ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

September 19, 2006

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Acting Chairman Lynn Heath called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission members present were Jan Cox, Byron Stout, Ray Jessen Jr., David Martine and Jeff Syrios.  Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and.  Commission Members Quentin Coon and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale were absent.

Call to order

Review the minutes of the regular August 15, 2006 Planning Commission and August 24, 2006 workshop meetings.

David Martine made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the minutes of the February 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the August 8, 2006 and August 29, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the September 5, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the September 12, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

David Martine made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

BZA-V-2006-06: Lawrence West of 648 N. Broadview Lane, pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations, requests a variance of 4 ½ feet from the required 25’ minimum front yard setback line limitation  for the purpose of  construction of a canopy structure 20 ½ feet from the front lot line on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

Lynn Heath asked Les Mangus if he had any further information on this case. Les stated this is a situation where there was an existing attached garage on the front of a house that was demolished, which was a legal non-conforming structure. It was within 17’ of the front property line and the regulations now require 25’. The time between when the existing structure was torn down and today exceeded 6 months, expiring the legal non-conformance. The proposal is less of a variance than the original garage.

Lynn Heath opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. and asked the applicant to approach the podium.

Larry West of 648 N. Broadview Lane explained the existing garage was an eyesore. He said the proposed carport will make the property more appealing and will protect their vehicles from the weather. He went on to explain the canopy structure building materials. He said the surrounding neighbors all support the canopy structure.

Lynn Heath asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this matter.

Renee West of 648 N. Broadview Lane stated other neighbors in the area have structures built closer to the property line than this canopy will be.

Lynn Heath closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and restricted discussion to the bench. Lynn asked the Planning Commission members if they need to disqualify themselves. Hearing none, he asked Les for the notification dates. Les stated the notices were published on August 24, 2006 and mailed to property owners on August 21, 2006.

Lynn Heath began the review of the Facts and Findings:

BZA-V-2006-06: Lawrence West of 648 N. Broadview Lane

F.

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

1.

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 owners or the applicant;

Les said this property is in a neighborhood that pre-dates zoning.

X

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

Lynn Heath said there are already such intrusions in that neighborhood.

X

3.

The 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.

X

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

X

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

G.

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.

X

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.

Lynn Heath said the applicant stated this is to improve the looks of the property.

X

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, and

X

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to 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.

X

Lynn Heath asked if any restrictions would be imposed on this application. Lynn Heath and others said this will be a pleasant addition to the neighborhood.

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-06 with a 20 ½ foot setback as requested without conditions. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

BZA-V-2006-07: David Hawley of 700 Bramerton Court, pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations, requests a variance of 2 feet from the required 6 foot maximum fence height limitation for the purpose of constructing an 8 foot fence on the rear lot line on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

Lynn Heath opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and asked Les to comment on this case. Les explained the request which has some unique surroundings whereas the rear yard slopes considerably away from the house. The applicant owns a swimming pool and would appreciate more privacy for that area. Due to the slope and existing road conditions, a 6’ fence would not give much of an effect.

Lynn Heath asked if any members needed to disqualify themselves. Jeff Syrios, Byron Stout, and David Martine all stated they are friends of the applicant, but they do not feel this will affect their decisions.

Lynn Heath asked if proper notification has been made. Les said the notice was published on August 24, 2006 and mailed to property owners on August 21, 2006.

David Hawley, owner and applicant of 700 Bramerton explained his application. He submitted photos to the members which document the slope of his yard. He said he would like to build an 8’ stamped concrete fence to help with noise and dust. He said he has already received approval for the fence from his homeowners association at Terradyne. David said this will run along the Lakeside Drive property line. General discussion about the fence continued.

Ray Jessen Jr. asked if the concrete fence would tie into the existing fencing on the north and south sides. David said yes it will tie in to the cedar and wrought iron fencing.

Lynn Heath asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. and restricted discussion to the board. Lynn Heath said other variances have been approved with this same unique condition. The Planning Commission began the review of the factors and findings.

BZA-V-2006-07: David Hawley of 700 Bramerton Court

F.

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

1.

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 owners or the applicant;

X

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

Lynn Heath said it may even enhance adjacent properties.

X

3.

The 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.

X

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

X

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

G.

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.

X

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.

X

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, and

X

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to 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.

X

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Ray Jessen Jr. move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-07 as requested for an 8’ high fence. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

David Martine made a motion at 7:29 p.m.  to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Marketplace Addition Final PUD.

Lynn Heath asked Les for his comments. Les said he has nothing to add from the Subdivision Committee meeting.

Greg Allison of MKEC Engineering stated he is representing the applicant and that they agree with all Staff comments made during the Subdivision Committee meeting.  He listed the main modifications to this PUD.

1.      Added a parcel 3-A on the Final PUD is known as Lot 1, Block 2.

2.      The rear setback is landscaped with a wall, trees, and berm.

Lynn Heath asked about the correction of the easement around the berm. Greg Allison said it will be centered on the curb and gutter at a 40’ width for the berm and trees. He said the Site Plan Review Committee would not allow landscaping in the easement.

Lynn Heath asked if all staff comments have been satisfied. Greg said he thinks so. There was discussion about each of the staff comments. Greg said they are in compliance with Corridor Management policy of KDOT.

There was discussion about Reserve A containing the entry monument. Greg said on the recorded plat, there is no reserve area for the monument signage, so this will be added to the restrictive covenant with the other reserve properties for maintenance.

There was general discussion about the need for cross lot circulation. Greg said this is noted in General Provision 14F.

Jan Cox asked if this is Phase 2. Greg Allison said yes it will.

Jan Cox made a motion at 7:40 p.m. to approve the Marketplace Addition Final PUD Phase 2 as presented subject to the satisfaction of staff comments which includes the cross lot circulation. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Marketplace Addition Final PUD.

Review the Prairie Creek Addition Final PUD.

Lynn Heath asked Les for his comments. Les said he has received request from Westar for additional easements to accommodate street light locations. Kris Rose said they agree with Westar.

Kris Rose of Baughman Company, 315 Ellis, Wichita, Kansas represented the applicant said this First Phase of the PUD is for 100 lots and that they agree with all staff comments. He stated the updated title report has been ordered and will be delivered soon. There was general discussion about the Kaneb pipeline setback of 50’.He said the Southern Star easement is 66’ wide. There will be 1 commercial lot built with this first phase (Parcel 3 on the Preliminary Plat) 

Lynn Heath asked when the wall will be built. Kris said it will be built along with each phase of construction after Site Plan Committee approval. The wall will not intersect with the pipeline. There was discussion about the various encroachment agreements that will be needed during this project for sidewalks and easements.

Jan Cox was concerned with about the number of smaller lots (under 10,000 square feet) not to exceed the approved 33%. She said the first phase will be 50% small lots. Les Mangus said the city will be looking for the end result to be 33%  of the entire development to be or less.

There was discussion about the commercial lot which is zoned B-2 Neighborhood Business District and will be used for the developers office.

Jeff Syrios asked if water wells will be allowed. Les said they can only be in the commercial and reserve areas.

Ray Jessen Jr. asked if the park needs to be called out as a lake since is will detain storm water. Les said that is a permitted use in the reserve description. Discussion continued.

David Martine stated he will abstain from voting on this case.

Byron Stout made a motion to approve the Prairie Creek Addition Final PUD as presented to include staff comments and Westar Easements. Ray Jessen Jr. seconded the motion.

Jan Cox asked for an explanation of minimum pad elevations.

Motion carried 5/0/1 with David Martine abstaining.

Review the Prairie Creek Addition Final PUD

Review the Terradyne Estates 3^rd Addition Final PUD.

Lynn Heath asked Les if he had any additional comments. Les said he has also received comments from Westar about their need for additional easements to accommodate their street lighting plan.

Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates said he has submitted an updated plat to reflect the comments of the Subdivision Committee. He said he will work out the additional easements with Westar. 

There was general discussion about Reserve C also being designated for utilities.

Kenny Hill stated 8 parking spaces will be provided in Reserve A and Reserve B.

Jeff Bridges was concerned about the approval of private street within the city limits of Andover. He suggested a workshop discussion about a private streets being built to improve lot count instead of being a necessity for the project. There was general discussion about this.

David Martine made a motion to approve the Terradyne Estates 3^rd Addition Final PUD as presented with the additional easements requested by Westar Energy. Ray Jessen Jr. seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Terradyne Estates 3^rd addition Final PUD

Review of the 2007 Planning Schedule. No comments were made.

Member Items:

David Martine- Was still concerned about lot drainage. There was discussion about minimum requirements. Discussion continued about policy vs. regulations. David Martine wants to see a 2% minimum design standard. Enforcement of final drainage plans was also an issue. Les said if a change is made in the policy of the Planning Commission, notification letters could be sent to all the builders and developers. Les warned requiring a 2% minimum slope will double the cost of the storm sewer systems. Les said he will speak with the city engineer for a response at the October Planning Commission meeting.

Ray Jessen Jr.- Is concerned about high speed traffic running through the Green Valley neighborhood.  Les said 90% of the speeders come from within their own neighborhood. Traffic calming designs are being implemented in new developments. Ray would like to see the Police Dept. run radar deeper into the subdivision such as the corner of Onewood and Putter. Les said this will be forwarded to the Chief of Police for appropriate action.

Member Items

Jeff Syrios made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Adjournment

Respectfully Submitted by

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

Approved this 17^th day of October 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.