ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
October
17, 2000
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning
Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center. Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom, 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.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman John
McEachern at 7:00 p.m.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
|
|
Review of the minutes of the September 19, 2000 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Motion to approve minutes as presented by Lynn Heath, seconded by Sheri Geisler. Motion carried 7 to 0.
|
Review
of the minutes of the September 19, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of the October 10, 2000 Subdivision
Committee meeting were received and
filed.
Lori Hays arrived at 7:04 p.m.
Minutes of the September 26, 2000 City Council
meeting minutes were received and
filed.
Committee and Staff Reports. None.
|
Minutes
|
|
|
|
|
Motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene
the Board of Zoning Appeals was
made by Ron Roberts and seconded by Joe Robertson. Motion carried 8-0.
The Board of Zoning
Appeals convened at 7:08 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.
|
Motion
to recess the Planning Commission
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Additional Agenda Item No. 1
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 7:08 p.m. and I now call
Additional Agenda Item No. 1 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.
2. This Board is authorized by
state statutes to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not
to the Governing Body.
3. 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 interested 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. The public hearing on this appeal was continued from the
September 19, 2000 meeting.
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.) No one had received any ex parte communication.
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? The
public hearing was continued with instructions to the Appellant to submit a
detailed drawing of the site.
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 bollards 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,
Mr. Mangus stated that the
Board of Zoning Appeals wanted the following items addressed prior to this
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. Mr.
Mangus stated that the City Attorney informed him that a lease between 2
people has no bearing on the zoning regulations.
2. An accurate survey
of the property in question. Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Bill King is here to
present the property lines 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. Mr. Mangus stated that
several meetings have been held and Mr. King is here to address the Board of
Zoning appeals as to the outcomes of these meetings.
APPELLANT’S APPEAL:
I now call upon the appellant to come to the podium
and make his presentation on the appeal.
Mr. Bill King of 3663 SW Prairie Creek Road is
representing the appellant. He stated he is the owner of the parcel of
property at 21st Street North and Andover Road that Presto has the
convenience store on. He stated that there have been several meetings. Mr.
King showed the Board members a drawing of the development plan of the
subject corner. Mr. King stated that the dimensions of the leased area on
the drawing presented today and the leased area today are the same. Mr. King
then presented to the Board a drawing of what the Site Plan Review Committee
was initially shown. He then gave a drawing that showed the lease lines and
the dedicated ingress/egress and the future pavement.
Quentin Coon asked if it was the intent of Mr.
Presta and Mr. King to go ahead with the entire pavement. Mr. King stated it
is not their intent; Mr. Presta is looking at approximately $20,000 worth of
paving to the traffic flow area. There was then general discussion regarding
the issues.
Mr. King asked if this item could be continued to
the next scheduled meeting, which Mr. Mangus stated would be November 21, 2000.
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to continue this
hearing until the next scheduled meeting, November 21, 2000 to allow the
appellant the opportunity to formulate a proposal for completion of the
project. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Case
No. BZA-A-2000-01
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-A-2000-02: Public Hearing on an appeal from a
decision of the Zoning Administrator by Plaza Real Estate, to allow a
temporary development sign for Cedar Park.
ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Additional Agenda Item No. 2
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 7:48 p.m. and I now call
Additional Agenda Item No. 2, which is a public hearing on Case No.
BZA-A-2000-02 by Plaza Real Estate, to allow a temporary development sign for
Cedar Park, 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.
2. This Board is authorized by
state statutes to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not
to the Governing Body.
3. 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 interested 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 September 28,
2000 and notices were mailed to the appellant and the real property owners of
record in the area of notification on September 26, 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.) No
one had received any ex parte communication.
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 provided with the application.
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 a decision by the Zoning Administrator to allow a
temporary development sign for the Cedar Park Subdivision located +/- ¼ mile
west of Andover Road on the west side of 13th Street. Mr. Mangus
stated that he has been working with the Cedar Park Real Estate agents for
some time on a sign for Cedar Park. During this time, Cedar Park has been working with KGE to place the sign on KGE property at the corner of 13th Street and Andover Road. This process took much longer than anticipated.
KGE finally released the lease and Cedar Park brought in the sign application,
after the City amended the sign regulations, which now prohibit off site
advertising. Unfortunately this was very bad timing for Cedar Park. Chairman McEachern asked if this is the biggest issue in this appeal. Mr. Mangus stated
the regulations allow only limited signs on this property leased from KGE zoned
residential. Real estate development signs are not allowed off-site from the
property being sold. Ron Roberts stated that this size is 72” x 72” and is
too big under the new regulations. Mr. Mangus stated this size also exceeds
the maximums in the old regulations.
APPELLANT’S APPEAL:
I now call upon the appellant to come to the podium
and make her presentation on the appeal.
Linda Mason, a realtor from Plaza Real Estate and
property manager at Cedar Park told the Board that their biggest problem is
that their development is not on any maps and people are not able to find
them. This has created the need for a development sign. The corner in
question is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and the other 3 corners are
assumed to be business zoned. She stated the development wants a temporary
sign for 2 or 3 years, whatever the Board will allow. Ms. Mason stated that
she went by other development signs and used that for the basis for their
sign size. Ms. Mason stated they have been working with KGE and got verbal
permission to use the property in January 2000. Ms. Mason stated that on
January 27, 2000 they asked Pam at the City for the rules and regulations
regarding signs, which were faxed to them. On January 27 they had a meeting
with the developer and started working with a sign company. They had
several conversations with the sign people. They talked to Pam about
turning in the permit and she told Plaza Real Estate to just hold on to the
sign permit until they had all the necessary information and turn it all in
at the same time. KGE signed the lease on August 17, 2000. Ms. Mason stated
on August 2 she thought she had lost the sign permit and called the City and
asked for another set but found her original set. Ms. Mason stated she hoped
this was not just turned down because it was turned in late.
Ron Roberts asked what the
length of the lease was. Ms. Mason stated it is for 3 years, and the cost of
the lease is $600.00.
PUBLIC COMMENT;
Kathy Schmidt of Plaza Real Estate was disappointed
that Les Mangus didn’t tell them this couldn’t be done without a zoning
change. She also asked why Les Mangus didn’t inform them there was no avenue
for them to pursue to allow the sign.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: There were none.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S
APPEAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S
DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
CLOSE THE HEARING:
Chairman McEachern asked if there were any other
comments from the public. Hearing none, Chairman McEachern closed the public
hearing at 8:05 p.m.
APPEAL BOARD DELIBERATIONS:
The Board will now deliberate the appeal for which
we need to make findings of fact. Based on these facts, we need to determine
whether we would have made the same determination as the Zoning Administrator
or whether it should be reversed or modified. Our Board should proceed now
to review the evidence presented at this hearing and either by consensus or
vote make a list of the findings of fact that provide the basis for
determination.
Chairman McEachern asked if this sign would cause an
obstruction of the traffic at that intersection. Ms. Mason stated that the
sign would be set back 25’ from the sidewalk. Chairman McEachern asked if
that would be on both sides. Ms. Mason stated it would sit back 25’ from
both streets.
Chairman McEachern asked what the issues were for
this case. Les Mangus stated that this doesn’t meet the sign regulations for
the R-2 zoning district, as development signs are only allowed inside the
development; this sign is considered an advertising sign, nothing in the old
or new regulations allowed for this; Les Mangus stated that Plaza Real Estate
could use a portable sign until August 17, 2001 at this location if zoned for
business. Mr. Mangus stated that there was some talk earlier about rezoning
this corner but no change has been applied for. Lynn Heath asked if there
was anything in the zoning regulations to allow for variances or exceptions.
Mr. Mangus stated Board of Zoning Appeals charge in this situation is to
determine the reasonableness of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Les
Mangus stated that no off site development signs are allowed under current
regulations.
Chairman McEachern stated that he wouldn’t want a
development sign on a residential lot but this is commercial on all corners
of 13th and Andover Road even if it is currently zoned
residential. Chairman McEachern asked if there could be a variance to allow
this sign. Les Mangus stated no use variance is allowed under current
regulations. Mr. Mangus stated that if the zoning was changed there could be
a temporary sign allowed.
Ms. Mason stated she would like to backdate the
application. Les Mangus stated that if we did that the sign still wouldn’t
fit into R-2 sign regulations. Mr. Mangus stated that at this location in
this zone only 6 sq. foot real estate signs are allowed. If the area was
rezoned to business there could be a temporary sign for 30 days 4 times per
year.
There was general discussion regarding the possible
changing of the ordinance.
DECISION:
Having discussed and reached
conclusions on our findings of fact, I now call for a motion:
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2000-02 and determined the
findings of fact as stated for the record, I Joe Robertson move that the
Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution wholly affirming the decision
appealed from because this request doesn’t fit our current zoning regulations
for signage. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
CLOSING REMARKS:
Chairman McEachern thanked the
participants in this hearing and stated they are welcome to stay for the
remainder of the meeting.
Joe Robertson and Lynn Heath both commented that the
Ordinance should be amended somehow to allow for some type of relief in
special cases. The Board of Zoning Appeals except for Quentin Coon and Ron Roberts feel there should be some type of Real Estate sign allowed for Cedar Park and asked Les Mangus to work with Plaza Real Estate and find a way to do one.
|
BZA-A-2000-02:
Public Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator by
Plaza Real Estate, to allow a temporary development sign for Cedar Park.
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2000-06: Public
hearing on an application for variance of the required 25’ front yard setback
to 23’ for the purpose of allowing a covered front porch at 175 Williamsburg.
Chairman McEachern
opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Chairman McEachern asked if proper
public notice had been given. Les Mangus stated that it had. Chairman
McEachern asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves. No one
disqualified themselves. Chairman McEachern asked if there had been any ex
parte communications. There were no ex parte communications. The Zoning
Administrator, Les Mangus stated that the facts are in the packet the members
received. In the process of building a front porch on the subject home, it
was discovered during the first inspection that the architectural drawings
had an error in the front setback footage. The work stopped. Mr. Mangus
commented this is one of the only houses in the neighborhood without a
covered porch.
Chairman McEachern
stated there were no written communications from the public.
Kelly Laflin, the
applicant, read the following written statement:
We respectfully
request that the 25 feet minimum front yard depth dimension of Lot 13, Block
6, Andover Village, commonly known as 175 Williamsburg, be reduced to 23
feet. This request for a variance from Andover zoning regulations has come
about through the following circumstances. We, the homeowners of 175 Williamsburg, contracted an architect to design a front porch that complimented the
architectural style of our home and enhanced its esthetic quality. Working from
a survey of the property that was conducted on May 13, 1998 by licensed
surveyor Robert L. Castle prior to our purchase of the property, the
architect designed a porch that met our criteria and conformed to current Andover zoning regulations. The survey indicates a distance of 32 feet from our property
front boundary to the front of the house, to a measured accuracy of 0.1
feet. Subtracting the 25 feet front yard minimum depth distance from 32 feet
gives a remaining distance of 7 feet from the house to the front yard setback
line. The porch designed by the architect is completely contained within
this 7 feet distance. A copy of both the survey and the architectural plans
are included with this application.
A contract was
secured with Southwestern Remodeling to build the porch as per the
architectural drawings, and construction was started July 31, 2000. The
existing entrance door stoop and steps were removed, a trench was dug,
reinforced concrete footing was poured, and forms for the porch stem wall
were in place when the builder expressed a concern regarding the front yard
minimum depth requirement. In order to address the concern of the builder,
we had a surveyor locate the corner pins marking our property and requested
that the Andover building inspector verify that the porch did not encroach
upon the front yard setback line. To our dismay, the front yard boundary
line was found to be 2 feet closer to the house than was specified in the
survey used by the architect. As a result, the 25 feet minimum depth line is
2 feet closer to our home than the survey led us to believe, causing our
partially constructed port to be in violation of current Andover zoning
regulations. Upon the discovery of this violation, we immediately directed
the builder to halt construction of the porch and acted t file this
application for zoning variance, so that we might obtain the appropriate
permit to complete construction of the porch as per the architectural
drawings. No construction work as occurred since the discovery of the
violation on August 21, 2000.
From the very start
of this endeavor, it was our intent to build a front porch that was in
complete compliance with Andover zoning regulations. Using a survey that we
believed to be valid to within its specified accuracy of 0.1 feet, we
contracted an architect to design a porch that complied with all Andover zoning regulations. When the possibility of a zoning violation was brought to our
attention, we responsibly arranged for an independent survey to verify the position
of our property front boundary. Finally, when our partially constructed
porch was found to be in violation of zoning regulations, we appropriately
halted construction and filed this application for variance. We are
requesting this variance so that we might avoid the hardship of time and cost
involved with both a porch redesign and, more significantly, the removal of
the existing reinforced concrete footing.
Granting our
requested variance requires only that the front yard minimum depth dimension be
reduced by 8%. This corresponds to an 8% reduction in the minimum front yard
area. The completed porch would have no less than 23 feet minimum distance
to the property front boundary and no less than 37.5 feet minimum distance to
the existing street curb. A sketch showing our lot with existing structures,
the proposed porch, and pertinent dimensions is provided with this
application.
The proposed porch
will have only a positive effect on the neighborhood and residence of Williamsburg Street. The homes in the Andover Village development were built prior to the
enactment of current Andover Zoning regulations. Therefore, many of the
homes in the development are closer than 25 feet to their respective property
front boundaries. In fact, Butler County property maps indicate that the
house across the street from ours, 166 Williamsburg, is less than 20 feet
from its property front boundary. Additionally, 200 Williamsburg, which is
within 200 feet from our property, is less than 10 feet away from its front
boundary. Therefore, at a minimum distance of no less than 23 feet from our
front boundary, our proposed porch would be sufficiently setback to maintain
a large front yard in comparison to neighboring lots. Furthermore, the
porch, if allowed to be completed, will not impair the visibility of drivers
on Williamsburg in any way, nor will it significantly impact the yard-to-yard
visibility of neighboring properties. Actually, the open porch will be less
visually obstructive than the two 20 feet tall cedar trees which we removed
from the front corners of the house in order to build the porch. The porch
would protect the main entrance of the house from rain, ice, and snow;
significantly reduce daytime heating of the East side of the house; provide
an alternate fire escape route for the three upstairs bedrooms; and enhance
the esthetic quality and functionality of the residence. Finally, because of
its style and esthetic quality, the porch will positively impact property
values within the neighborhood, and the other homeowners residing on Williamsburg fully support its completion as per the architectural drawings, as is
witnessed by signatures on the accompanying petition for variance.
We thank you for
your thoughtful consideration regarding this request for variance.
Chairman McEachern
asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none.
Hearing no further
comments from the public, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at
8:22 p.m. and proceeded with the Variance Report.
VARIANCE REPORT
CASE NUMBER: BZA-V-2000-06
APPLICANT/AGENT: Kelly Laflin
REQUEST: Variance of the front yard setback for
a covered front porch.
CASE HISTORY: Andover Village Addition developed in
the 1980’s.
LOCATION: 175 Williamsburg, Andover.
SITE SIZE: 100’ x 168’
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
NORTH: R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition
SOUTH: R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition
EAST: R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition
WEST: R-2 Single-Family Residential -
Green Valley P.U.D.
* Note: This report is to assist the Board of
Zoning Appeals to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the
hearing so as to base their decision on the required five findings found in
Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations. The board may grant a request
upon specific written findings of fact when all five conditions, as
required by State statutes, are found to exist. The responses provided need
to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the
Board of Zoning Appeal’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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
None
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE MET:**
1. That the variance requested arises from
such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not
ordinarily found in the same zoning district, and is not created by an action
or actions of the property owner or the applicant because the house was
built without a covered porch at the front door.
2. That granting of the variance will not
adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents because many
homes in the area have similar encroachments in the required 25’ front yard;
3. That 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 because the error in the survey drawing was
not discovered until the footing for the porch was constructed;
4. That the variance desired will not
adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity or general welfare because an adequate front yard area will
remain;
5. That granting the
variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of
these regulations because the intent of the bulk regulations to provide
open space and separation from the street will not be substantially altered.
The Board determined
that the request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize
the Board to grant a variance.
There was no
deliberation by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the
variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set
out in Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of
the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Quentin
Coon move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting
the variance as requested. Charles Malcom seconded the motion. The motion
carried 8-0.
Motion was made
by Charles Malcom to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene
Planning Commission. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. The motion carried
8-0.
Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
|
BZA-V-2000-06:
Public hearing on an application for variance of the required 25’ front yard
setback to 23’ for the purpose of allowing a covered front porch at 175 Williamsburg .
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman McEachern called for a 5-minute recess at
8:27 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened from the recess at 8:32 p.m.
|
Recess
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud City, Amended P.U.D. Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Kenny Hill from
Poe and Associates presented
information on behalf of the developer. Les Mangus stated that we have a
peculiar situation with this P.U.D. This P.U.D. now has two owners. The
amendment to the P.U.D. leaves fragments of parcels, approximately a 40-50’
strip of land unusable as zoned on the residential side. After discussion
with Bickley Foster, Mr. Mangus stated that any application to amend the
P.U.D. needs to come from both owners.
Kenny Hill stated that there
are meetings scheduled between the owners for later this month and asked that
this item be deferred until the next meeting, which will be in November.
The public hearing was closed
at 8:36 p.m.
Motion was made by Lynn Heath to defer this item
until the November 21, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. Charles
Malcom seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0
|
Cloud City,
Amended P.U.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Diamond Creek, Preliminary P.U.D. Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates presented
information on behalf of the developer Rick and Donna Travis, who were also
present.
Mr. Hill stated that the modifications which have
been made include reducing lot sizes, (overall average size of lots are
10,800 sq. feet, the minimum lot sizes are 8,400 sq. feet) moving the streets
slightly to accommodate the changes in lot sizes, modifying the streets to
the current City standards, and reduce frontages. Mr. Hill stated that 14.7%
of the land is open reserve.
Mr. Hill stated they agreed
with Les Mangus’s comments except the blanket 35’ utility easements along the
hedgerow. Mr. Mangus stated the request is from KGE. Mr. Hill stated that
the easements can be done in most places but not all, and keep the trees.
Mr. Mangus and Mr. Hill will work this out prior to the final plat.
Mr. Hill stated that the
developer does not agree with the 8’ sidewalks required on collector streets.
He stated that a number of lots front on the collector street and this would
take a large part of the front yard. The developer would like to put the
sidewalks in the rear of the lots.
Rick Travis of 4110 Jasmine Court, the owner/developer is in favor of sidewalks and feels they promote
safety. He would like to see 5’ sidewalks on each side of the road rather
than 8’. Mr. Travis feels that 8’ sidewalks would slow sales as no one would
like that large of a sidewalk in their front yard. Mr. Travis stated their
goal is to sell the lots quickly. Mr. Travis stated he would consider paths
in and around the reserve in lieu of the sidewalks.
Mr. Dale Tipton, 737 Porter, Wichita, a broker with Caldwell Banker stated that from a marketing stand point the 8’
sidewalk is distracting to the homeowner and people do not want that in their
front yard. He feels it would be better to put the walks in the back of the
property. Mr. Tipton feels that the users would like the path in the rear of
the lots. Mr. Tipton feels that it would be detrimental to the market to
have sidewalks in the front of the property.
Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone else
from the public to address the issue. There were none. The public hearing
was closed at 8:49 p.m.
|
Diamond Creek, Preliminary P.U.D.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 6
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-99-03
|
|
APPLICANT/
AGENT:
|
Rick Travis, Kenny Hill, Poe & Associates
|
|
REQUEST:
|
R-2 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single Family
Residential Preliminary Planned Unit Development
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
Northeast corner of SW 120th Street and
159th Street East
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
+/- 75 acres.
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
R-2 single-family
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
R-2 Single Family Residential - Polo Farm
|
|
South:
|
Butler County Suburban Residential and Agricultural
|
|
East:
|
R-2 Single Family Residential - Tuscany Addition
|
|
West:
|
Sedgwick County Agricultural
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
None
|
|
|
|
* 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:
|
Change to the real estate market
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Change to the real estate market
|
|
|
|
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 provided
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
All public facilities can be provided
|
|
|
|
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:
|
N/A
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the
subject property suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has
been restricted?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what
extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning
request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
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:
|
None
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
None
|
|
|
|
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
with modifications
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Approval
with modifications
|
|
|
|
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-99-03 the Preliminary Planned Unit Development of Diamond
Creek with the following conditions:
1. 8’ sidewalk on the North side of Diamond
Drive, then through Reserve A (behind lots 1-7) to Fieldstone and 5’ sidewalk
on the rest of Diamond Drive and Garnet and Pearl on either side of the
street.
2. Les Mangus and Kenny Hill will negotiate
the 35’ easement required by KGE.
3. Cul-de-sac lots must have
at least 40’ of street frontage. 60’ at front building setback Cul-de-sac
lots must have at least 40’ of street frontage. 60’ at front building
setback.
4. 6’ sideyards must be 8’. 6’
sideyards must be 8’.
5. General Provision 15.
Change to “35% of the lots shown in each approved Final P.U.D. Plan must have
Certificates of Occupancy for new dwellings…” General
Provision 15. Change to “35% of the lots shown in each approved Final P.U.D.
Plan must have Certificates of Occupancy for new dwellings…”
6. The name of one of the Emerald Court street must be changed. The
name of one of the Emerald Court street must be changed.
7. All lots that abut the
arterial streets shall be provided a 6’ masonry screening wall along the
arterial right-of-way. All
lots that abut the arterial streets shall be provided a 6’ masonry screening
wall along the arterial right-of-way.
Findings to support the motion include items 12, 13,
14. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
CLOSING
REMARKS:
Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z-2000-07 Public hearing on an application for
change in zoning district classification from B-5 Highway Business to B-4
Central Business District on Andover Road between U.S. Hwy 54 an d Village
Road. Chairman McEachern opened
the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. Bob Kaplan presented information on behalf
of the property owner, Dr. A. J. Reed. Mr. Kaplan stated that this is a 188’
x 336’ lot that the owner is asking to lower the zoning to B-4 Central
Business District to accommodate a Goodwill Store at this location. Mr.
Kaplan stated that it is a very attractive building.
Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone from
the public there to address this issue. No one from the public appeared to
address the issue.
Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 9:27
p.m.
|
Z-2000-07
Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification
from B-5 Highway Business to B-4 Central Business District on Andover Road between U.S. Hwy 54 an d Village Road.
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 7
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-2000-07
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Minor Emergency Center , P.A./Robert Kaplan
|
|
REQUEST:
|
B-5 Highway
Business District to B-4 Central Business District.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Vacant
|
|
LOCATION:
|
Between U.S. Hwy. 54 and Village Road on t he West
side of Andover Road
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
188’ x 336’
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
B-4 Central Business District.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-2 Neighborhood District - Braum’s under
construction
|
|
South:
|
B-5 Highway
Business - Vacant used car lot
|
|
East:
|
B-3 Central Shopping District - Andover Crossing
shopping center
|
|
West:
|
Vacant B-3 Central Shopping and B-5 Highway Business
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
None
|
|
|
|
* 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:
|
Developing area as a regional shopping center
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Developing area as a regional shopping 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:
|
Sewer must be relocated
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Sewer must be relocated
|
|
|
|
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:
|
In process
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
In process
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
In process
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
In process
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
9.
Is suitable vacant land or
buildings available or not available for development that currently has the
same zoning as is requested?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None in the immediate area, north of U.S. Hwy. 54.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
None in the immediate area, north of U.S. Hwy. 54.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Added service and employment opportunities
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Added service and employment opportunities
|
|
|
|
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:
|
It is surrounded by lesser business zones
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
It is surrounded by lesser business zones
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Yes
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time
|
|
|
x
|
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?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval contingent on
platting
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Approval contingent on
platting
|
|
|
|
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 Quentin Coon to
recommend approval of Z-2000-07, change in zoning district classification
from B-5 Highway Business to B-4 Central Business District. Findings to
support the motion include items 5, 12, and 13. Lynn Heath seconded the
motion. Motion carried 8-0.
CLOSING
REMARKS: Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill Industries Addition, Preliminary Plat. Russ Ewy of Baughman Company presented information
on behalf of the owner/developer. Mr. Ewy stated that they are in agreement
with the staff comments of Mr. Mangus and that they are going to put an
addition 10’ easement along the north and south lot line and submit a
drainage plan to show the drainage running to the proposed storm sewer.
Ron Roberts asked about the
land left between Braums and this property. Mr. Mangus stated there is a
plat being drawn up which will clear up the balance of the property.
Chairman McEachern noticed that the driveway is a
joint access, there is not one of it’s own. Mr. Mangus stated that owners of
the two pieces of property will have a joint access agreement. He also
stated the agreement will be provided at the final plat with as a separate
document or will be included on the plat. Mr. Mangus stated that the final
drainage plan will also be required at the final plat.
Joe Robertson asked where the drop off point for the
store would be. Les Mangus stated the preliminary site plan shows a car drop
off on the north side of the building and a screened/sunken dock in the SW
corner of the building.
Marie Mareda, 18 N. Stratford, Wichita, Kansas, the President of Goodwill Industries, stated that the business will be open 7 days
a week. This will be an attended drop off center. The drop off will be
inside the building.
Motion was made by Ron Roberts to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Goodwill Industries Addition with
the following conditions:
1. Submit grading plan to Zoning
Administrator.
2. Provide 10’ easements along the north and
south property lines.
Joe Robertson seconded the motion. Motion was
approved 8-0.
|
Goodwill Industries Addition, Preliminary Plat.
|
|
|
|
|
Flint Hills National Addition Amended Final P.U.D. Jason Gish with Mid Kansas Engineering Consultants
(MKEC) presented information on behalf of the owners. Mr. Gish stated this
amendment is to follow the intent of the current amended P.U.D. This change
is to complete the full connecting loop street inside Flint Hills National
Addition. Les Mangus stated there were no problems other than what to call
this change. Mr. Mangus will discuss this name change issue with Bickley Foster.
Motion was made by Lynn Heath for approval of the
Amended Final P.U.D. for Flint Hills National. Sheri Geisler seconded the
motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Flint
Hills National Addition Amended Final P.U.D.
|
|
|
|
|
Recommendation on annexation of the proposed
wireless communication facility site in the new City Park, +/- ½ mile south
of Central Avenue on the west side of Prairie Creek Road. Les Mangus told the Commission that our Wireless
Communication Facility regulations allow for public sites to be utilized for
Wireless Communication Facilities. Mr. Mangus stated that the City has been
approached to lease some land for a wireless communication facility. Mr.
Mangus stated that the City will work with the township to get the road in
shape to provide access to the wireless communication facility site. Prairie
Creek is currently closed. This wireless communication facility will be near
the maintenance shed in the new city park. This site is the only property of
the park that is to be annexed.
A motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend
approval of the annexation of the site to the City Council. Lori Hays
seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0.
|
Recommendation
on annexation of the proposed wireless communication facility site in the new
City Park, +/- ½ mile south of Central Avenue on the west side of Prairie
Creek Road.
|
|
|
|
|
Member items: Jeff Bridges let the Commission members know that there is a registration form in their packets
from the Institute for Municipal Leadership. This particular seminar is for
planning and zoning. He told the members if they wanted to go they can
register and the city will reimburse their fee after the seminar.
Joe Robertson stated he would
like to see the sidewalk between Braums and Goodwill completed prior to
Goodwill being opened. Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus to contact Braums
and find out when this will be done. Mr. Mangus stated there is not much
more of a delay according to Braums. He stated he would talk to them about
the sidewalk.
Joe Robertson also stated
there was no access from Shay Road from the west on the drawings shown to the
Planning Commission. Les Mangus stated that the only public access was to
the one homeowners’ property on Shay Street.
Sheri Geisler asked what
the new park was named. Jeff Bridges stated that no name had been chosen
yet. Jeff Bridges let the Commission members know that there is a
registration form in their packets from the Institute for Municipal
Leadership. This particular seminar is for planning and zoning.
|
Member items:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjournment: Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adjourn. Lori
Hays seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:13
p.m.
|
Adjournment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|