the water, not an increase.  Mr. Ingold stated the developer needs to make accommodations to maintain more water than is flowing now. 

 

Wes Timmerman, 3006 N. 159th Street, Andover, has lived at this address 9 years.  He is concerned as to the paving of this corner.  He has seen water 3’ deep and 8’ wide several times since he has lived there and is concerned about flooding in this area.  He stated the water flows to the corner of 159th and 29th Streets from the northwest quarter.  Chairman McEachern asked if Mr. Timmerman had any suggestions for the developer.  Mr. Timmerman suggested a overflow or retention pond.   Mr. Timmerman then asked if there would be trees or a wall on 29th Street.  He would like some screening with a country appeal.  Chairman McEachern stated that he cannot imagine the development dumping onto a dirt road as the Planning Commission has not allowed that in the past. 

 

Rob Hartman wanted to answer the questions of the public.  He stated Mrs. Scott asked how close the houses would be to the hedgerow.  He stated most of the lots are 150’ deep Probably 40-50’ from the back of the house to the existing hedgerow.   He stated there will be little change in grade.  The lots will be sloped to the front to the street to the storm sewer.  Mr. Hartman stated there will be more than enough detention to maintain what drainage is happening now.  Mr. Hartman stated that he does not know about a drainage problem on the east side of Andover Road, per Mr. Charles Hudson’s comments, however the developer will fix the drainage problems on their property.

 

Mr. Hartman wanted to know if a masonry wall would be required between the residential development and the homeowners on the north west part of the section.  He asked if the city wanted to set a precedent to require a masonry wall.  He stated there was no knowing the use of the property in 20 years but he doubted it would be agricultural, most likely would be developed and the masonry wall would block off small future development areas.  

 

Joyce Scott of 2601 N. Andover Road then got up and stated they have lived at this location for 25 years and wants the developer to provide a fence or a wall.  She stated she doesn’t want to be liable for children to get into her pond.  She stated she doesn’t always see who gets access to her pond as it is not close to the house.  She wants the developer to provide a wall.

 

Hearing no further comment from the public, the public hearing was closed at 9:31 p.m. 

 

Lynn Heath asked about the legal issue of the liability of the Scott pond.  What needs to be addressed? 

 

John McEachern stated that we have not required fencing of ponds in agricultural areas or residential areas in the past.   He stated that the fencing is the responsibility of the landowner because the landowner owns the pond.

 

Les Mangus wanted to point out that the 5-acre proposed city park includes a retention/detention pond to the north.    Rob Hartman stated the pond is in a reserve not the public park area.

 

Les Mangus stated that this would be a good time to add a general provision that no development is to take place next to an unimproved gravel road that the road needs to be paved before the development phase.

 

John McEachern asked about the 5 acre park land.  What would it be like?  Les Mangus stated that it would be developed as the city sees fit.  Jeff Bridges stated that it has to be decided how it would be dedicated to the City before a decision is made to accept the 5 acres.

 

Jeff Bridges also stated that the city and county need to meet and address the drainage issue that would be between them.

 

Lynn Heath stated that there was no tree line at 159th on 29th Street.  He stated it would be nice to have a tree line there.  Mr. Hartman stated there is nothing planned for this area yet.  This stage of planning will be done at the final plat stage.

 

Lynn Heath stated that he is glad to see the development to the north of Andover.

 

Ron Roberts stated that the general development provisions have a reference to private streets.  Les Mangus stated that the developer is to remove all references to private streets.

 

Chairman John McEachern called a 5 minute recess at 9:50 p.m.  The meeting reconvened at 9:56 p.m.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of Z-2000-06 the General P.U.D. of the Decker/Kiser property with the following conditions:

1.         5 acre park boundary to differentiate between the reserve and the park.

2.         No development will be next to unpaved roads.

3.         Any reference to private streets in the General Provisions is to be removed.

 

Quentin Coon seconded the motion.

 

Sheri Geisler asked if wells are regulated.  Les Mangus stated that wells are regulated.  Sheri Geisler asked where someone could go with their water concerns.  Les Mangus stated this needs to go to the State of Kansas, Department of Water Resources.  Lynn Heath asked if water for homes are high priority.  Les Mangus said not necessarily, whoever has the prior right is who would have the preference.

 

Chairman McEachern called for a vote on the motion.

 

Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the public for attending the public hearing.

 

John Ingold of 2707 N. Andover Road asked if he could address the Planning Commission on a different subject.  Chairman McEachern stated he could. 

 

Mr. Ingold stated he has been involved the past 15-17 years with the Recreation Commission as a coach.  He stated that the Parks and Recreation hasn’t grown to keep up with the growth in Andover.  He would like to recommend that the Planning Commission require park land in new developments.  He stated that kids need something to do and the City needs to do something.

 

Les Mangus stated that the Park and Recreation Master Plan states that there shall be a 5 acre park provided for in each square mile of development.  He also stated that every new residential dwelling unit pays $675.00 into the park fund.  This development alone will provide $647,000 in park fees.  Les Mangus also stated that the City has purchased more park land and will develop it in the future.  Jeff Bridges stated that the City is beginning construction on a new park now.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  The motion carried 7-0.

Z-2000-06 Public hearing on establishing the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development

 

 

The Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 10:09 p.m. 

 

 

 

Public Hearing of BZA-A-2000-01, Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Terry Presta, of Presto Oil, at 2035 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas.

 

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Agenda Item No. 9

 

CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

 

CALL TO ORDER BY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CHAIRMAN McEACHERN:

 

            It is 10:09 p.m. and I now call Agenda Item No. 9 which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-A-2000-01 pursuant to Section 10-106 of the City Zoning Regulations as an appeal from a determination of the Zoning Administrator with respect to the interpretation, application or enforcement of the Zoning Regulations.  We would like to welcome everyone interested in this hearing and lay out a few ground rules:

 

1.      It is important that you present any facts or views that you have as evidence at this hearing so that findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.

 

  1. This Board is authorized by state statutes to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing Body.

 

  1. I will call upon the Zoning Administrator to describe his determination and then the appellant to make his appeal.  After them, we will hear from other interest parties.  After all have been heard, each party will have an opportunity for final comments.  The Board will close the hearing to further public comments and they will then consider their decision during which time they may direct questions to the Zoning Administrator, appellant, the public, and staff or our consultant.

 

  1. In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board may affirm or reverse, wholly or partially, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from, and my make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the Zoning Administrator.  Furthermore, the Board may issue or direct the issuance of a zoning permit and/or occupancy certificate.  Conditions may be attached to such a decision that could have otherwise been available to the Zoning Administrator in making the initial decision.  The Board shall render a written decision in the form of a resolution on the appeal without unreasonable delay after the close of the hearing, but within at least 45 days after the close of the hearing.

 

  1. You should also be fully aware that if the appellant chooses to describe various aspects of their appeal, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes. 

 

Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address.  

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

 

            Before we proceed with the hearing, I’ll ask the Board members if any of them intend to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing and voting on this case because they or their spouses own property in the area of notification or have conflicts of interests or a particular bias on this matter.  No member disqualified themselves. 

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

            According to the Secretary, a notice for this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on August 24, 2000 and notices were mailed to the appellant and the real property owners of record in the area of notification on August 22, 2000.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I’ll declare that proper notification has been given.

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

 

            I will now ask the Board members if any of them have received any ex parte verbal or written communications prior to this hearing which they would like to share with all the members at this time.  As you know, it is not necessary to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  (If any written communications are presented, such material might better be read just before the close of the hearing.)

 

BACKGROUND FACTS:

 

            There are certain preliminary background facts which we need to determine.

 

1.         Was the appeal made within 30 days of the decision by the Zoning Administrator?

            Yes.

 

2.         Has the Appellant submitted a statement specifying the grounds for appeal?  Yes.

 

3.         If requested by the Chairperson, has the Appellant submitted a drawing attached to the application?A drawing was not requested.

 

4.         Has the Zoning Administrator transmitted to the Chairperson all the record upon which the appeal is based?  Yes.

 

5.         Have all legal proceedings, if applicable, been stayed in accordance with Section 10-106 C of the Zoning regulations?  Yes.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION:

 

            I will now call on our Zoning Administrator, Les Mangus, to provide us with a brief factual background report on his determination.

            Les Mangus stated that the appellant is protesting the following items:

 

1.         Construct a 6 foot cedar fence trash dumpster screening area at the southeast corner of the building with protective ballards at the corners of the concrete slab on property zoned as the B-3 Central Shopping District.

 

2.         Construct a blue metal fascia on the West side of the building to match the existing north and east sides of the building.

 

3.         Place six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the south edge of the parking and gas pump area, and six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the west edge of the site.

 

4.         Construct hard surface paving of the areas south and west of the building used for truck traffic circulation, or close the access to those areas if left unpaved,

 

Les Mangus also stated that the Zoning Regulations charge the Planning Commission to require a paved driveway to a public street.  Mr. Mangus stated that Joe Freeman, Chairman of the Site Plan Review Committee is here to support the conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee.   Les Mangus asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for him, there were none. 

 

APPELLANT’S APPEAL:

 

I now call upon the appellant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the appeal.

 

Terry Presta, the president of Presto Oil, 15434 Ironhorse Circle of Leawood, Kansas, is the appellant.  He stated he has been in the convenience business for 20 years.  He has known Bill and Charlotte King since the early 80’s.   Approximately 3 years ago Bill King approached Mr. Presta about doing business in Andover.  Mr. Prests signed a lease approximately 2 years ago.

 

When his company pulled permits for the remodeling, they were informed of the Site Plan Review Committee.  He was surprised as he didn’t think that would apply with a remodel.  He had never seen that before.  There was a rush on getting the permits and such as they had to get a permit from the EPA by the end of December, 1998.  The EPA extended the deadline and they got the EPA approval and got the tanks done.  Mr. Presta stated that he spent $750,000 to remodel the two stores to bring them up to Presto standards, as they have a long term lease.  The diesel fuel was at the Central store.  He wanted to discontinue the diesel altogether however the King’s persuaded him to keep the diesel and he chose to move it to the north store. 

When the store went in front of the Site Plan Review Committee it was plain that one member in particular did not like the presented plan.  After discussion, a motion was made for approval so the building permit could be pulled with final comments to come back with a final landscaping plan.  Mr. Presta feels it is odd to require that a person is to landscape the city right of way.    When Mr. Presta came back before the Site Plan Review Committee for landscaping they came with a very detailed plan.  Mr. Presta stated that the landscaping was completed and very costly.  He doesn’t feel they should have to landscape city property.  Mr. Presta discussed the 4 items he is appealing as follows:

1.         Construct a 6 foot cedar fence trash dumpster screening area at the southeast corner of the building with protective ballards at the corners of the concrete slab.  Mr. Presta stated he has no problem with the screening but feels the paving issue should be addressed prior to his doing any screening.

 

2.         Construct a blue metal fascia on the West side of the building to match the existing north and east sides of the building.  Mr. Presta stated that he was coming for landscaping and this was added later and this should not have been added.

 

3.         Place six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the south edge of the parking and gas pump area, and six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the west edge of the site.   Mr. Presta stated that he has leased part of the property and his lease states he cannot block any egress on the property.  He stated this is on Mr. King’s property, not in his leased property and Mr. King doesn’t want the trees on his egress.

 

4.         Construct hard surface paving of the areas south and west of the building used for truck traffic circulation, or close the access to those areas if left unpaved.  Mr. Presta states that this is a zoning issue, as has been stated many times by others.  He wants the driveway open for truck traffic.  He has invested a lot in the property.  Mr. Presta feels the issue is between Mr. King and the City of Andover.  Most of this is on Mr. King’s property.  He also stated he has told Mr. King he would pay half or up to $20,000 for the hard surface. 

 

Mr. Presta feels it is unfortunate to make this large of an investment and have the Site Plan Review Committee add so many items not under their control.  Mr. Presta contends that these issues are not under landscaping, however he would do the screening if the rest could be worked out. 

 

John McEachern asked what diesel has to do with the road.  Mr. Presta stated that the diesel is at the far south pump.  The location makes it easier for the drivers to come from the rear of the building and pull up to the pump.  The majority of the diesel business is from the Andover school district and he feels that the Commission will give no consideration for the school district buses if the Commission requires paving. 

 

Mr. Presta states he is trying to run a good business and doesn’t want to “be put through the paces” by the Site Plan Review Committee.  He also summarized and stated that he disagrees with these 4 conditions, as they were not part of the original approval.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

Les Mangus asked Joe Freeman, the Site Plan Review Committee Chairman to address the Planning Commission about this issue.  Mr. Freeman stated that he reviewed the minutes from the Site Plan Review Committee for the past 18 months.  He stated that the initial review was a sketchy plan that the Site Plan Review Committee members deemed inadequate for landscaping but approved the structure to allow the gas islands, and the applicant was to return to the meeting for the following month with the landscaping plans.  Mr. Freeman stated that the applicant came back several months later, in September with a site plan.  The items normally asked for in the review process includes screening, trees, driveway information, etc.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Committee felt the tracking of mud on the city streets was a detriment to the community, the screening was an attempt to soften the hard exterior, and the facia needed to continue around the building so as to present a nice entrance into Andover on 21st Street from the West.  Mr. Freeman stated that that Presto’s agent revised the plans, and came back in October.  He stated that no action was taken by the Site Plan Review Committee in October and the September plan is the approved one.  He stated that no objections were raised on the fascia at that time. Quentin Coon asked what was the action in October.  Mr. Freeman stated that the revised plan deleted the cedar trees, provide for a paved road.  This was not acted upon, and the September plan was kept in place.

 

Joe Robertson asked if the facia was necessary or could the stripe be painted on the building.  Joe Freeman stated that the facia needs to match existing to look like a continuous band around the building.  Joe Robertson asked if paint would work.  John McEachern stated paint would not work as the facia is projected above the eave of the roof and is at an angle.  The facia helps to cover the roof top equipment.

 

Joe Robertson asked if the trees in question were on Mr. King’s land.  Mr. Freeman stated the trees should be on the applicant’s property or on the street right of way.  He also stated that the Site Plan Review Committee tries to get the landscaping inside the property line but if there is no area it can go on the right of way. 

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S APPEAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS;

 

Les Mangus stated that the site drawings received have never been accurate.  Some drawings have dimensions but there were no accurate drawings and dimensions.  There was no drawing done of the extents of the leased land.  John McEachern asked if we can get an accurate drawing done of the leased land. 

 

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ZONING ZDMINISTRATOR;S DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Terry Presta feels the Site Plan should either block the entrance or pave the entrance.  Mr. Presta’s problem is that Mr. King won’t allow the entrance to be blocked.  He also stated the buses will have problems with egress.  Mr. Presta also stated that his lease does not allow for the egress to be blocked.  Mr. Presta stated that there were color pictures in March.  He stated he would prefer entrances to be kept open.  These entrances would enhance the traffic circulation.  Mr. Presta does not feel this is a Site Plan Review issue, it is a zoning issue as Mr. Kimble stated in the past, according to the minutes from the Site Plan Review Committee.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

 

There were none.

 

FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were none. 

 

CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING:

 

Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing.

 

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

 

Chairman McEachern complimented Mr. Freeman, chairman of the Site Plan Review Committee for his input and also Mr. Presta for doing was what requested.  The back of the building is the problem.  The rest of the store is very attractive.  Chairman McEachern asked if the City can block the driveways.  Mr. Mangus stated we cannot deny access to any property.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Planning Commission is charged with determining the reasonableness of the 4 issues being appealed.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Kimble’s comments probably were when he learned the traffic flow was not on Mr. Presta’s leased property. 

 

The Commission agreed that there is a need for a map with accurate boundaries.  Lynn Heath asked if the Commission could address items 1 and 2 and address the others later.  Les Mangus stated that it is the Commission’s to address the reasonableness of all 4.  Mr. Presta stated he would prefer to address all 4 issues at once.  The Commission asked that Jeff Bridges ask the City attorney an opinion on the impact of private lease in regards to public land use. 

 

Mr. Presta stated that the land has been used as a drive for 10 years.  Les Mangus stated that when the property was modified it changed the traffic pattern to make it more inviting for them to use than the other entrances. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked that we get the opinion of the City attorney regarding if a lease can override zoning regulations and if the City can block off a driveway.   He also asked for an accurate survey of the property in question.  He also asked for Mr. Bridges, Mr. Mangus, Mr. Presta and Mr. King to have a meeting to talk the issues of this meeting over and see what the options are to resolve these issues.

 

            DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings of fact, I now call for a motion:

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the findings of fact, I Lynne Heath move that Case No. BZA-A-2000-01 be continued until the next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center, in this same meeting room.  He stated he would like the following items addressed prior to the next meeting:

1.         The  opinions of the City of Andover City Attorney regarding if a lease can override zoning regulations and whether the City can block off a driveway or not.  

2.         An accurate survey of the property in question. 

3.         A meeting between Mr. Bridges, Mr. Mangus, Mr. Presta and Mr. King to talk over the issues of this meeting and see what the options are to resolve these issues. 

 

Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.

 

Motion was made by Ron Roberts to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion Carried 7-0.

 

The Planning Commission reconvened at 11:17 p.m.  Chairman McEachern stated that the zoning checklist was not gone over in case Z-2000-06, the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development.  The Chairman asked that the Commission go over the checklist.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-06

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

George Laham III,

Rob Hartman, Professional Engineering Consultants, P.A.

 

REQUEST:

General Planned Unit Development

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

North of 21st Street between Andover Road and 159st Street.

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 505 acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Business, multi-family and single family

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler County Agricultural

South:

B-3 Central Shopping - Presto Store

R-2 Single Family Residential - Quail Crossing and Andover Heights

R-3 Multi-family Residential - Nursing Home and Church

R-4 Multi-family Residential

East:

B-3 Central Shopping - Butler County Community College

Butler County Rural Residences

Butler County Agricultural

Bruno Township Cemetery and Maintenance Yard

West:

Sedgwick County Agricultural

 

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:

See above

 

 

PLANNING:

See 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:

See above

 

 

PLANNING:

See 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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Growth of the City to the North and availability of City streets, water, sewer, etc.     

x

 

PLANNING:

Growth of the City to the North and availability of City streets, water, sewer, etc.     

 

 

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 public facilities can be extended to the site._

x

 

PLANNING:

All public facilities can be extended to the site._

 

 

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:

 

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?

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Urban development extending north into rural residences and agriculuture.

x

 

PLANNING:

Public opposition includes concerns with drainage, water retention, residential water runoff, traffic, screening, and liability of nearby homeowners.____

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval as applied for

 

 

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

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of Z-2000-06 the General P.U.D. of the Decker/Kiser property with the following conditions:

 

1.         5 acre park boundary to differentiate between the drainage reserve and the park.

2.         No development will be next to unpaved roads.

3.         Any reference to private streets in the General Provisions is to be removed, based on items 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 14.

 

Quentin Coon seconded the motion.   Motion carried 7-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:                                                                     

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the commission for staying to get the rezoning report put into the minutes of this hearing. 

 

 

 

Member Items.  Jim Orr wanted to extend best wishes to staff member Pam Johnson on her recent marriage. 

Member Items

 

 

Motion to adjourn.  Motion to adjourn was made by John McEachern.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

Adjourn