ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

February 20, 2007

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission members present were Jan Cox, Byron Stout, Lynn Heath, and JR. Jessen.  Others in attendance were City Council Liaison Member Caroline Hale, Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll and Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges.  Absent- David Martine and Jeff Syrios.

Call to order

Review the minutes of the regular January 16, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. A correction was noted on the bottom of page 9 where Ray Jessen in opposition to the motion should state Jeff Syrios in opposition.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. JR Jessen seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the minutes of the regular January 16, 2007 PC mtg.

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the January 30, 2007 meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the February 6, 2007 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the February 13, 2007 Subdivision Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Lynn Heath asked for someone else to volunteer for this committee. Byron Stout said he would serve. 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

Z-2007-01: Public Hearing on the proposed  Amendment #4 to the Amended Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to make the following changes:

1.      Change of zoning district classification of Parcel 2 from the B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District and to combine Parcels 1 and 2 of the Cornerstone Addition PUD.

2.      Change of zoning district classification of a portion of Parcel 4 from the R-2 Single Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District, and to combine said parcel in Parcel 1.

General location: 10.5 acres on the north side of 21^st Street between Cornerstone Parkway and Andover Road.

From Les Mangus Memo: The proposed Amendment #4 to the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD rezones Parcel 2 from B-2 to B-3 and a small portion of Parcel 4 from R-2 to B-3 to reconfigure Parcel 1 into one 40 acre B-3 shopping center parcel. The proposed parcel would be bordered by reserves, a city park, and other business parcels in the proposed configuration. Staff supports the amendment as proposed.

Chairman Coon stated notices have been sent to surrounding property owners on January 18, 2007. He asked Les Mangus for further information about this application.

Les explained this property at 21^st and Andover Road is already zoned B-3 Central Business. The exception tract is where the Ritchie temporary sales office is for the Cornerstone Residential Development and is currently zoned B-3. Across Cornerstone Parkway is another piece of land owned by Ritchie zoned B-3. What this applicant is asking is the remainder which was B-2 to be changed to B-3 and there was a strip of land that was inadvertently transferred to the commercial owners that was residential, and it was not platted as a part of the Cornerstone 1^st Addition Residential Reserve. This is a housekeeping item between owners to get the tract that belongs to these owners to business zoning.

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to approach the podium. Rob Hartman of PEC Engineering represented the applicant and presented the final plan. Rob explained this application was designed to make the development fit together. He said the applicant is planning a major shopping center, and Rob showed the concept plan. The filed plat shows the pad sites along 21^st Street. The natural drainage flow was explained to the Commissioners.

Byron Stout asked about the number of entrances onto 21^st and Andover Road. Rob Hartman said the entrances will be at least 200’ apart. There was continued discussion about future 4 lane divided 21^st Street with landscaped medians and controlled left turn lanes. The majority of the accesses would be right-in, right-out.

Chairman Coon asked if there were any other questions from the bench or from the public.

Mary Lou Beskett of 2208 Gilmore she asked how far the plan goes to build 21^st Street into 4 lanes. Les said the concept is from Andover Road west to K-96. The Sedgwick County project is 5 lanes continuous to begin in 2008. The City of Andover portion of this project will be funded in 2008 or 2009.

Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. and began review of the Rezoning Report.

Z-2007-01: Public Hearing on the proposed  Amendment #4 to the Amended Cornerstone Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2007-01

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Cornerstone Capital Group, LLC/ PEC

REQUEST:

Amend the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD to change Parcel 2 from B-2 to B-3 and a portion of Parcel 4 from R-2 to B-3.

CASE HISTORY:

LOCATION:

North side of 21^st Street between Andover Road & Cornerstone Parkway.

SITE SIZE:

460’ x 1,000’ = +/- 10.5 acres

PROPOSED USE:

Combine Parcels 1 & 2 for an integrated shopping center.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-2: Cornerstone PUD- Landscaping reserve and City Park.

South:

R-4: Peace Lutheran Church & Life Care Center nursing home.

East:

B-3 Cornerstone PUD- vacant Parcel 1.

West:

B-3 Cornerstone PUD- Ritchie Development temporary sales office.

Background Information:

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

STAFF:

Shown above.

PLANNING:

Concur.

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:

Shown above.

PLANNING:

Concur.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

Les explained this corrects an error among property owners.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

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:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

10.   If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

12.   To what extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

x

STAFF:

No detriment.

PLANNING:

No detriment.

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?

STAFF:

None at this time.

PLANNING:

None at this time.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

16.   Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

x

STAFF:

Approval as applied for.

PLANNING:

Quentin Coon said the Commissioners have seen the proposal.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

17.   If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Janice Cox, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2007-01 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 and B-2 Districts to the B-3 District based on the findings 6, 10, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 5/0.

SU-2007-01: Public Hearing on a Special Use requested to establish a Post-Secondary Education Facility on property zoned as the I-1 Industrial District located on the south side of East 13^th between Andover Road and Southwest Prairie Creek Road.

This case was withdrawn by the applicant.

SU-2007-01: Public Hearing on a Special Use – withdrawn by applicant.

Z-2007-02: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification of 24.67 acres from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District; and 11.03 acres from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District .

General location: Southeast corner of 21^st Street and Andover Road.

From Les Mangus Memo: This application arises from the applicant’s recent purchase of the property from Butler Community College. The proposed zoning would create a +/- 11 acre strip of B-3 zoning along Andover Rd. and 21^st St., and the remaining +/-24 acres in R-4 multi-family zoning. In reviewing the application I calculated the maximum number of multiple family dwelling units allowed on the gross area of the proposed 24.63 acre parcel proposed for the R-4 Multiple Family Residential District. That total, based on 3000 square feet per dwelling unit, yields 357 dwelling units. The applicant’s agent has shared the concept plan for the property with me, which shows a net building parcel of 16.2 acres, which in turn yields a maximum of 235 dwelling units. This net total seems more in line with past approvals by the Planning Commission. The developer is in agreement with the use of a Protective Overlay with a limit of 235 dwelling units. Staff supports the application with the Protective Overlay. Les explained the exhibits that were in the Commissioner’s packets. He said today about 40% of the property is in the flood plain. The engineers are planning to reduce the area of flood plain to about 10 acres with the retention/detention system. There is very little drop in elevation between 21^st Street and where this stream intersects the Kansas Turnpike.

JR Jessen asked if there was any concern of flooding of the multi-family units with this proposed plan. Les said the engineering standard would be the same, no matter what the planned use of the property was.

Lynn Heath asked if the R-4 area was planned for 4-plexes. Les said the area is proposed to construct apartments more in the lines of 8’s and 12’s.

Quentin Coon asked if proper notification was given on this case. Les stated notices were published in the Andover Journal on January 25^th and mailed to surrounding landowners on January 22^nd.

Chairman Coon asked if any members needed to disqualify themselves or if anyone had received any Ex-parte communication. All members replied they had neither.

Chairman Coon asked the applicant to approach the podium.

Rob Hartman of PEC Engineering represented the owners (Laham Development) and explained the application. Rob said an extensive drainage study would be done of the site to determine what minimum pads will need to be. The detention pond is planned for the middle of the property. There are lots of existing trees on the south side of the property in the flood plain area which the owner is planning to maintain. Another tree row exists along the east boundary of the property that will also be saved. 1 entrance is planned off of 21^st Street into the multi-family area and a 2^nd drive off of Andover Road. The commercial zoning is a +/-300 foot strip that fronts Andover Road wrapping onto 21^st Street. 3 entrances will be provided along the west boundary. Retail business is planned for the Andover Road/ 21^st Street frontages. The multi-family area is only a concept plan at this time and the owner thinks this will be a good buffer from the commercial corners to the residential properties to the east of this site.

Rob Hartman stated the number of dwelling units is being restricted for the zoned property to that area reduced from 357 (gross area) down to 235 (net area) with a Protective Overlay. Les said the concept shown on the exhibit is for 225 dwelling units. This should be 3,000 square feet per unit. Rob said he thinks the owner is planning 3 story buildings.

Byron Stout asked about the future plan for improvements of 21^st Street going east to the Turnpike. Les stated the traffic counts east of Andover Road don’t warrant more than 2 lane traffic at this time. Les foresees future improvements to this road due to the increased access points and the traffic that would come out of this development. Discussion continued about the effects of the Cornerstone addition on the northwest corner having an added effect in this area. Les does not think it will be significant. Lining things up along 21^st Street from the west to the east is more critical.

Jeff Bridges stated today Andover has 8.5 million dollars worth of projects that need to be built within the next 4 years, but only 4.5 million dollars to work with. The projects can only move ahead as funding becomes available.

Jan Cox asked if the height limitation of 45 feet would be for 2 or 3 story structures. Les said there is no limitation on the number of stories. Les said it would likely accommodate 3 stories if the roofs were gabled. Flat roofs would make room for 4 stories with the bottom floor being “garden apartments”. There was continued discussion about limiting the maximum number of stories allowed. Les stated a Protective Overlay could be implemented for this purpose. Les cautioned the members about reduction of the number of dwelling units will increase the size of the footprint of the building which in turn impacts the amount of green space between the buildings.  The application is for R-4 zoning, and after discussion with the engineer and developer, they have agreed to put the Protective Overlay on to limit the maximum number of dwelling units. The exhibits are now showing plans for 3-story units.

There was continued discussion about the existing R-4 zoned 2 story Cloudridge Apartments and 3 story Andover Crossing Apartments.

Quentin Coon asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to speak on this case.

Duane Starr of 2220 N. Grant Road was concerned about the future traffic problem going east to Augusta along 21^st Street if this application is approved as applied for. There was discussion about residents of apartments and the amount of taxes they pay compared to single-family home owners. Jeff Bridges explained rent pays for the property and school taxes as well as the income taxes and sales taxes being a benefit to the community through finance formulas.  Rob Hartman said the apartment plans are conceptual at this time.  Jan Cox said the application is only for a zoning change. Lynn Heath stated that is what the Protective Overlay is designed for. Duane said apartments built on this site would reduce his property value.

Anita Evans of 2211 N. Grant Road also had traffic concerns. She said that many more cars traveling on 21^st Street would be a hazard without improvements. She would like to see a plan for the road to be improved prior to the development of this property.

Edward Clampitt of 2215 N. Gilmore Drive asked if the major entrance onto 21^st Street would be adjacent to Gillmore Drive. Les said the concept is for the north entrance to be +/-300 feet west of Gilmore. He asked if there were any plans for stop lights at that area. Les said not at this point. That could be decided at platting with the engineer. There was discussion about traffic counts which do not warrant 4 lanes to the turnpike at this time.

Mr. Clampitt asked when the development of this property will begin. Rob said this is not definite time frame but the developer of the northwest corner would like to start construction soon.

Mr. Clampitt asked about the tenant types planned in the commercial area. Rob said the users would be similar to the retail businesses along Andover Road, but nothing larger than the existing Walgreens.

Mary Lou Beskett of 2208 N. Gilmore Drive asked questions about the traffic survey process. Les stated the City of Andover has the equipment to conduct its own survey. The information is collected over a 24 hour period every 2-3 years in appropriate locations. She anticipates accidents around this development and does not want to lose any of her property for road right of way or easements.  Les said no engineering has been done in this area, but they try to make equal easements on both sides of the roads. Ms. Beskett asked for a more current traffic survey to be done. She was concerned about the number of vehicles being added to the traffic flow if the tenants were primarily college students. She stated she does not want to see 21^st Street widened because it would cut into her property.

Les Mangus said when road right-of-way is taken; it is taken from both sides of the road. 

Mary Beskett was also concerned about people from Wichita renting these apartments for the sole purpose of enrolling their children in the excellent Andover school system. Jeff Bridges said the State Legislature will not allow inequality to exist between different types of residential property owners. Les stated multi-family property is taxed as though it is commercial which is 2 ½ times the tax rate, which would make a $40,000 apartment pays the same taxes as a $100,000 single-family home. She said the more families with children that move into this multi-family development would raise the taxes of the entire community to pay for the additional schools that would be needed to keep up with the population growth.

Chairman Coon stated all the concerns heard tonight will be considered during the platting process.

Mary Beskett questioned the need for this much additional apartments in the City of Andover. She did not see the advantage of this multi-family housing in addition to the ones already planned in the Cornerstone Addition.

Edward Clampitt asked if the neighborhood would receive further personal notification of this case. Les stated zoning is a process, not an event. There will be several occasions for this to be heard by different boards and committees. This will be heard by the City Council on March 13, 2007. After that if approved, the platting will be heard by the Planning Commission. Notices will be published in the Andover Journal Advocate, on Channel 7, and on the Andover web site. The public is encouraged to watch for this address/location in the published notices if they are interested in attending further hearings.

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 8:33 p.m. and returned the discussion to the bench. Lynn Heath asked the members if they had any questions about the B-3 zoning. Hearing no comments, the discussion began concerning the apartment application.

Quentin Coon said he would like to see the apartment buildings spread out as much as possible.  Rob Hartman stated the Cornerstone net acres are 12.4 in Parcel 7. Les said it is ½ of the size of this development and Cornerstone has 161 units. Les said with the Protective Overlay it nets out to be 10 units per acre. Cornerstone will be just shy of 14 per acre.

Byron Stout was concerned the development will be built and occupied before the traffic issues can be resolved. Les stated that as well as city directed traffic studies in appropriate areas, KDOT also shows up annually and measures traffic because Andover is in the Wichita Metropolitan Area Planning Organization. Discussion continued about traffic counting methods and adjustment factors.

Les and Jeff continued to remind the Commissioners that this is a zoning case only and platting issues will be solved at a later date.

JR Jessen said he did not believe he had enough information to make a decision on this case. Jan Cox reminded the members of the use of the Protective Overlay limitations available.

Les stated information from the ITE who explains that the average single-family home generates 10 vehicle trips per day. Apartments generate 6 trips per day each or only 60% of the traffic flow. 235 dwelling units would generate 1410 trips per day. The traffic engineers will tell you the peak hour is 10% of that which is 141 trips. If this property were developed as single-family at 3 dwelling units per acre, it would produce 75 single-family dwellings at 10 trips or 750 trips per day or 75 in the peak hour. To keep this in perspective, there will only be 65 trips during the peak hour difference between the apartments and single-family homes. JR Jessen is concerned about 21^st street being a skinny 2 lane road. 

Les said that at platting, the Planning Commission will be discussing the accel and descel lanes. Once the plat is approved, each of the dwelling units will pay, whether single or multi-family dwelling, an arterial street impact fee that will go towards the improvement of those roads to 4 or 5 lanes, whatever is necessary.

There was discussion about the total number of units if 3 story dwellings were allowed compared to 2. Lynn Heath said that would decrease the green space. Jan Cox asked if the Protective Overlay could reduce the total density of the development. Les said the density has already been reduced from the 357 dwelling units allowed to the 235 as requested. The calculations have all been done with the assumption of the units being 3 story buildings with 4 units per level.

Les asked Rob Hartman if there was a height restriction placed on the Cornerstone apartments. Rob stated they will be 45 feet high. Discussion continued about the Marketplace East Addition and platting limitations placed on it. Les explained a 4-plex and apartment at the maximum density between R-3 and R-4 zones, the numbers are exactly the same. Lynn Heath said the decision needs to be made for allowed dwelling units using the net area figure. 9 acres of this property is needed for the detention/retention area.

Les suggested if a maximum number of units is stated in the Protective Overlay.

There was general discussion comparing this proposed development to existing sites in Andover. Les said the majority of apartment complexes in Wichita are much larger than this one. He said these would be 9.5 units per acre at 235 units total on 24.67 acres (gross tract) as shown on the current plan. Byron Stout did not want Andover to be similar to Wichita, but he wants to plan for consistency throughout the town. Les said the 10 acre adjacent property to the east has recently sold for potential commercial development.

Caroline Hale asked if the Planning Commission could restrict these structures to maximum of 2 stories. Jan Cox said that would increase the footprint size of the buildings. She suggested the Protective Overlay limiting both the maximum number of dwelling units as well as to 2 story structures. Discussion continued about the possible population of this development. JR Jessen was concerned if the commercial area would screen the apartments appropriately.

Discussion continued whether the City of Andover would support another area of R-4 zoning.

Z-2007-02: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification of 24.67 acres from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the R-4 Multiple-Family Residential District; and 11.03 acres from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-3 Central Shopping District  .

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 7

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2007-02

APPLICANT/AGENT:

BC Partners LLC/ PEC

REQUEST:

R-2 to R-4 on 24.63 acres

R-2 to B-3 on 11.03 acres

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant land recently sold by Butler Community College to applicant.

LOCATION:

SE corner of 21^st and Andover Road.

SITE SIZE:

35.7 acres

PROPOSED USE:

Potential commercial/ multi-family development.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

B-3- BCC & storage facility

South:

R-2 vacant land & B-1 Countryside Pet Clinic

East:

Butler County RR- single family residence on +/- 10 acres.

West:

B-3 Presto Convenience Store, Hanna Heating, Strip retail/ office building.

Background Information:

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

STAFF:

Shown above.

PLANNING:

Shown 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:

Shown above.

PLANNING:

Shown 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:

BCC has owned the property for sometime with plans to develop a satellite campus.

x

PLANNING:

Les said there is some Butler County Rural Resiential zoning adjacent to the college.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

BCC sale of property and activity on the Cornerstone PUD.

x

PLANNING:

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 exist or can be provided.

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

x

STAFF:

B-3 & R-4 zoning parcels are available in the Cornerstone PUD.

x

PLANNING:

In the Cornerstone Addition.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

10.   If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

The site is large enough for a single family residential development.

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

12.   To what extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

STAFF:

Increased traffic, light, noise, etc.

PLANNING:

Mostly with traffic congestion.

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:

Les stated the Comprehensive Plan mentions a potential multi-family at or near the intersection of 21^st and Andover Road. It is the only place in the plan that is mentioned specifically for multi-family.

Byron Stout mentioned that the multi-family housing in the Cornerstone Addition could apply as well. Les agreed.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

None at this time.

PLANNING:

Traffic, number of dwelling units, congestion, property value.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

16.   Is there any information or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

STAFF:

PLANNING:

Les said there were recommendations in his memo.

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:

PLANNING:

Jan Cox said she was not sure it would in the long term. Quentin Coon agreed with her.

COUNCIL:

There was discussion about crafting the R-4 Protective Overlay. Les said that in terms of density the number of dwellings for the given area has no difference between the R-3 and R-4 zoning, just that the R-3 restricts to a 4-family dwelling and the R-4 is allowed multiple dwellings. Lynn Heath said he is not concerned about the height of the buildings. Lynn Heath asked for a roll call vote to see how many dwelling units and stricture height the members wanted.   

Byron Stout-    limit of 2 stories with maximum of 160 units.

JR Jessen-        limit of 2 stories with maximum of 185 units.

Quentin Coon- limit of 3 stories with maximum of 225 units.

Jan Cox-          limit of 2 stories with maximum of 160 units.

Lynn Heath-     limit of 3 stories with maximum of 225 units.

Caroline Hale asked if this existing property is zoned R-3. Lynn Heath stated it is R-2 Single-Family Residential and has been so for over 15 years. She said that makes this case unique from the Cornerstone Addition and she doubts this applicants property would be an area ideal for construction of single-family homes.

General discussion continued about the appropriate maximum height that should be allowed for this structure. 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Janice Cox, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2007-02 be approved to change the zoning district classification to include a Protective Overlay of 2 story apartment and 160 maximum dwelling units from the R-2 District to the R-4 District based on the findings 6, 10, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing   Motion seconded by Byron Stout. Discussion continued and Jan Cox amended her motion to add that all the roofs be gabled. Byron Stout seconded the amended motion. Jan Cox amended her motion again to add “2 stories not to exceed 35 maximum structure heights.  Motion carried 3/2 with Lynn Heath and Quentin Coon in opposition.

Jan Cox stated this case will be heard by the Governing Body on March 13, 2007.

Chairman Coon made a motion for a 5 minute break at 9:02 p.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Chairman Coon called the Planning Commission meeting back to order at 9:12 p.m.

Recess

Review the Final Planned Unit Development plan of the Cornerstone Shopping Addition.

From Les Mangus Memo. The proposed Final PUD encompasses 40 acres of B-3 Central Shopping District zoning at the northwest corner of 21^st St. and Andover Rd. Most of the items of concern from the Staff Checklist have been addressed, except the final drainage plan, and cross lot access to the adjacent property on the west. The Subdivision Committee has asked the applicant to provide pedestrian access from the adjacent City Park and future multi-family residences.

Rob Hartman of PEC Engineering representing the applicant presented the Parcel 1 of the Cornerstone Planned Unit Development. He explained this will consist of 5 frontage lots and 2 larger back lots. 2 major entrances are planned off of 21^st Street. Maximum of 5 access points off of 21^st Street and 2 on Andover Road with minimum spacing of 200 feet between the drives. There will be cross lot circulation on this site. The Ritchie exception property will have cross lot access provided up to it, but cannot be completed without the replat from Ritchie.  There will be a north pedestrian access point provided between lots 1 and 2. A screening wall will also be build along the north line as well. Discussion continued about the access points to this property. Rob said the drainage will flow to the east and be contained on site into the detention pond. A formal drainage plan will be submitted with the final plat. Rob stated a Property Owners Association will be set up to manage the reserve areas.

Les stated the Site Plan Review Committee will have the responsibility of approving sidewalks and access from the adjacent City Park on the north and future multi-family residences when the development of the building sites as suggested by the Subdivision Committee.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the final PUD pending submittal and approval of staff of a final drainage plan. JR Jessen seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the Final Planned Unit Development plan of the Cornerstone Shopping Addition.

Review the Sketch Plat of the AMI Lane Addition.

From Les Mangus memo: The proposed addition is +/- 135 ac. south and west of SW 130th St. and Andover Rd. The developer intends to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development to take advantage of minimum lot sizes less than 10,000 sq. ft., cul-de-sacs greater than 500 feet in length, and to utilize a 15 ft. building setback on one side of corner lots. The southern boundary of the tract abuts the south end of the Andover Planning Jurisdiction. Water and sewer facilities are available for extension nearby, and the tract has access to Andover Rd. at the southeast corner, and SW130th St. along the northern boundary. A public park is planned within the development. With the unusual shape of the tract, and the amount of land devoted to open space the gross density is very low at 2.15 dwelling units per acre, with proposed lot widths from 70-78ft., and lot depths of 125ft. This area is within the Rose Hill School District. A collector street is proposed to loop from SW130th St. to Andover Rd., and a future collector is provided to extend west into the adjoining property. The plan appears to be very well thought out, with the combination of several random parcels to create the whole. Staff supports the plan in general.

Kris Rose of Baughman Company was present as agent for the applicant. The plan is for 289 single-family lots, and a 5-acre public park, a neighborhood pool will be built. There are no lots designed to enter the collector streets. Kris said the owner would like to make a Planned Unit Development on this property to request smaller minimum lot sizes similar to the Prairie Creek Addition. There was discussion about the long cul-de-sac on the east side running north on the plan. It is 715 feet long with 19 lots which since this plan is in the sketch phase is adjustable.  This property would be an island annexation with 289 single-family lots planned which will fall inside the Rose Hill school district. None of the lots are facing collector streets, and a 5-acre park will be deeded to the City of Andover. Jeff said the 5 acres would contain a park with picnic benches and a multi-use field. Les said the park space would remain flexible without fixed baseball or soccer facilities. General discussion continued about the maintenance of the park.

Jeff Bridges stated since this is an island, any extension of utilities or street paving that are in-between the existing city limits and the development would have to be borne out of pocket by the developer. Discussion continued.

Kris Rose asked the Commissioners if they had any concerns about the lot sizes. Jan Cox said she would rather see them be larger. Les said there are 30 permits in the Cornerstone addition for similar size lots, and sold out the entire Caywood subdivision which was a minimum 60 feet width.

There was discussion about the existing drainage flow and the proposed ponds shown on the sketch plat.

Jan Cox said she would rather see smaller single-family lots than multi-family housing on this property.

Kris said the average lot size in this development would be 10,000 square foot lots. Discussion continued about fire safety along extensive cul-de-sacs. Les Mangus stated Fire Code stated 30 lots along a cul-de-sac would require a second access. Les said a 500’ cul-de-sac would net about 14- 16 lots.

No formal action was taken on this sketch plat.

Review the Sketch Plat of the Ami Lane Addition.

Nomination of two members of the Planning Commission to serve on a committee to consider changes to the Andover Industrial Park. Jan Cox and Byron Stout volunteered to serve on this committee

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate Byron Stout and Janice Cox to the committee to study the future of the Industrial Park along with City Council members Caroline Hale and Kevin Dreiling. Bill King and Elton Parsons will also represent the PAI group. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Member items. Byron Stout volunteered to serve on the Subdivision Committee

Janice Cox made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00  p.m.  Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Respectfully Submitted by

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

Approved this 20^th day of March 2007 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.