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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

April 17, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Quentin Coon, Sheri Geisler, and Charles Malcom., Lori Hays, Ron Roberts and Lynn Heath were absent. 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 7:02 p.m.

Call to order.

 

 

Review of the minutes of the March 20, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried with 3 to 0 with 2 abstentions.

 

Review of the minutes of the March 20, 2001 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the March 10, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the March 3, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the March 10, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   There were none

 

 

 

The revised Final Plat of the Goodwill Industries Addition.  Les Mangus stated that the Final Plat for this project was approved earlier.  This presentation is to make a small change with the plat access control.  The entire frontage was platted with access control. The property owners want to shift the access control on the south property line in order to share with both properties as a cross lot access.  Russ Ewy of the Baughman Company, 315 S. Ellis, Wichita, Kansas, presented information on behalf of the property owners.   Joe Robertson asked if the comments on the review had been satisfied.  Mr. Mangus stated that he has received the Subdividers Agreement, surety for relocation of the sewer line and the lot grading plan.  Mr. Mangus also stated that the name of the County Clerk needs to be changed. 

 

Russ Ewy stated that this change is to split the access with the Goodwill Addition to make the Reed Addition more accessible.  This will allow entrance from Andover Road, south of Goodwill. 

 

Joe Robertson asked what problem would cause the access to Braum’s property.  Les Mangus stated this may cause an access scheduling problem, however the driveway is already in at Braum's.

 

Quentin Coon asked if this is a frontage road.  Mr. Mangus stated this is a reverse frontage road that will be in the middle of the property and allow access to the Reed Addition, Braum's and Goodwill.  Quentin Coon asked if there was a lot of development to the west would it cause a traffic problem in the future.  Joe Robertson stated he hopes we are not creating something we will regret.  Mr. Mangus stated that this joint access will only be for these three lots, there will be no through traffic.

 

Motion to accept the revised Final Plat of the Goodwill Industries Addition with the condition that the name of the County Clerk be changed was made by Joe Robertson.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5-0. 

The revised Final Plat of the Goodwill Industries Addition. 

 

 

Review the revised Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Village Crossing Addition.  Chairman McEachern asked if the items on the checklist have been updated.  Les Mangus stated that the items have been corrected and that Mr. Ewy has additional submittals for fire hydrants on the property.  Fire Chief McFadden had asked for the additional extension. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that the previously submitted Final PUD had drainage issues and asked if they had been resolved.  Mr. Mangus stated the he now has drainage plans and he has discussed this with Mike Thompson, City Engineer, and that they are okay with the submitted plan. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that the houses that ring around this property will be allowed to drain onto the drainage and utility easement on this property.  The new buildings to be built will drain toward the street.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that the issue was addressed as far as the rooftop HVAC units being screened from ground level view and asked if the noise level was addressed. 

 

Mr. Mangus stated that there will an 8’ masonry wall, landscaping and rear access from the rear of the property before there is a building, which will be 60’ to 70’.  There will also be trees along the property line for landscaping and screening.  Mr. McEachern stated he wants something on this plat for the noise from these machines.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is a noise ordinance in effect for the City. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if the telephone poles along there are going to be removed.  Mr. Mangus stated they are not although KGE has offered to move them at $1,000,000 per mile.  Mr. Mangus stated that any new utilities will be underground. 

 

Mr. McEachern asked if Mr. Ewy could ask the client for any noise abatement for the HVAC units.  Mr. Ewy stated that they have had this discussion with the noise before.  He stated there is nothing specific in the P.U.D. for the noise and there is a noise ordinance, which is appropriate protection for citizens.  He stated that they are more than happy to comply with the City Code.

 

Sheri Geisler suggested perhaps there should be a fascia around the building on the top of the building.  Mr. Mangus stated that these are items for the Site Plan Review Committee to address.  Mrs. Geisler asked if there could be a general condition stated that the building should be pleasing all the way around it.  Mr. McEachern agreed.  Mr. Mangus stated this was something to discuss at the Preliminary P.U.D., it was too late to do now.   Russ Ewy stated that Provision 13 should go a long way to meet the requirements of the screening on the rooftop.  Mr. Ewy stated they also addressed the fire hydrant issue, by putting the hydrant on the common lot line between lots 2 and 3.  He stated the water will go under Andover Road to the lot line and this will be included in the Developers Agreement.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to accept the revised Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Village Crossing Addition with the following changes.

1.      Depict parcel Boundaries for zoning.  Permitted uses in Parcel Descriptions are incomplete.  (Reference Ordinance 1083).  Drainage plan requires 30’ easement. 

2.      Provide title report.

3.      Provide surety for drainage improvements.

4.      Provide developers agreement.

5.      Provide for fire hydrant extensions. 

Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 4-1 with John McEachern voting no and Ron Roberts abstaining.

 

At 7:37 p.m., motion was made by Quentin Coon to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0.

Review the revised Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Village Crossing Addition. 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-V-2001-02.  Application by Bennett Grate, 1746 N. Terry Lane, Andover, for a variance of the minimum side yard from the required 8 feet to 5’9” in the R-2 Single Family District.

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.

 

It is 7:39 p.m. and I now call Agenda item # 5 which is pubic hearing on Case No. BZA-V-2001-02 pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a variance of side yard setbacks from the required 8’ minimum limitation for the purpose of construction a carport on property zoned as the R-2 Single Family Residential District. Chairman McEachern welcomed the public to the hearing and laid out some of the ground rules.

 

1.  “It is important that you present any fact or views that you have as evidence in this hearing so that findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.  In order to grant a variance, five specific written findings of facts must all be met according to the state statutes and the City Zoning Regulations.

 

2.  This board is authorized by state statute to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing Body.

 

3.  After the Zoning Administrator provides us with some background information we will call upon the applicant and then 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 applicant, the public, the staff or our consultant. 

 

4.  In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board can require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of fencing and/or landscape may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by the variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-107D which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance upon other property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as are provided for in Section 10-108D.  Failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to the zoning permit for a variance shall constitute a violation of the regulations.

 

5.  You should also be fully aware that if the applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes.  For example, if the applicant proposes to build a brick building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building with asphalt shingles, it’s not something that the City can enforce.

 

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

 

DISCUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

 

So at this time we would like to proceed with the hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing or voting on this case because they or their spouse’s owning property in the area of notification, or have conflicts of interests, or a particular bias in this matter.

 

No one disqualified himself or herself.

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

According to Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator, notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal on March 22, 2001.  The notices were mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on March 22, 2001.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I will declare that proper notification has been given.  No one made any comment.

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:

 

Have any of the Board members received any ex parte verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that Mr. Grate called him and asked him to come over and look at the situation.  Mr. McEachern told Mr. Grate he could come look but couldn’t give a yea or nay as to what the Board would do but that Mr. Grate could bring this before the Board.  Mr. McEachern did look at the property with Mr. Grate. 

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;

 

Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief background on the case.   He stated that this is a typical 10,000 square foot lot in the R-2 Single Family Residential District.  The peculiarity of this property is that it has a side load garage instead of a front yard load garage.   Mr. McEachern stated that there is a letter from a neighbor that is most affected, but he has no problem with the carport.

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

 

Mr. Bennett Grate stated that he has lived there for 25 years.  He stated that he talked to Mr. Mangus 3 times about the set back issue and got the same answers each time.  He stated he had measured and measured again so he sent his builder in for a permit. That is when the homeowner found that he had measured the side yard incorrectly and has already put the 2 5” steel posts for the footing (36” deep and 2 ½’ square) in the wrong place.  He stated that it would take $500-$600 to cut these out and put in new.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were no public comments.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

 

There was a written communication with the packet to the Board from Mr. L. W. McGovern of 1738 N. Terry Lane who lives next door to the South of Mr. Bennett Grate which stated he has no problem with the 2’3” variance that Mr. Grate is asking for.

 

DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:

Quentin Coon asked which way the roofline on the carport was running.  Mr. Grate stated it is running the same as the roofline of the house.  Les Mangus stated that the Zoning Regulations allow for the roof the overhang 36” over the 8’ side yard setback. 

 

CLOSING THE HEARING:

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m.  There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information

 

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

The Board will now deliberate the request.  First, we need to determine if the request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize us to grant a variance.  For example, it cannot be a “use” variance.  Those permitted are found in Section 10-107C and are listed as follows:

 

1.         1.  To vary the applicable minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements.

2.         2.  To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements.

3.         3.  To vary the dimensional provisions for permitted obstructions in required yards including fences in Section 3-103F.

4.         4.  To vary the applicable number of required off-street parking spaces and the amount of off-street loading requirements of Article 5.

5.  To vary the applicable dimensional sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding district regulations.

6.  To vary the applicable requirements in Sections 10-107 C1 through 5 above in conjunction with conditional use applications for nonconforming, nonresidential structures and uses under provisions of Section 8-105.

7.  To vary the applicable provisions permitted by the flood plain district.

 

Based on the application, this request meets the criteria for Section 10-107C pertaining to a variance of the bulk regulations.

 

In determining whether the evidence presented supports the conclusions of the five findings required by Section 10-107D1, the Board shall now consider the extent to which the evidence demonstrates that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Each of the five findings of fact will be read and our collective opinion will now be summarized for the minutes.  When a condition is not found to exist, the wording may be altered by adding or deleting the word “not” as appropriate.

 

a.                                          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;    Yes, it is unique to this property due to the size of the side yard.

 

b.                                          That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;  Yes, the adjacent property owner has no concern with the variance.

 

c.                                           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;  Yes, he will have to dig again and have additional costs.

 

d.                                          That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare;   Yes, it will not adversely affect  the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare.

 

e.                                           That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.  Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings, I now call for a motion and, if approved, any conditions that might be attached:

 

Motion made by Joe Robertson, seconded by Ron Roberts as follows:  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 Joe Robertson move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2001-02 as requested with no conditions.

 

There was no discussion.  Motion passed 6-0.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson, seconded by Quentin Coon to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission.

PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-V-2001-02.  Application by Bennett Grate, 1746 N. Terry Lane, Andover, for a variance of the minimum side yard from the required 8 feet to 5’9” in the R-2 Single Family District.

 

 

Planning Commission reconvened at 7:55 p.m.

 

 

 

Additional Agenda Item.  Authorize a public hearing on an amendment to the Sign Regulations to allow temporary signs for fireworks sales locations.  Les Mangus stated that in a recent City Council workshop the Council looked at fireworks issues, which lead to looking at the signage.  The R-2 Single Family Residential District, which has several fireworks stands, is restricted t a 6 square foot sign.  The City Council is asking the Planning Commission to amend the sign regulations for fireworks signs. 

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to authorize a public hearing regarding the sign regulation amendment for fireworks signs.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion. 

 

Joe Robertson asked why this was not a conditional use, which is what he thought was to be the remedy for this type of situation.  Mr. Mangus stated that the conditional use is for a temporary real estate sign that would be in place for a long time.  This amendment would only be applicable for the 10 days of the fireworks sales season.  Mr. Mangus and Mr. Foster thought it was best if we established a maximum number of signs and square footage.

 

Vote was 5-1 with Charles Malcom voting no.

Authorize a public hearing on an amendment to the Sign Regulations to allow temporary signs for fireworks sales locations. 

 

 

Member Items. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked about the date of the retreat.  Jeff Bridges stated that the date would be June 23, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

 

Charles Malcom asked about the screening fence at Andover Crossing between the housing and the apartments.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is no screening required between residential and residential or by Site Plan conditions.

 

Member Items

 

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Adjourn