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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

October 16, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met October 16, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, John McEachern, Sheri Geisler, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, and Ron Roberts. Charlene “Charley” Lewis and Joe Robertson were absent.  Others in attendance were Richard Brown, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Pam Johnson, Administrative Secretary. 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:01 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the September 18, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion was made to approve the September 18, 2001 minutes of the Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals by Lynn Heath.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0.

Review the minutes of the September 18, 2001 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the October 2, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the October 9, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the September 25, 2001 City Council meeting and October 3, 2001 special meeting of the City Council were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  None

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

Charley Lewis arrived at 7:06 p.m.

 

 

 

Z-2001-02 Application - change of zoning district classification from Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping Dist. - 2300 N. Andover Rd.  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.  Charles Malcom made a motion to change his prior motion and take the zoning back to the Butler County Rural Residential.  There was not a second to the motion.  Mr. James McFadden, presented the Planning Commission a letter withdrawing the application for annexation and rezoning and thanking the Commission for their time and efforts in this matter.

The Planning Commission accepted the withdrawal.

Z-2001-02 Application - change of zoning district classification from Butler County Rural Residential to B-3 Central Shopping Dist. - 2300 N. Andover Rd.

 

 

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Summerfield Addition.  Mr. Scott Bishop, the owner of this property located at Heorman Street and Lafayette Streets presented information regarding this case.  He stated that this property was rezoned for multi-family residential over a year ago and they are now in the platting process.  Mr. Bishop stated that he has an agreement with the other property owner on Heorman Street for the street vacation of Heorman Street in this area.  Chairman Coon asked how many units are proposed for this area.  Mr. Bishop stated there are plans for 3 four-unit apartments.  Mr. Bishop stated that the items needing changed as requested by Mr. Mangus have been done.  There was general discussion.

 

John McEachern made a motion to accept the Preliminary Plat of the Summerfield Addition as presented.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

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

Review the Preliminary Plat of the Summerfield Addition

 

 

BZA-V-2001-04 Public Hearing on an application for a variance in the 6’ height limitation for fences to 6’6” in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District. 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.

 

It is 7:19 p.m. and I now call Agenda item # 7, which is pubic hearing on Case No. BZA-V-2001-04 pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a variance of 6’ maximum height limitation for the purpose of allowing a 6’6 fence on property zoned as the R-2 Single Family Residential District. Chairman Coon 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 September 6, 2001.  The notices were mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on September 6, 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. 

 

No one received any ex parte communication either verbal or written.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;

 

Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief background on the case.

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

 

The applicant, Ed Hill, 1626 Lantern Lane, Andover, presented information regarding the application.  Mr. Hill stated that the fence is located on Douglas Avenue between the houses on Douglas Avenue and the mobile home park.  He stated that due to the fence being placed in a drainage ditch he needs a 6’6” fence to actually achieve the effect of a 6’ fence. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were no public comments.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:  None.

DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:

There was general discussion regarding the fence.  The general consensus of the Board was that a 7’ fence would be acceptable; however, Les Mangus stated that the Board can only grant the advertised request or a lesser request.

 

CLOSING THE HEARING:

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:31 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.         To vary the applicable minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements.

                       

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

 

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

 

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 a unique condition because single-family homes adjacent to manufactured home park without a screening fence is unique.

 

 

 

b.                                          That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;  Yes, the new homes in the Hilltop Addition are being built higher than the mobile home lots.

 

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, the fence was already constructed.

 

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 because the additional 6” height is not a significant variance.

 

e.                                           That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.  Yes, because screening fences are a common buffer between differing zoning classifications.

 

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/True.

 

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/True.

 

2.                  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/True.

 

3.                  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/True.

 

DECISION:

 

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

 

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 Sheri Geisler 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. John McEachern seconded the motion.

 

There was no discussion.  Motion passed 7-0. 

BZA-V-2001-04 Public Hearing on an application for a variance in the 6’ height limitation for fences to 6’6” in the R-2 Single-Family Residential District.  

 

 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath and seconded by John McEachern to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission.

 

Planning Commission reconvened at 7:41 p.m.

 

 

 

Review KDOT’s 5-year construction Plan, Action Check List and Local Partnership Projects.  Les Mangus presented a project list, which is a request from KDOT to update the five-year transportation capital improvement plan, which is done every year.  This is the same as last year except there is a change in the scope of the Andover Road, U.S. Hwy 54 intersection, which is being considered to be enlarged to include matching dual left-turn lanes on all four approaches of the intersection.  There was general discussion regarding the issue.

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to recommend approval of the KDOT plan to the City Council.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

Review KDOT’s 5-year construction Plan, Action Check List and Local Partnership Projects. 

 

 

Resume discussion of the checklist for findings and factors in consideration of zoning requests.  Mr. Mangus stated this is continuing the discussion from the last meeting in order to give the Commission more time to look at the modifications.  Mr. Mangus stated that items #2, 3, 11 and 14 of the checklist are changed to make them universal for all zoning changes or a special use.  Lynn Heath stated that item #17 was one that there were always questions on and this was much clearer. 

 

After general discussion, Lynn Heath made a motion that these revised 17 factors become used as a policy by the Planning Commission until the factors are incorporated into the Zoning Regulations for the City of Andover.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

Member Items.  John McEachern asked Richard Brown where the City Council is going with the Site Plan Review Committee issue.  Mr. Brown stated that a couple of people on the Council wanted to change the set up and allow the council to make the appointments to the Board.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Council is back at the beginning of this proposal again and this is being sent back to a workshop meeting to be addressed.  After general discussion, Mr. Brown was told that the Planning Commission feels that the Site Plan Review Committee is doing a good job and isn’t broke so asked the Council not try to fix it.

Member Items. 

 

 

Motion to adjourn was made by Charles Malcom.  Charley Lewis seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.

Motion to adjourn