|
|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August
20, 2002
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met August 20, 2002
at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center. Members present were Quentin Coon,
Lynn Heath, David Ledgerwood, John McEachern, and David Martine. Members Joe
Robertson, Charles Malcom, and Ron Roberts were absent. Others in attendance
were the City Council Liaison Ben Lawrence, Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator;
Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Deborah Carroll, Administrative
Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin
Coon at 7:00 p.m.
|
Call to Order
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the minutes of the July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting.
·
Lynn Heath stated that on page
6, Item 7 the words "final plat" should be corrected to say
"preliminary plat".
·
Lynn Heath stated that on page
7, the statement that reads "keep single wide mobile homes out of Andover" should have been "keep single wide mobile homes out of the Sunflower Addition".
·
Lynn Heath stated that on page
9, in the motion stating "Joe Robertson abstained from voting. Second
by John McEachern." should have stated "Second by Charles
Malcom".
Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes of
the July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission as revised. Motion seconded by
John McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.
|
Review the minutes of the
July 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of the August 6, 2002 Site Plan Review Committee
were reviewed as well as the minutes of the August 13, 2002 Subdivision
Committee. The minutes were accepted as reviewed.
Lynn
Heath stated that the Planning Commission has never received the minutes of
the July 9, 2002 and the August 13, 2002 City Council meetings. Lynn Heath
stated those were the minutes that discussed the City Council returning the
McFadden property issue to the Planning Commission. Jeff Bridges said that
this case was heard at the Planning Commission meeting in June, was acted on
by the City Council at their first meeting in July, then the Planning
Commission is waiting for an opinion from legal council on the plat
conditions, tabled the item.
Chairman Coon noted that City
Council meeting minutes were accepted from July 30, 2002.
|
Minutes:
|
|
|
|
|
Committee and Staff Reports: Les Mangus said the Commissioners were given the
Lot Activity Report which records all the subdivisions, how many lots were
platted, how many building permits were issued, and percentages that have
certificates of occupancy and are complete. Also included is the continuation
of the memo from Bickley Foster regarding the McFadden Annexation and zoning
cases. Mr. Mangus stated there is also a copy of the resignation letter from
Joe Robertson, which is effective immediately. This will create a vacancy on
the Planning Commission and attendance will be very important until the
vacancy is filled.
Chairman Coon stated that agenda items 5, 6, and 7
are all related. Mr. Coon summarized the Commissions concerns from the
previous meeting, which were as follows:
1.
How do we insure that only
modular homes are built in that area?
2.
The density issue.
Les Mangus said that these cases need to be
separated and considered on their own merits, annexation apart from each of
the zoning cases. The Commission has the option of sending the original
motion on annexation back to the City Council stating that nothing has
changed or it can be reconsidered and a new motion can be made.
Dave Martine asked if Mr. Mangus had received the
opinion from the attorney. Les Mangus said the only issue here is with the
MH-2 application, which does not have anything to do with the annexation,
other than the applicant does not want to be annexed unless he gets a
satisfactory zoning. That is something that can be taken up at the council
level.
Lynn Heath made a motion to resubmit the same motion
that was made at the June/July meeting because there is no change and is
quoted as follows:
"Having considered the evidence at the hearing
and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that
we recommend to the Governing Body Case No. Z-2002-04 be modified and
approved to change the zoning district classification from the Butler County
Agricultural District to the MH-2 District, based on the findings of the
Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. The
following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation.
CONDITIONS: Contingent on approval of the platting.
The findings are #6- Sewage, Water, and Streets can
be provided; #9- no MH-2 property is available in the area; & #13 this
change would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district
classifications of these regulations. If the plat is not approved, then MH-2
is not approved. Motion seconded by Dave Martine. After general discussion,
the motion passed 4-2."
July meeting-
Motion by Lynn Heath that
after reconsidering an annexation of the McFadden property that the Planning
Commission re-recommends to the governing body that the Sunflower Addition
also known as the McFadden property be annexed into the city limits
contingent upon the zoning. John McEachern said the applicant misrepresented
the total number of homes and the size of the lots. Les Mangus made a point
of order and asked if there was not a second on the motion. Second made by
Charles Malcom. Discussion continued about the information being presented by
the applicant should match the paperwork. The motion was restated and the
second was reaffirmed for the record. The motion carried 7-0.
Dave Martine seconded the
motion. There was general discussion about the letter received from Bickley Foster in regard to McFadden's MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District which was
received on August 16, 2002. John McEachern quoted from Bickley Foster's memo the paragraph stating "Mr. Foster would recommend the Council not
annex the land and possibly that of the accompanying case without prejudice
and provide the opportunity to reapply again without another filing fee. The
earliest meeting the applicant could re-file would be October when the
revised R-1, R-2, and Protective Overlay District would be in place. If all
this procedure is complicated, remember that no matter which recommendation
you decide upon other than no annexation, it means that you will need an
appropriate set of factors as rational." John McEachern recommended to
the Commission that they not approve the annexation and not let him reapply
for R-2. Les Mangus referenced Bickley Foster's second memo and said Bickley
did not understand that the applicant had agreed to 7,500 square feet minimum
lot size, not 8,000 square feet minimum lot size. Then Mr. Foster came back
with the opinion that if he has to have 7,500 square feet minimum lot size
then it will take a P.U.D. or a Protective Overlay. Chairman Coon called for
the vote on the annexation motion and clarified that a yes vote would send
this case back to the City Council as a recommendation for annexation.
Roll call votes noted as
follows: Yes- Dave Martine and Lynn Heath. No- David Ledgerwood, Quentin Coon, and John McEachern. Motion failed 2-3.
Tim McFadden of 703 Dublin Drive addressed the Commission and said that in June this Planning Commission
unanimously approved the B-5 zoning and the B-3 with the storage and the
annexation. If Staff agrees, go ahead tonight and send this back for
annexation on the commercial property as unanimously supported in June, and
deny the MH-2 application and the annexation on the back part. Mr. McFadden
said the City Council had no problem with the commercial zoning as the Planning
Commission approved.
Bob Kaplan, representing the applicant, reminded the
Planning Commission of their previous vote to approve these cases. He said
the applicant has worked for months based on the premise that the City of Andover was going to annex this property, and after voting on the annexation previously
you are now denying it. Mr. Kaplan said the MH-2 could be denied, without
having to start all over on this project. He understands that the City is
probably going to enact a Protective Overlay District. Mr. Kaplan said they
can accomplish all the things they can complete this project with all the
conditions the Commission wants to impose through the Protective Overlay. He
understands this will delay the construction start date because the ordinance
is not adopted, but to start over and re-file, and re-notice considering
there have been 2 public hearings on this issue already would be unfair. Mr.
Kaplan asked the Commission to rescind their motion on the annexation with
the recommendation on Agenda Items 6 & 7 subject to the Protective
Overlay which incorporates all of the conditions that have been previously
agreed upon including the lot size, garages, and the UBC standard homes.
Chairman Coon asked Les
Mangus for direction on how to proceed. Mr. Mangus said there has been a
petition for annexation of the entire McFadden tract. Tim McFadden has just
stated that he is willing to modify the petition. Mr. Mangus reminded the
Commission that they are only here in an advisory capacity to the City
Council. If Mr. McFadden brings another petition that shows only the business
area to the City Council, they can act on that. The issue with the MH-2
application, the discussions had with Bickley Foster and Mr. Mangus has
relayed them on to Bob Kaplan was that he feels that the Commission could
proceed on with the MH-2 as if the Protective Overlay was available to you
and just ask the City Council to table the issue until the Public Hearing on
changing the regulations to add a Protective Overlay District. And the Council
adopts that Protective Overlay District. Then they could modify your
recommendation on the MH-2,and add the Protective Overlay to it at that
point. That will put the applicant out about 6 weeks from tonight. If you
choose not to, then the MH-2 portion of his application be removed without
prejudice and then he comes back to you again with a new application for R-2
or MH-2 with a Protective Overlay. There was general discussion about the
Staff recommendations.
Bob Kaplan asked Chairman
Coon for further explanation of his request to rescind the motion on denial
of the annexation. There was more general discussion on this annexation and
the options. Jeff Bridges stated that the Protective Overlay District is on
the zoning case not the annexation case. Les Mangus said that it might be
cleaner to keep the 2 cases separate as far as annexation. The applicant has
stated previously that he does not want to separate the 2 pieces of property
into 2 annexations, he either wants both or neither. Tonight Mr. McFadden has
said he is willing to separate those, and that may be the cleanest way to go
to annex the business property, make the recommendation on it allowing it to
stand on it's own merits, and leave the MH-2 to stand on it's own. There was
more general discussion. Lynn Heath stated that the City Council had a
problem with the 6,000 square foot lots and wanted it clarified what type of
homes would be built in this Subdivision. John McEachern stated again that he
wants to follow the advice of Bickley Foster as in his memo to the
Commission. Les Mangus stated that zoning this property as R-2 won't
accomplish the 7,500 square foot lot size as desired by this Applicant. The
only other option other than the MH-2 with the Protective Overlay would be a
PUD in which you would make exception to the minimum lot size down to 7,500
square feet. Bickley Foster did not realize that the applicant was persistent
on having 7,500 square feet. Les Mangus said you cannot zone this as R-2 with
a Protective Overlay and reduce the lot size to 7,500 square feet. A
Protective Overlay District can only be more restrictive. 7,500 square foot
lots are less restrictive than 8,000. Jeff Bridges said it provides for a
higher density in the platted zone. Les Mangus stated that the current R-2
Zoning provides for 10,000 square foot minimum lots. To restrict an applicant
down to 7,500 square feet would be less restrictive because it allows them to
plat more lots. More restrictive would be to restrict him to 15,000 square
feet. Mr. Mangus further stated the only way to get what the applicant is
asking for is to approve the MH-2 with a Protective Overlay, or with a PUD.
To do a PUD would require that the present application be removed without
prejudice and that a new application be submitted and new notices go out, and
another public hearing be heard, in what would now be the October 15 meeting.
Jeff Bridges said that what is needed here is not a legal opinion but a
planning opinion and let the City Council work out the other issues. Chairman
Coon stated he sees two options in this case which are: 1. Sends back the
whole case 2. Recommend the Protective Overlay as the project proceeds. John
McEachern said that a third option would be to divide the property and
recommend the annexation of the business property, and that they don't
recommend the annexation of the Manufactured Housing lot, without prejudice,
which gives the applicant opportunity to reapply without fees. Lynn Heath said to recommend it with the MH-2 and the Protective Overlay. Chairman Coon stated
there has been a vote already not to recommend the annexation. He asked the
Commission if they wanted to change their decision. Les Mangus stated that
annexation is simply about bringing a piece of property into the City. All of
the other questions being asked by the Commission are about zoning. Either
make a motion to annex the land or don't and then talk about the zoning cases
on their merits. It is the Council's job to decide the annexation. Chairman
Coon stated the 3-2 vote would stand.
Motion by John McEachern
to recommend to the council to not annex the McFadden property and that it is
done without prejudice, and the applicant can reapply at a later date. Motion
died due to lack of a second.
Motion was made by John
McEachern to recommend to the Council to annex the business property and to
not annex the manufactured housing property without prejudice. Motion
seconded by Dave Martine.
There was general discussion about the split
annexation. Jeff Bridges stated that if this motion passes it allows the
Commission to proceed with Agenda Item 6. Les Mangus stated that it would
allow the applicant the opportunity to remove his application without
prejudice and reapply. Bob Kaplan representing Tim McFadden gave his
direction to remove the annexation for the MH-2 tract leaving the tracts for
the B-3 and B-5 Zoning Districts as applied for.
|
Committee
and Staff Reports
|
|
|
|
|
Review the case Z-2002-02
to Reconsider the application for change in zoning district classification
from Butler County Agriculture to B-5 Highway Business District (Tract 1 -
7.97 acres), and B-3 Central Shopping District with Special Use for Mini
Storage Facility (Tract 2 - 8.56 acres). Returned by the City Council for
reconsideration and continued from the last meeting.
Lynn Heath made motion to return the case Z-2002-02
to the City Council with the prior recommendation (6/18/02) a favorable
recommendation. John McEachern seconded motion. Motion Carried 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the case Z-2002-04
to Reconsider the application for change in zoning district classification
from Butler County Agriculture to MH-2 Manufactured Home Subdivision District
on 57.22 acres South of U.S. 54 between Yorktown Road and McCandless Road.
Returned by the City Council for reconsideration of minimum lot size and the
possible creation of a protective overlay zone and continued from the last
meeting.
Les Mangus stated that Agenda Item number 7 has been
removed from the agenda without prejudice by the applicant. Tim McFadden
addressed the Commission about Agenda Item number 12 concerning the Sunflower
Estates Subdivision. He asked for clarification if scheduled for the next
City Council meeting, he would appear for the annexation of the B-5 and B-3
with the special use of the storage facility on it. When that is done, will
he need return to the Planning Commission with a preliminary plat for that
development or what? Jeff Bridges said he would have to split the plat. Les
Mangus stated that the Planning Commission would need to consider taking the
plat that has been prepared and splitting it into 2. Or if the applicant
wants to hold the 2 together and hold the plat up waiting on the final zoning
of the remaining 56 acres. Bob Kaplan asked for Agenda Item number 12 to be considered
now in the meeting so they could leave. Chairman Coon with the consensus of
the Commission agreed to move the review the Sunflower Estates plat next.
|
Review
the case Z-2002-04 to Reconsider
|
|
|
|
|
Review the Preliminary
Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision. Kenny Hill Civil Engineer, of
Poe and Associates representing the applicant addressed the Commission about
the B-5 and B-3 property. He stated that the conditions the Commission have
requested were to have access out to Kellogg, and to have cross lot access on
these lots adjacent to Kellogg. Providing utilities in this area will not be
a problem. Lynn Heath said there is to be a sidewalk along Cloud Ave. Bob
Kaplan stated that if the Commission approves the Preliminary Plat tonight,
then they will bring in a Final Plat on the commercial plat and that is all
that the Commission will see. Lynn Heath stated that there is temporary
access across Lot 2. Kenny Hill said there is a median break on Kellogg that
lines up with Lot 2.
Lynn Heath made a motion to
approve the Preliminary Plat of the Sunflower Estates Subdivision commercial
area. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried. 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the annexation of
the Andover Lakes Estates property, +/- 98.7 acres north of US-54 between
Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road. Les Mangus stated this item was continued
from the last meeting because the petition for annexation hadn't been filed.
The petition is now filed is now prepared for recommendation to the City
Council. Staff reports that extension of City water, sewer, and streets are
possible from existing systems. Mr. Mangus stated that this annexation would
be contiguous to the City now on three sides since the school 160-acre property
was finally annexed by the City Council at their last meeting.
Motion by John McEachern to
recommend the annexation of Andover Lakes property +/- 98.7 acres
north of US-54 between Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road. Lynn Heath seconded
motion. Motion carried 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z-2002-05 Public Hearing
on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler
County agriculture to R-2 Single Family Residential District (Tract 1- 42.44
acres), R-3 Multiple Family Residential District (Tract 2- 8.85 acres), B-2
Neighborhood Business District (Tract 3- 1.40 acres), B-3 Central Shopping
District (Tract 4- 8.24 acres), R-4 Multiple Family Residential District
Limited to Assisted Living Facility (Tract 5- 7.81 acres), B-3 Central
Shopping District (Tract 6- 29.95 acres). Located between US-54 and Douglas Avenue, and Sunset Drive and Yorktown Road, continued from the last meeting pending
petition for annexation. Kenny Hill, Civil Engineer from Poe and
Associates, representing the applicant, stated that this application is for
all of the quarter section except the part that is platted, that is south of
Douglas, west of Yorktown, north of Highway 54, and east of Andover Road,
except for a 1-acre tract in the middle that is not owned by the applicant.
The proposal is for R-2 zoning for all of the area north of Willowbrook Street, and is to be single family lots with 10,000 square foot lots. Kenny Hill further explained there is an 8.85 acre Multi-Family tract which would be zoned R-3
and would be probably developed as duplexes, 4-plexes, or patio homes. There
is a B-2 Neighborhood Business District that is 1.4 acres to act as a buffer
between the B-3 Zoning and the single family residential zoning north of
that. Tract number 5 is 7.81 acres is proposed to be R-4 zoning but limited
to assisted living only. The remaining area in Tract 6 would all be B-3
zoning. The property east of Tract 4 is planned to be a YMCA location. Likely
that the construction and signalization of the intersection of Yorktown and Kellogg would be expedited by this development. This might be used by the
Sunflower Estates Addition. Two of the developers of this project are here
tonight to answer questions. There is an existing lake just north of the
highway that is planned to be partially filled in and some of it would be
used for drainage, but it would not be a pond, and the pond would be moved to
the north as shown in the plan received by the Commission.
John Greenstreet representing
the owner, stated he is intending, once the zoning is in place, to donate to
the YMCA the tract of land suitable to build a new facility on for the City.
Chairman Coon asked how many acres the YMCA site would be. Mr. Greenstreet
said it would be 3.5 to maximum of 5 acres. It would depend on which facility
they intend to use. Lynn Heath asked if the property adjacent to Tract 3 is Butler County or City property. Mr. Greenstreet said it is county zoned and that he is in
conversation with the owners about acquiring it. There was general
discussion within the Commission about their concerns of the platting design.
Kenny Hill said the plan is to provide a wall as a screen between zoning areas.
Jeff Bridges stated the Planning Commission discussed the plans for the
wall, but the recommendation that came out of the Planning Commission was to
deny the whole application. John McEachern said that the result of the denial
of the application then the Council did not make them put up anything. Mr.
Greenstreet said that all they are applying for at this time is zoning and
that each tract would have to be platted for it's own specific use. John
McEachern said he is concerned that because this is an assisted living
facility that there would be increased traffic on Willowbrook and Sunset.
John Greenstreet stated that there would need to be some access provided to
the north. John Greenstreet stated that Dr. Ellis gave a permanent easement
to the north for access to the one acre house site. John McEachern stated
that in a letter received by the Planning Commission from Dr. Ellis, it said
he would prefer it remain this way. John Greenstreet said that Galloway's Drive would have to eventually have to go all the way north. John McEachern
stated he is still concerned with R-4 being next to existing residential.
There was general discussion about the options for the platting of Tract 5.
Chairman Coon opened the
Public Hearing.
Marci Laffen of 301 S. Sunflower Lane, Lot 7 Willowbrook Addition thanked the Planning Commission for all
their hard work. Ms. Laffen stated she does not want to look at a wall across
from her home, as she does not consider this to be a buffer. She currently
has a wheat/ milo field across the street. Ms. Laffen's other concerns are as
follows:
·
The traffic increase on Willowbrook
·
The businesses using Willowbrook as a back access
·
Or residents using it as access to their homes off of Kellogg.
·
There could be an estimated 85 single-family dwellings in this
area. She estimates 10 trips per single family dwelling. Multi family
dwellings are estimated to generate 12-24 trips per day.
·
Ms. Laffen said she spoke to the head director of the YMCA and
he said if someone was giving them some land, they would consider developing
it. The East side YMCA averages 35,000 members going in and out of their
facility per month.
·
She is also concerned with the crime rate increase if this area
is developed as planned. She suggests putting the R-4 zone somewhere else and
would rather have R-2 abutting her property.
Ernie Johnson of 201 Sunset
Drive thanked the Planning Commission for serving the community. He stated
that Andover has always been a wholesome, eclectic community. He said the
Commission needs direction in planning neighborhoods for the future of Andover. Mr. Johnson showed a map to the audience that shows the Willowbrook neighborhood.
He is asking the Commissioners to consider the opinions of adjoining property
owners when deciding platting and zoning cases. Mr. Johnson is concerned
about the volume of traffic on Willowbrook Street and of the speed that the
vehicles would be traveling on it. He further stated that the neighbors in
Willowbrook do not want Multi-Family housing next to their homes and that it
would create higher taxes to existing homeowners for the schools and etc. Mr.
Johnson asked the Commission to consider whether
Kenneth Boone, 235 S. Sunset
Drive, has lived there for 28 years, and thanked the Commission for their
time. He is concerned with the safety issue of the street being planned to
run north and south through Tract 1 would dead end into his property. Mr.
Boone thinks this could be redrawn. He is asking the Commission to not
recommend Tract number 1 as it is currently platted for the reason of safety.
Xury Hole, 318 Willowbrook Street, Lot 5, showed the original plat of the Willowbrook Addition dated
August 8, 1952. He recited the history of the development. Mr. Hole stated
there are a nice row of houses along the south side of the development, which
is the north side of Douglas, and is used as a buffer to the mobile home
park. He further enjoys the green area between Andover Road and the first
row of mobile homes. Mr. Hole is concerned that R-4 zoning next to his
neighborhood is not fair, and that the residents of the Willowbrook Addition
would be happier if single family homes were built along both Willowbrook Street and Sunflower Lane. He further stated that the R-4 zoning on this tract
should be changed to R-2, which would be more compatible with the
surroundings.
Valeta Hole, 318 Willowbrook Street, Lot 5, recited notes taken from the December 1996 Planning
Commission meeting which are as follows: concerning Andover Crossing:
"Mr. Kaplan said these are not to be subsidized housing units. The
engineer stated landscape buffering would include a masonry wall along the
north side from Andover East to adjacent to Galloway's residence. These are
comments from Mr. John Greenstreet, a representative for Dr. Ellis. He said
this is a commercial venture, which should do very well. The intent is for
the balance of the ground to the hedgerow, which is 1/2 mile, would be filled
with single family homes, which would soften the blow. There is 1/4 mile
along Highway 54 that he does not know what will happen with it. At this time
the plan showed single family homes up to Douglas." Then Mrs. Hole
quoted excerpts from the motion at the 1996 meeting made by Doug Oliver,
which are as follows: There will be a landscape buffer in R-4 zoning between
it and adjacent property. The site committee should consider the addition of
2 feet to 6-8 feet from Andover Road to the north east corner of multiple families.
That the property to the north of this development be considered only for
single family residential development, that there never be subsidized tax
credit or low income housing unless there is an amendment to the PUD."
Mrs. Hole asked the Commission why the agenda for tonight's meeting was not
advertised on Channel 7 sooner, and why no "zoning pending" signs
were placed in the area. She asked for everyone attending concerning the
Andover Lake Estates to stand. A majority of the people in the audience
stood.
Nancy Brocks, 130 Westview,
who stated that her backyard faces the wheat/milo field in question. She is
concerned about the issue of multiple family residential assisted living
situations in her neighborhood. She has been a health care provider for 15
years. Ms. Brocks stated she is strongly opposed to the R-4 Assisted Living
area being placed next to the Willowbrook Addition. She stated there will be
the traffic flow from 3 shifts of employees, headlights shining in the
windows, delivery and biohazard waste trucks, and that this is not desired
traffic through the quiet neighborhood. She said a feasibility study of
assisted living facilities would show that they continually have empty beds
and are not moneymaking businesses. Ms. Brocks stated that if this facility
goes out of business, then the area homeowners would be faced with either
another rezoning issue or a different commercial business in that area.
John Ewing, 412 Willowbrook,
stated that Tract 5 is designed to be too abrupt transition from R-1 to R-4
stating that they object to the R-4 zoning application for Tract number 5, of
case number Z-2002-05 that is not compatible with R-1 housing. R-2 housing
would be considered compatible. He submitted a statement to the Commission
that was signed by 43 of the residents in the area.
Mike Owen, 135 Westview Road, who stated he is opposed to having so many businesses next to R-1 housing.
He is concerned about all the traffic that the businesses would create would
be driving through their quiet neighborhood.
Tina Turner, 234 S. Yorktown,
was concerned about the lack of access to the business district along
Kellogg. She stated drivers have to go 1/2 mile from Andover Road, with only
a median break at Archer, and is 1/4 mile from where they are proposing to
bring Yorktown down to Kellogg. Ms. Turner said that the traffic that missed
the driveway to Dillon’s go through Archer and make a U-turn around the
median. She said more traffic in this situation would create more accidents.
Ms. Turner further commented that drivers cannot turn east out of that area
without going to Andover Road and making a U-turn and turning around. She
disagrees with the proposed street running north and south through Tract 1
and dead ending into the middle of the block. Ms. Turner asked the Commission
to deny the R-3 zoning which would potentially bring in 48 families if they
decide to develop with 4 plexes.
Chairman Coon closed the
Public Hearing at 9:03 p.m. He then called for a recess for 5 minutes.
Chairman Coon called the
Planning Commission back to order at 9:13 and said they would allow a few
more of the publics comments if they were kept short.
Marci Laffen, 301 S. Sunflower Lane, has spoken to Ms. Journagen, the owner of Lamar's, who said there are
too many businesses in Andover empty now. She stated to build more stores
that do not remain in business would take away income from the current
business owners in Andover. She also encouraged the public to get copies of
the Potential Residential Development report from Staff as it shows that
there is only 50% have received a certificate of occupancy.
Ernie Johnson, 201 Sunset
Drive, said that if this development is completed as promised, there has
recently been a sales tax increase to help take care of upgrading of roads.
He asked that the Commission not ask current residents to pay for the
upgrades of the streets in this new addition.
Kenny Hill of Poe and
Associates suggested some compromises for this development that might address
the concerns of the residents in this area, which are as follows:
·
Provide single-family lots along Sunflower Lane and along Willowbrook Street over to Sunset Drive.
·
Leave the remainder of Tract 5 that is intended for Assisted Living
as planned.
·
Change the B-2 zoning to B-1 and extend it across to Tract
number 5 which would be B-4.
·
The remaining part would remain the same.
There was general discussion
of options for this plat.
Chairman Coon closed the
Public Hearing at 9:21 p.m. Mr. Coon asked if any of the Commissioners needed
to disqualify themselves.
John McEachern stated that he
had conversations with Mr. Hole, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Zinn, and Ms. Laffen about
this issue, that they did not disclose any information that was not presented
during the public hearing, and that it would not affect his decision. Mr.
McEachern also stated that he owns property at 151 and 161 Westview Road that
does not directly abut this development.
Lynn Heath said that he
received phone calls on this issue and that it would not change his voting
decision.
Chairman Coon questioned Les
Mangus if this has to be an all or nothing decision. Mr. Mangus said that it
is up to the applicant whether to amend his request or not. He said that the
Commission could make recommendations on the tracts individually, but it is
up to the applicant if he is willing to accept less than what was applied
for. Mr. Mangus reminded the Commission about the table of comparability and
that it will apply in this case because these are all uses listed as you can
move to a lesser zone than what was applied for.
Dave Martine asked what the
zoning is for the YMCA site area. Les Mangus answered that it is part of
Tract 6, B-3 Central Shopping District. Lynn Heath asked Mr. Mangus why
Tracts 4 and 6 are separated. Mr. Mangus answered that in the sketch from 6
months ago, Tracts 4 and 6 had different zones. In the latest proposal they
have the same zone. Les Mangus said that Dillon’s is zoned B-5, and that B-5
zoning does not include the common service and retail businesses. It is more
geared for the highway traffic businesses and that they don't want the threat
of a propane construction equipment sales yard being next to their retail
store. There was general discussion about how deep business zoning should
intrude into residential districts. Les Mangus stated that this project is
similar in some ways to the Cloud City development. There was general discussion
about the individual tracts in the Andover Lakes Estates development. Les
Mangus stated the existing lake in the plat is larger than shown on the map
because the lake does not support itself, due to lack of run off to stay full
during the summer, so it dries up. The developer plans to cut it back and
make it deeper. Mr. Mangus stated the hydrology says that the runoff area
won't support a lake that size so they have scaled it back to fit the amount
of runoff. There was more general discussion about this pond and the
surrounding traffic and zoning choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No.8
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-2002-05
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Dr.
Harvey Ellis
Poe
& Associates- Kenny Hill
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Butler
Co. Ag. To R-2, R-3, B-2, B-3, and R-4 Assisted Living Facility
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
Between
US 54 & Douglas Ave., and Sunset Dr. & Yorktown Rd.
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
98.7
Acres
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
R-2 Hilltop Addition- Developing
Single Family Residences
A-1
Agriculture - Sunflower Elementary School
|
|
South:
|
B-3
Cloud City PUD- Undeveloped
R-3
Andover Crossing Apartments
|
|
East:
|
Butler
Co. Suburban Residential- Galloway Residence
R-1
Legal non-conforming Countryside Mobile Home Park
Butler
Co. Suburban Residential- Bicentennial Addition
|
|
West:
|
R-1
Willowbrook Subdivision.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Partially platted as the Willowbrook Addition but
vacated in the 1950's.
|
|
|
|
* 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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Surrounding
residential, commercial to the SW, the Sunflower Elementary school to the
north of Douglas.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
To
the north is R-2, south is B-3 and R-3, west is R-1, east is Butler County
Suburban residences.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
No
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
No
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
5.
Is the request caused by changed
or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what
is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Developing
regional shopping area. Adjacent to new elementary school property.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
New
elementary school north of Douglas, commercial property developing along
Kellogg, Dillon’s shopping center has become the center of Andover.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Streets, Sewer, and
water can be provided
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Especially
where business abuts residential areas
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Similar
zoning parcels are available across US-54 in Cloud City
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Services
and employment opportunities could be provided.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Additional
traffic, lighting, noise, etc
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Access,
traffic safety, security, and crime
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Page
8- 13 "commercial expansion on both sides of US 54/ and between Andover Road east to the Augusta airport
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Opposition-
Additional traffic on Willowbrook Road
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Opposition-
Increased traffic, and etc.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
*See
Staff Recommendation
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Approval conditioned on the limitation of B-2
zoning only adjacent to Willowbrook Street extension in Parcels 3 & 4, and
elimination of the street extension which connect parcels 3, 4,, & 6 to
Willowbrook Street with access control to parcels 3 & 4 onto Willowbrook
Street. And the primary access to Parcel 5 being from US-54 via Sunset Dr.
and access control to Sunflower Lane & Willowbrook being limited to one
point at the northeast corner of Parcel 5.
MOTION:
Having
considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the
rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing
Body Case No. Z-2002-05 be modified and approved to change the zoning
district classification from the Butler County Agricultural District to the
R-2 District in Tract 1,R-3 in Tract 2 with the duplexes on Willowbrook and
the other ones in the middle and the outlet going out to Yorktown instead of
Willowbrook, B-1 in Tract 3 which is amended to be running across Willowbrook
and would end at the drainage ditch, B-3 in Tract 4 with no outlet to
Willowbrook, R-2 in Tract 5 for 2/3 and the other 1/3 be R-3 and all R-2 would
face Sunflower Lane and Willowbrook Street, B-3 in Tract 6 with no access to
Willowbrook only access to the streets in the other commercial area and
Yorktown and Kellogg based on the findings of the Planning Commission as
recorded in the summary of this hearing.
The
findings are #5 because of the changing conditions in this area with the
elementary school to the north and from the extending commercial on Kellogg
and #14 conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and that it is desired to have
development to the east and commercial on Kellogg.
Motion
seconded by John McEachern.
The motion passed 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman Coon called for a 5-minute recess at 10:18
p.m. Chairman Coon called the Planning and Zoning Commission back to order at
10:30 p.m.
|
Recess
|
|
|
|
|
Review
ZA-2002-01 Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations
R-1 and R-2 Single Family Residential District Bulk Regulations. Les Mangus gave the history of this case to the
Commission. The last instruction Staff was given was for 12,000 square feet
as the change for the R-1 from the existing 20,000 and 75 foot minimum lot
width versus the existing 100, and in the R-2 District- 8,000 square feet
minimum versus the existing 10,000, and 65 foot minimum lot width versus the
existing 75 feet. Also has added in the highway setback which will be added
every time a change is made in any zone in the book. Les Mangus further
stated there has been a history of approving single family residential R-2
zone PUD's with lot sizes down as low as 7,800 square feet. It seemed as
though every case was the exception to get that lot size and the 15-foot side
yard on the corner lots. He further stated that there have been no
applications for R-1 single family residential zoning in 20 years.
Chairman
Coon opened up the meeting for Public Hearing.
Don
Uhlenhop of 612 N. Prosperity Lane, asked John McEachern to read the final
paragraph of Bickley Foster's letter to him. "Frankly, what I would do
would be to recommend that the Council not annex the land and possibly that
of the accompanying case without prejudice and provide the opportunity to
reapply again without another filing fee. The earliest meeting that the
applicant could re-file for would be October when the revised R-1, R-2 and
P-O districts would be in place. If all this procedure is complicated,
remember that no matter which recommendation you decide upon other than no
annexation, it means that you will need an appropriate set of factors as
rational."
Les
Mangus stated that the discussion on the changing of R-1 and R-2 regulations
have been going on for 6 months. Mr. Uhlenhop stated he is concerned about
lot sizes of new developing areas. Les Mangus said the Planning Commission
had called the Public Hearing after discussion on the issue by Mike Thompson
at the Planning and Zoning Workshop who asked if there is something you are
not using why you have it. Mr. Uhlenhop's other concern was of density if the
zoning is changed as proposed.
Kenny
Hill of Poe and Associates said that
he is trying to avoid PUD's in residential neighborhoods if the developers
could achieve the same goals of the PUD's through the zoning. Mr. Hill said
another problem he has is achieving the 15-foot sideyard setback on corner
lots. An added problem developers have is of the length of the cul-de-sacs in
the Subdivision Regulations.
John Laffen of 301 S. Sunflower Lane, said he is
against decreasing of minimum lot sizes in the zoning districts. He said he
is concerned about the density if this is changed
There
was general discussion of PUD's and cul-de-sacs.
Chairman
Coon closed the Public Hearing at 10:53 p.m.
Lynn Heath made a
motion that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council as
suggested in the draft ordinance number 1179. Motion seconded by John McEachern.
There was general discussion about PUD's. Motion carried 5-0.
|
Review ZA-2002-01 Public
Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Regulations R-1 and R-2 Single
Family Residential District Bulk Regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
VA-2002-03
Recommendation on the vacation of that portion of the Sunset Drive street
right of way lying north of the Manor Road intersection at 404 E. Manor Road.
Phil Randol, 404 E. Manor Road,
addressed the Commission with the history of the area where he lives. Mr.
Randol said once this is vacated, that an entry could be made onto Manor Road from the Dr. Ellis adjacent property. Les Mangus said that Westar Energy was the
only utility to respond to the notices and that they had no objection to this
case. Mr. Mangus stated that half of the right of way would go back to Mr.
Randall and half would go to Dr. Ellis.
Dave Martine made a motion to recommend the Case No.
VA-2002-03, vacation of the property on Sunset Drive to the City Council for
approval. Motion seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final Plat of the Green Valley Green Commercial Subdivision. Kenny Hill, Civil Engineer
from Poe and Associates, representing the applicant stated that Subdivision
Committee has reviewed this plat and had discussions about the access
controls to Prairie Dunes and to Onewood. The other access controls have been
added to the plans that have been submitted. It was also decided that a
traffic study was needed to confirm the location of the access controls and
that this has not been received yet. The Subdivision Committee also suggested
moving one of the reserves on Onewood Drive to the north, and to move the
entry monument toward the residential development north of Tee Time Street.
Les
Mangus noted there is a right in, right out connection to Kellogg at Prairie
Dunes on the plan. Mr. Mangus stated that all developer agreements are City
Council decisions. Mr. Mangus said he is reluctant to recommend the approval
of this plat without the suggested traffic report and further stated that
Onewood will be a signalized intersection until U.S. 54 becomes a freeway.
There was general discussion about the intersection on Onewood. Mr. Mangus
stated that the city has the approval for the $380,000 grant to improve that
intersection with signals.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to approve the Final Plat of Green Valley Greens Commercial Addition
Lots 1 and 2 subject to the traffic report being returned favorable. Motion
seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Green Valley Green Commercial Subdivision.
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final PUD Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 3. Kenny Hill of Poe and
Associates representing the applicant, stated this is part of an approved
Preliminary PUD, is 24.22 acres, 56 single family lots, the average of the
total net area of the lots is 11,844 square feet, minimum lot size required
is 9,000 square feet. Les Mangus stated that Westar Energy is asking for more
easements. Kenny Hill said that would not be a problem. There was general
discussion about sidewalks, hedgerows, and the plans for the reserves in the
addition.
Dave Martine made a motion to recommend acceptance
of the Final PUD for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 3 as accepted with the
condition of the easements requested by Westar Energy. David Ledgerwood
seconded motion. Motion carried 5-0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Preliminary Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Roger Cutsinger from Goedecke
Engineering representing the owner, Paul Hoover, said that this is a rural subdivision
that is in your platting jurisdiction and they have been waiting 18 months
due to the county's moratorium on rezoning. Now that it is rezoned, this
Commission is hearing the case. From the Subdivision Committee, the only
suggestion was to add the setbacks on the pipeline that is shown across Lot 1. This has been done and is shown on the Final Plat. He stated there is controlled
access on the north side and the west side and this will force the 3 lots to
be accessed off of Blazing Meadows Road which is in place and on the east
side of these properties, and there is Rural Water run to these properties at
this time. These are 21 acre lots. Les Mangus stated that there have been no
comments received from the utility companies at this time. Mr. Mangus said
that this Commission would approve this plat but the County Commission, not the City Council, would accept the dedications on it.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Second by John
McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.
|
Review the Preliminary Plat
of the Hoover Tracts.
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Roger
Cutsinger, of Goedecke Engineering.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to approve the Final Plat of the Hoover Tracts. Motion seconded by
John McEachern. Motion carried 5-0.
|
Review the Final Plat of
the Hoover Tracts.
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the information on the Protective Overlay District and set a Public Hearing
to consider a change to the Zoning Regulations. Les Mangus stated the Commission has received a
letter from Bickley Foster on this issue, and this is his recommendation to
ease transitions and micro fit uses into neighborhoods and that he suggests
that it is not used on a large scale, and only when a proposal needs
refinement. Mr. Foster further stated that the Protective Overlay could only
be used to make things more restrictive. It cannot be used to lessen the restrictions
in an underlying zone. Jeff Bridges stated that this is the opposite of a
PUD. There was general discussion of how this new district might be used. Les
Mangus said this is something that can be applied at the time of zoning even
if the applicant did not ask for it.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to recommend this Protective Overlay District be added to the Zoning
Regulations, to be granted a Public Hearing at the September 17, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion carried
5-0.
|
Review the information on
the Protective Overlay District and set a Public Hearing to consider a change
to the Zoning Regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Items. Dave Martine asked the Commissioners about how to create screening
and buffer areas and when should it be done? Les Mangus stated that there are
several ways to handle these cases. It could be applied as a condition if it
were a special use, or if it is a PUD as a buffer strip between 2 zones,
otherwise it should be applied at platting. Mr. Mangus said that it is
appropriate to ask for reserves at the time of platting. There was more
general discussion on this issue. Les Mangus reminded the Commission that
Multi-Family projects must go to the Site Plan Review Committee.
John McEachern said that Doug and Pauline Oliver
contacted him with a complaint that people are living in a trailer that is
parked on Parallel Drive in their neighbor's driveway. Mr. Oliver is asking
for something to be done about this. Les Mangus understood the people are not
living in the trailer, that the people that own the house own the motor home.
Mr. Mangus said the neighbors seem to be upset about the RV being parked in
the driveway but that he has investigated the subject and the trailer is not
protruding onto the street. He further informed the Commission that the
Regulations state that the trailer may only be parked in that location for 36
hours, and used for habitation during that time. John McEachern asked Mr.
Mangus to follow up on this. Les Mangus said that the Code Enforcement
Officer has already checked this out and that no one is living in the
trailer. Jeff Bridges asked if the trailer was plugged into the house.
Lynn Heath asked if a new
secretary for the Planning Commission needed to be elected. Les Mangus said that
it would be necessary tonight.
Lynn Heath
nominated Dave Martine as Secretary for the Planning Commission. A Motion was
made by Lynn Heath for nominations to cease. John McEachern seconded the
motion. Motion carried 5-0. A Motion was made by Lynn Heath to approve Dave
Martine for Secretary of the Andover Planning Commission. John McEachern
seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0
|
Member Items.
|
|
|
|
|
Adjourn.
Motion by Lynn Heath to adjourn the meeting. Motion
seconded by David Ledgerwood. Motion carried 5-0.
_____________________________________
Deborah Carroll, Administrative Secretary
|
Adjourn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|