|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
December 17,2002
Minutes
|
|
The
Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday,
December 17, 2002 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 Clark Nelson, John McEachern, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, Dave Martine, Charles Malcom, and City Council Liaison Sheri Geisler. Others in
attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary
Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges. Commission
Member David Ledgerwood was absent.
|
Call to Order
|
|
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:00 p.m. Chairman
Coon announced the resignation of David Ledgerwood from the Planning
Commission due to his move from the Planning Area.
|
|
|
Review the minutes of the November 19, 2002 Andover
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Motion by Charles Malcom to approve the minutes as
presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Ron Roberts abstained from voting
because he did not attend the November meeting. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Review minutes of the Nov.
19, 2002 meeting.
|
|
·
Les Mangus reported the progress
of the survey of other jurisdiction's residential zoning regulations
requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting has been solicited
and the findings will be submitted at the January meeting.
·
Mr. Mangus further stated over
200 single family building permits have been issued this year. He also
reminded the Members of the vacancy created on the Commission and asked for
nominations to fill the position be given to Mayor Bush directly.
·
Sheri Geisler stated the Annual
Employee Appreciation Dinner is scheduled for January 10, 2003 from 5:30 -
9:30 p.m. at the Prairie Rose Chuckwagon Supper.
|
|
|
·
Review of City Council meeting minutes of November 12, 2002,
November 19, 2003, and November 26, 2003. Chairman Coon noted they are
accepted as presented.
·
Review of Subdivision Committee minutes of September 10, 2003.
Chairman Coon noted they are accepted as presented.
·
Review of the Site Plan Review Committee minutes of October 1,
2002 and November 5, 2002. Chairman Coon noted they are accepted as
presented.
|
|
|
Case Z-2002-06:
Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification
from A-1 Agricultural Transition district to R-1 Single Family Residential
District by Daniel Flisram of 306 W. Feather Place, to build a 24' x 30'
detached garage 10' off the side property line.
Daniel Flisram of 306 W. Feather Place addressed the Commission asking for the zoning change on his property
stating it would look better for the neighborhood to have the garage a little
further from the house. He is also planning to build a patio in that area.
Chairman Coon clarified that Mr. Flisram lives on the northwest corner of
Feather and Daisy Lane. Mr. Flisram said he needs additional garage space to
put his vehicles into and to store his woodworking tools. The privacy fence
is not planned to be moved, and the new garage will abut it. The garage will
have a double door to the back, 2 windows, a side door, 16' steel door in the
front, cement siding will be put on, and a Heritage roof to match the house.
Southwestern will build the structure. Chairman Coon asked for any other
comments from the Public. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing on the
case.
|
Review case Z-2002-06
Public Hearing / 306 W. Feather Place
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 5
|
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2002-06
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Daniel
Flisram
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Zoning
district classification change from A-1 to R-1
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Recently
annexed suburban neighborhood
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
306
W. Feather Place- 1 block west of Andover Road & 2 blocks south of U.S.
54
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
120'
x 152' = 18,240 sq. ft.
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Single
family residence (existing) with detached garage (proposed)
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.
|
|
|
South:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.
|
|
|
East:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.
|
|
|
West:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition District- legal non-conforming residences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Applicant
wishes to construct a detached garage closer than the required 20' side yard
required in the A-1 bulk regulations. Recent annexation brings all properties
into the City with A-1 zoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
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 an 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:
|
Suburban single-family neighborhood built in the 1950's
with private sewer & water with gravel streets.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
A-1 Agricultural Transition District- legal
non-conforming residences.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The property was recently annexed and given legal
non-conforming A-1 zoning.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The property is served by private on-site water &
sewer disposal systems not in compliance with modern codes.
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur with staff- Public sewer will be supplied in the
future.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Dedication of street right of way to minimum standard
32' half R/W.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10.
If the request is for business
or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or
employment opportunities?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
Does not meet the 5 acre minimum lot size.
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Would not affect other property.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The subject property does not meet the minimum lot size
of 20,000-sq. ft. for the R-1 district.
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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 was stated.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Approval of change to R-2 because of lot size,
contingent on Right of Way dedication.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
No detriment to the public is perceived.
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion by John McEachern to approve the request for
change in zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition
district by Daniel Flisram at 306 W. Feather Place to modify to an R-2 Single
Family Residential zone with the condition upon the dedication of the 32'
road right-of-way. Reasons supporting the motion were #13- the subject
property does not meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. for the R-1
District; #7 contingency upon the dedication of street right-of-way to
minimum standard 32' half R/W; #5 the property does not meet the minimum lot
size for A-1 zone; #17 No detriment to the public is perceived. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0. Mr. Flisram stated he was in agreement of
the amendment to his application from R-1 to R-2.
|
|
|
Case
Z-2002-07: Public hearing on an
application for change in zoning district classification from R-1 Single
Family Residential District to R-3 Multiple Family Residential District by
Stan Lawrence at 116 W. Willow Road.
Applicant
Stan Lawrence of 250 Stephanie St. gave the history of this property to the
Commission. He is requesting R-3 zoning and stated his intentions are to
remain compatible with the neighborhood in the construction of duplexes on
this property. There has been no structure on this property since a fire
destroyed the previous home. There was general discussion about the 50' gas
easement that runs through the property. Mr. Lawrence stated there will be
parking for the homes in the rear due to not being allowed to have it built
on the gas easement.
Les
Mangus stated this gas line is a 20" high-pressure natural gas
transmission line. The previous owner got the easement reduced down from a
blanket easement. There were negotiations between the previous owner and the Gas
Company in the 90's trying to reduce the easement from 50', but no changes
have been made.
Mr.
Lawrence said he will be doing the construction on Lot 1, and he is planning
to construct a 26' x 68' building.
Chairman
Coon asked for comments from the Public.
Larry
Hromek of 202 W. Willow Road, Leroy Addition, which is straight west of the
location being petitioned for an R-3 zoning. He stated he was opposed to a 4
family dwelling in an R-1 district and not in favor of multi family housing
at all in the area. He feels like this would create too much noise and
traffic in the neighborhood.
Chairman
Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. There was general discussion
about Protective Overlay Districts including the regulation that the district
runs with the title of the land, not the owner.
Les
Mangus stated that Folger's Gymnastics and the school district transportation
center both have a parking lot over the gas easement. Mr. Mangus said the gas
company is restrictive in what they allow on the easement, but that they do
allow some driveways, parking, landscaping.
Larry
Hromek stated there is a water drainage problem in the area.
Jim
Gerher of 223 W. Concord, that the lot being built there as a duplex, does
give somewhat of a barrier between the commercial and the housing districts.
Chairman Coon closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
|
|
|
ANDOVER
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 6
|
|
|
REZONING
REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2002-07
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Stan
Lawrence
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Change
of zoning district classification R-1 to R-3
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Vacant
lot since original single family home burned in the 1990's
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
116
W. Willow Street
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
150
X 133'
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Multiple
Family Dwelling
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
R-1
City Hall
|
|
|
South:
|
R-1
Single Family Residence
|
|
|
East:
|
B-1
Office Business
|
|
|
West:
|
R-1
Single Family Residence
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 an 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:
|
Vacant lot in a larger lot residential area built in the
1960's- 70's
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
R-1 to the south, west, and north, B-1 to the east.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Yes, three different owners have been unsuccessful in
selling or building for single family.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
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:
|
Water, sewer, and street are in place. A 50' pipeline
easement encumbers the subject property.
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Not in the immediate vicinity.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Increased traffic & activity
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Increased traffic, activity, and noise
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Provides buffer from office business to single family
residential
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Provides buffer from office business to single family
residential & B-1 is a buffer between single family and business.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or opposition to the
request?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Increased traffic & activity. Possible devaluation
of nearby property.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
A sketch of the subject property with the pipeline
easement & building setback lines is available.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
No detriment to the public is perceived
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion made by Clark Nelson to approve case number
Z-2002-07 to change the zoning classification as requested on the basis of #3
that 3 different owners have been unsuccessful in selling or building for
single family, #6 that public utilities are in place and that a 50' gas pipeline
encumbers the subject property, and #14 that this development will provide a
buffer from office business to single family residential and to subject to a
Protective Overlay District which would restrict the property may not be used
for more than a 2 family dwelling. Lynn Heath seconded motion
There was general discussion about screening on the
property. Les Mangus stated it is not required between residential zones.
There was general discussion about drainage on the property.
Motion carried 6/1 with Dave Martine in opposition.
|
|
|
Case Z-2002-08: Public hearing on an application to amend the Green Valley Final
Planned Unit Development Plan to expand the area of Parcel 12 R-4 Multiple
Family Residential area to include portions of Parcels 13 and 16 to construct
a patio home subdivision.
Randy Johnson with Jay Russell Development
represented the applicant in this case. He stated there is existing zoning in
parcel 12 which allows for patio homes and they want to take a portion of
Parcels 13 and 16 and make it the same as the zoning in Parcel 12. Mr.
Johnson said that all the applicant is interested in is the construction of
only patio homes; leave the Parcel boundaries as they are now up until the
property is developed then they would be willing to change the parcel
boundaries.
Applicant Jay Russell asked Les Mangus to explain
the current zoning on the property and stated they are not requesting any
multi-family zoning at all. He stated that patio homes are allowed to go
right up to the border of the Green Valley 8th Addition Putter
Circle. There was general discussion about the expectations of the existing
homeowners having only single family neighbors. In the first proposal, they
only had 3 neighbors, but the amendment would give them 7 neighbors. Mr.
Mangus is in favor of giving the existing neighbors a screening break from
this development as a courtesy.
Chairman Coon asked for comments from the Public.
J.R. Jessen of 915 Putter Circle stated he is
opposed to this development due to the already existing problem with water
flow in the area of Onewood and Putter Circle. He further stated he bought
the home he is in with the understanding that his neighbors to the rear would
be homes with 9,000 sq. ft. lots.
Jay Russell stated there is mud in the area is due
to it being undeveloped land at this time. He further said that when the
development begins, a master drainage plan will be submitted and that he did
not know of any present problems with water flow.
Clark Nelson stated he understood Mr. Jessen was
also concerned with density in the area. There was general discussion about
lot sizes in the Green Valley area. Jay Russell said that it was for economic
reasons they chose to apply for 6,000 sq. ft. lots for the patio homes. Mr.
Russell further stated with other similar developments, they had a positive
impact on the adjoining neighbors. He stated the approximate size of these
homes would be single story 1,000 to 1,600 sq. ft. Mr. Russell stated that
the south part of this Parcel is already approved for patio homes and that
the majority of these amended PUD lots are larger than 6,000-sq. ft. minimum.
Chairman Coon asked Les Mangus if it would have been
more appropriate for the application to have been made for a R-2 with an
overlay of 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Mr. Mangus stated that a minor
amendment to the Final PUD could not exceed a 5% change in density. He
further stated Parcel 16 allows for multi-family dwellings, and single-family
detached dwellings down to 5,000-sq. ft. minimum lot size. There was further
general discussion about the Parcels in this application.
Jay Russell stated a fence would be put up but
believes it would be setting a negative precedence for future buildings.
J.R. Jessen stated there is water build-up between
Onewood and Putter Circle. Les Mangus stated this would be addressed with the
builders.
Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
|
Review case number
Z-2002-08/ Public hearing / amend Green Valley PUD
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 7
|
|
|
REZONING
REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2002-08
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Green
Valley Residential Development, LLC
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Amend
Green Valley PUD to expand Parcel 12. R-4 multiple family areas for a patio
home subdivision
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
One
of 4 remaining vacant parcels in the Green Valley PUD
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
North
of U.S. 54 and west of Onewood Drive
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
+-
7 acres
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Patio
home subdivision
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
R-2
Green Valley PUD single family homes
|
|
|
South:
|
B-4
Green Valley PUD vacant business property
|
|
|
East:
|
R-2
Green Valley PUD single family homes
B-4
or R-4 Green Valley PUD vacant property
|
|
|
West:
|
R-2
Green Valley PUD - municipal golf course
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 an 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:
|
Green Valley PUD
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
R-2 to the North & West and B-4 to the South &
East
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Market changes
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Sewer, water, and streets 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:
|
Contingent on final plat
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8. Would a screening plan be necessary for
existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Not required but is requested by the Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
No land is available with similar zoning
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
No land is available with similar zoning, and the
request fills a need in Andover
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10. If the request is for business or industrial
uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment
opportunities?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
No detriment is perceived
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Density
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
PUD provides for alterations to the zoning regulations
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Provides a different type of owner occupied single
family housing.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15. What is the support or opposition to the
request?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Adjacent property owners concerned with drainage
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16. Are there any
information or are there recommendations on this request available from
knowledgeable persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
See attached staff opinion
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
No detriment to the public is perceived
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was general discussion about parking, and
front and year yard setbacks in this development. Les Mangus stated that
typically if the rear yard setback is 20' then the front yard setback is 20'
also. There was further discussion on whether it would be better for this to
be dedicated public or private street. Les Mangus recommended when turning
off Onewood Drive the street becomes privately owned. Mr. Mangus further
reported the applicant is proposing 29' back to back pavement with a 32'
right-of-way and the only sidewalk will be on the west side of Onewood Drive,
which is a collector street.
There was discussion about the memo received from
Les Mangus concerning this case and his suggested modifications to the Parcel
provisions and Description as follows:
|
|
|
1.
|
Revise the Parcel Boundary to include all the area
proposed for patio homes in Parcel 12.
|
|
|
2.
|
Limit the permitted uses to single family detached
dwellings (patio homes), and two and three family attached dwellings
(townhouses).
|
|
|
3.
|
Limit the maximum number of dwelling units to 32.
|
|
|
4.
|
Place a reserve and screening wall between Parcel 12
Lot 24 to Lot 22 that would be constructed of wood and Lot 1 through 19 will
be constructed of wrought iron.
|
|
|
5.
|
Limit access to Parcel 12 to the two points on
Onewood Drive
|
|
|
6.
|
Establish bulk regulations for the lots:
|
|
|
|
a.
|
Front yard setback: 20 feet except that one front of
a corner lot may be 156 feet, and the opening to a garage shall be no closer
than 25 feet.
|
|
|
|
b.
|
Minimum Side Yard: 6 feet
|
|
|
|
c.
|
Minimum Lot width: 60 feet measured at the building
setback line.
|
|
|
|
d.
|
Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.
|
|
|
|
e.
|
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35%
|
|
|
|
f.
|
Maximum Height: 35 feet
|
|
|
|
g.
|
Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 s.f. Per single family
detached dwelling or 5,000 s.f. Per dwelling unit for two and three family
attached dwellings.
|
|
|
J.R. Jessen states he does
not want a concrete wall built in his backyard. There was general discussion
about he reserve screening wall.
At 9:10 p.m. Chairman Coon
called for a 10-minute break in the meeting. At 9:22 p.m. the meeting was
called back to order.
Jay Russell reported that
from the corner of Lot 1 to Lot 8 of the original Green Valley 8th
Addition that he has agreed with the owner to put in a 6' wood fence and
wrought iron fence from end to end of the back yard. This will be a private
street with a minimum 29' width or public with minimum 58'.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application,
I John McEachern move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No.
Z-2002-08 be approved to change the zoning district classification from R-2
district to R-4 district based upon the findings of the Planning Commission
as recorded in the summary of this hearing. (and that the following
conditions be attached to this recommendation) I find that 6, 9, 12, and 14
support the motion. Also in the motion the staff memo as noted above from Les
Mangus including all the items as revised and per the application:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Revise the Parcel Boundary to include all the area
proposed for patio homes in Parcel 12.
|
|
|
2.
|
Limit the permitted uses to single family detached
dwellings (patio homes), and two and three family attached dwellings
(townhouses).
|
|
|
3.
|
Limit the maximum number of dwelling units to 32.
|
|
|
4.
|
Place a reserve and screening wall between Parcel
12, Lot 24 down to Lot 1, that would be constructed of wood and Lot 9 will be
constructed of wrought iron from edge to edge.
|
|
|
5.
|
Limit access to Parcel 12 to the two points on
Onewood Drive
|
|
|
6.
|
Establish bulk regulations for the lots:
|
|
|
|
a.
|
Front yard setback: 20 feet except that one front of
a corner lot may be 15 feet, and the opening to a garage shall be no closer
than 25 feet.
|
|
|
|
b.
|
Minimum Side Yard: 6 feet
|
|
|
|
c.
|
Minimum Lot width: 60 feet measured at the building
setback line.
|
|
|
|
d.
|
Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.
|
|
|
|
e.
|
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35%
|
|
|
|
f.
|
Maximum Height: 35 feet
|
|
|
|
g.
|
Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 s.f. Per single family
detached dwelling.
|
|
|
|
h.
|
Minimum Rear Yard Setback of 20'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Street R.O.W. Private
32' R.O.W. with 29' BB Pavement (Gated Community)
Street R.O.W. Public
58' R.O.W. with 29 BB Pavement on special assessments.
Lynn Heath
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
Case Z-2002-09:
Public hearing on an application to amend the Countryside Final Planned Unit
Development Plan to change the zoning district classification of lots 1 and
16 of Block 2 of the Countryside Third Addition from the R-2 Single Family
Residential District to the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District, located
at the northwest corner of 1st Street and Koob Lane.
John McEachern stated he
needed to remove himself due to a conflict of interest in this case. He owns
one of the lots in the application.
Chairman Coon asked for
comments from the Public.
Jim Gerher of 223 W. Concord
stated he is the owner of Lot 1 in the Countryside Third Addition. He stated
the lots have been vacant since the mid 70's, and the protective covenant has
been changed which allowed a single car garage with a single parking in front
of the house. Housing to the east is multi-family duplexes, and to the west
are single family homes, the Post Office is to the east, houses on 2nd
Street are duplexes, and the Church along the south side. Mr. Gerher stated
the reason these lots are still vacant is due to multi family homes across
the street and he thinks it only makes sense to make these duplexes also. He
stated the lot sizes are large enough to accommodate what is being asked
for. He further stated that the property values had increased at a faster
rate for multi family housing than single family housing. There was general
discussion about the existing housing in this neighborhood.
Kristi Zuckovich of 304 W. 1st
stated she has been a long time resident of Andover. They were pleased to
have the opportunity to build their home in an existing neighborhood. She
stated that much of this neighborhood was wiped out during the tornado in
1991 and they have rebuilt their home. The values of the homes in this
neighborhood run from $120,000 to $190,000. She stated this same type of
application has been received by the Commission before and was not approved.
She stated there are no problems selling single family lots in Andover. The
applicant's lots will back up to single family property. She stated this
neighborhood is fearful of becoming a transient area, crime, deterioration of
properties, the increased traffic and parking, and the negative impact of
multi family neighbors. Ms. Zuckovich does not want to live in a multi family
area. She stated that when this application was denied in the past, one of
the owners put a doghouse in the middle of the lot and was left there for a
number of months. Ms. Zuckovich stated the applicants would be the only ones
to benefit from this zoning change and she is opposed to its approval.
Phil Howard of 241 Koob
Lane, lives next to the applicant's property, stated he has been the one to
spray weed killer on the edge of the applicant's property because no one took
care of it. He further stated that the property has been mowed more in this
last year than it has been in the last 7 years. Mr. Howard does not want
duplexes or 4-plexes next to his home. He would only agree with single family
homes being built in this neighborhood. Mr. Howard said that this past year
the trash has been cleaned up from this property.
Diane Devore of 303 Koob
Lane said that she and her husband are very much against this proposed
application. She said they moved into their home 6 years ago and that these
lots have been vacant, seldom mowed, cluttered with trash and debris, a dog
house in the middle of the lot, and the extremely tall weeds were a haven for
rats and snakes and potential for injury. She said she has reported her
complaints to the city and has worked with a Code Compliance Officer who
informed her that the owner had 3 months to clean it up, and if it was not
taken care of, the City would take care of it and send the bill to the owner.
She said the fall of 2002 is the first time this property was cleaned up.
They don't want the property value to drop due to the condition this
applicant leaves his land. She said they would not have purchased their home
if they had known multi family housing would go in the area. She complained
that not everyone was legally notified for this hearing of zoning change. She
asked for the Commissioners to say no to this change.
Kathy Mendoza of 310 W. 1st
Street read a letter she had received from her neighbors to the west, John
& Monica Lewis, of 320 W. 1st Street, who could not attend
tonight, and their name was not on the notification list. The letter states
the Lewis family is opposed to these applicants zoning change. The letter was
entered into the record of Public Hearing.
Kathy Mendoza then read a
letter from her husband and herself stating their protest to this
application. Mrs. Mendoza urged the Planning Commission to reject this
application for rezoning these properties. The letter was entered into the
record of Public Hearing.
There was general discussion
about the notification area being 200' radius of the applicant's property.
She further stated her concerns about the traffic congestion on Koob Street
and asked Mr. Mangus if there is a limit on the number of applications
allowed for change on the same property. Mr. Mangus stated there is not.
There was general discussion about the validity of protests received and
whether they were required to be submitted in a particular format.
Barbara Martin of 228 W. 1st
Street stated her opposition to this application. She stated she was not
notified to attend this hearing. Mrs. Martin said she does not want duplexes
facing her backyard. She said she lives directly west of Lot 2.
Lesa Rollins of 324 Koob
Lane stated they had serious reservations when they purchased their home due
to the duplexes on the north of the property. Ms. Rollins said she has had to
make multiple calls to the police concerning nuisances at the duplexes
already and is concerned of increased problems if more are constructed. She
asked the Commission to deny this request.
Larry Lara of 408 Koob Lane
is concerned about the poor condition of the applicant's lots and the
embarrassment it causes the neighborhood. He further stated he was penalized
on his property valuation for the condition of the duplexes in the area. Mr.
Lara does not want to have any more multi-family housing in the area. He
asked the Commission to deny this application.
John Juresic of 318 Koob
Lane said he was not notified of this hearing. He said there are several
vacancy signs posted now for the duplexes in this area. He is concerned about
the amount of the traffic already on Koob Lane since the post office has been
built. Mr. Juresic complained of vehicles speeding through this residential
neighborhood. He asked the Commission to deny the request for this zoning
change.
Ted Uhlenhop of 319 Koob
said they moved to Andover from Wichita to get away from all the rental
properties and he does not want this application for zoning change to be
approved.
Clyde Burg of 324 Koob Lane
said the reason he moved to Andover is for the neighborhood. He was under the
impression the zoning was going to remain single family in this area. Mr.
Burg is concerned about safety issues if more multi-family housing is built.
Chairman Coon closed the
Public Hearing at 10:17 p.m. Clark Nelson was concerned about the lack of
public notice and asked to hear from Staff on this issue. Les Mangus said
there was 1 property owner that should have been included in the notification
process, but that owner has remedied their own problem by showing up tonight.
The other people that have spoken tonight are outside of the required area.
Les Mangus stated there were 4 other protests received and have been placed
in the file for the record.
Les Mangus said he received
a protest petition today in the mail from Robert & Shelly Claassen of 307
W. 1st. There was general discussion about the history of this PUD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 8
|
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2002-09
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
John
& Martha McEachern/ Jim Gerher
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Change
zoning district classification from R-2 PUD to R-3 PUD
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Countryside
PUD from the 1980's. The same request was denied in 1994.
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
Northwest
corner of Koob St. and 1st St.
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
Two
lots 79.5' X 134' each
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Multiple
Family Dwellings
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
R-3
Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings
R-2
Countryside PUD single family dwellings
|
|
|
South:
|
B-1
St. Vincent De Paul Church
|
|
|
East:
|
R-3
Countryside PUD multiple family dwellings
|
|
|
West:
|
R-2
Countryside PUD single family dwellings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Last
two vacant lots in Countryside PUD
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
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 an 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:
|
Countryside PUD built in the 1980's
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
R-2 & R-3 to the north, B-1 to the south, R-2 to the
west, R-3 to the east.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Sewer, water, and streets are in place
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None is available in the immediate vicinity
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Increased traffic and activity
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Increased traffic, safety, and cohesiveness of the
neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Opposed to increased traffic & activity. Possible
devaluation of nearby property.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Opposed to the increased traffic, safety, and
cohesiveness of the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
16. Is there any information or are there
recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable persons who
would be helpful in its evaluation?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval as applied for.
|
|
|
|
X
|
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:
|
No measurable detriment to the public is perceived.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application,
I, Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No.
Z-2002-09 be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from
the R-2 to R-3 based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded
in the summary of this hearing: Number 12- there will be a measurable
difference in traffic that will cause a negative impact, safety and the
cohesiveness of the neighborhood would be detrimentally affected if this
application were approved, and number 15- , additional activity in the area
and from past personal experience I feel possible devaluation of nearby
property would occur, and there are the reported public oppositions to the
application- both which support this conclusion. Motion seconded by Lynn
Heath. Vote. 5/1 to deny the application with Charles Malcom Clark
Nelson opposed.
There was general discussion
about the lack of legal support for this motion. Clark Nelson stated he would
be opposed to the motion as it was just stated.
Jeff Bridges stated this is
only a recommendation and the case will now go to the City Council on January
14, 2003. He stated that if anyone was planning to file a protest petition,
it still must be filed to have any effect and the City Council has the option
to override the decision of the Planning Commission.
There was general discussion
about the validity of the protest petitions in the notification area. Les
Mangus said that staff will verify the petition sufficiency and there will be
no further notices required for this case.
|
|
|
Recess the Planning
Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals Motion by Lynn
Heath to recess the Planning Commission and to Convene the Board of Zoning
Appeals at 10:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
Case BZA-A-2002-01: Public
hearing on an application for an appeal of a decision of the Site Plan Review
Committee which required the installation of an underground sprinkler system
on all turf and landscaped areas of the Folger's Gymnastics Addition at 121
E. King Street.
Dave Martine removed himself
from this case due to a conflict of interest.
Mark Folger, owner of
Folger's Gymnastics stated he is appealing the decision made by the Site Plan
Review Committee requiring him to install an irrigation system at his
business on 121 E. King Street. Mr. Folger said he is appealing for 2
reasons: 1) Other similar buildings in the area have not been required to put
in sprinkler systems and he feels the Site Plan Review Committee should be
consistent and fair in their decisions. 2) the lot is 270' deep east to west
and the addition involves 80' on the eastern edge and the committee has asked
him to retro fit his entire lot with the irrigation system.
Mr. Folger stated he added
approximately 10 trees per the Site Plan Review Committee, there are 3 now on
the part that is not being touched, they are adding some berms and native
grasses, bushes. He further said they are owner-occupied and they have been
personally watering the plants with a garden hose.
Jeff Bridges stated the
Chairman of the Site Plan Review Committee, Doug Allison, is in attendance if
there are any questions.
Doug Allison gave the
background history of this case and of the decisions made by the Site Plan
Review Committee. He stated the Folger's were notified from the beginning
they would be required to install an irrigation system as the Committee was
concerned about the size of the property, the number of plants, and the
ability of the owners to drag hoses for individual watering sufficient to
keep the trees from dying. Mr. Allison stated each case heard by the Site
Plan Review Committee is judged on its own merits, and the members have been
concerned that this property is in a high profile area along Andover Road and
across from the City Building.
There was general discussion
about other businesses in the area and their method of watering and
requirements.
Garrett Addison from Smith
Construction Co. Inc., the contractor for this project, said there was some
confusion during the first meeting of the Site Plan Review Committee, and
that the owner was unable to attend that night. It was recommended to
Folger's to add trees, a light in the parking lot, and was recommended to
install the sprinkler system. Mr. Addison informed the Committee then that he
could not approve the additional expense without owner approval. He further
accepted the blame for the sprinkler system being printed on the site plans
at all, as the owner, Mark Folger never agreed to install it. Mr. Addison
stated at the second meeting of the SPRC, the members were impressed by the
lighting and plantings but still wanted to see the sprinkler system
installed. Mark and his wife assured the committee then that they would water
all the trees themselves and would not allow anything to die.
Les Mangus stated that all
the Board of Zoning Appeals is charged with tonight is determining the
reasonableness of the requirement that all of the turf and landscape areas be
irrigated with an underground system. There was general discussion about
underground sprinkler systems in the area and their effectiveness.
Les Mangus said this
applicant has over 500' of street frontage, all turf, all landscaped. Mark
Folger stated their trees get more water now without a sprinkler system than
they would with one, and that he still would drag a hose to give them
additional water as a pop up sprinkler system does not allow enough quantity
to keep the trees alive. Mr. Folger stated he has met all the requirements of
the Committees trying to make this property acceptable.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2002-01 and determined the
findings of facts as stated for the record, I, Lynn Heath move that the
Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution reversing the requirement for
an underground sprinkler system imposed on the applicant because it was
unreasonable. Charles Malcom seconded motion. Motion failed 3/3 with Clark
Nelson, Ron Roberts, and John McEachern opposed.
Having considered the
evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2002-01 and determined the
findings of facts as stated for the record, I, Clark Nelson move that the
Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution affirming the decision of the
Site Plan Review Committee. John McEachern seconded the motion. Motion failed
3/3 with Charles Malcom, Dave Martine, and Lynn Heath opposed.
Mark Folger stated he is
displeased that decisions are being made on a case by case basis instead of
having fair and consistent policies made that all developers can follow.
|
|
|
Adjourn the Board of
Zoning Appeals and Reconvene the Planning Commission Motion by Lynn
Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning
Commission. John McEachern seconded the motion. Carried 7/0.
|
|
|
Member Items: Dave
Martine asked why the Green Valley PUD did not go before the Subdivision
Committee. Les Mangus said the project is in the zoning phase, not platting.
Dave Martine asked if a
standards committee has been organized yet. Les Mangus said with the current
workload it is not going to be done in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Motion made by John
McEachern to adjourn the meeting. Lynn Heath Seconded the motion. Motion
carried 7/0.
|
|
|
Respectfully Submitted by
_______________________________
Deborah Carroll
Administrative Secretary
Approved this 21st day of January
2003 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals,
City of Andover.
____________________________
Leslie E. Mangus
City Superintendent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|