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

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

April 19, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for the regular scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Clark Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.  Commission Members present were David Martine, Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn.

Call to Order

 

 

Review the minutes of the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Review the minutes of the Mar. 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the March 8, 2005, March 29, 2005, and March 30, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the April 5, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Les Mangus said the building permit activity has slowed down recently, but is more in pace with prior years.

Communications:

 

 

Z-2005-01 Public Hearing continued from the March 15, 2005 meeting on a proposed amendment to the Village Crossing Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development to change a portion of Parcel 2 from the B-1 Office Business District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

Russ Ewy agent for the applicant from Baughman Company said staff and the developer are in agreement with the conditions noted on the amended PUD as submitted tonight. He read from the General Provisions “permitted uses within Lot 2 (except the north 5 feet thereof) and permitted uses within Lot 3 and Lot 4.” Russ Ewy said prohibited uses are now automobile service stations, bed and breakfasts inns, all and any uses of outdoor speakers, package liquor stores, food stores, as well as all restaurants.

 

Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if he is satisfied with this amendment. Les said he supports the revised amendment as long as the food stores and restaurants are prohibited.

 

There was further discussion about the issue of restaurants, drive up windows and zoning compatibility of surrounding property. Les said more intense uses are allowed closer to Kellogg.

 

Clark Nelson asked if there was anyone in the audience in support or opposition of this case. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson reviewed the rezoning report.

Village Crossing Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

 

Agenda Item No. 7 

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-01

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Minor Emergency P.A. & Dr. George Howell/ Baughman Company

 

 

REQUEST:

Amendment to the Village Crossing PUD Parcel #2 except the North 225’ from B-1 Office Business to B-2 Neighborhood Business with limited B-3 Uses.

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Original 2000 Preliminary PUD application was for B-2, but the Planning Commission & Applicant agreed to limit the North 425’ to B-1 uses.

 

 

LOCATION:

West side of Andover Road between village Road and Lexington Street.

 

 

SITE SIZE:

200’ x 250’

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

Limited retail & service businesses.

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

Village Crossing PUD Office Business- Optometrist Office

 

South:

Village Crossing PUD Neighborhood Business- Retail Strip Center

 

East:

R-1 Single-Family Residences- Willowbrook

 

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residences- Andover Village

 

 

 

Background Information:

Originally platted as a part of the Andover Village Addition & zoned R-3 Multiple-Family Residential in 1977.

 

 

 

* 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:

Documented above.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

2.   What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Documented above.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

6.   Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the subject property?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

All 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:

Site Plan Review required.

 

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:

There are many vacancies in existing strip centers, and vacant land available already zoned for proposed uses.

 

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:

Opportunities already exist that are not being utilized.

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Les said there is considerable amount of B-3 property available in the city and very little B-2.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Three existing offices adjacent to the north.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

More intense uses would create additional noise, light, traffic, and etc.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said this has been tempered now by the compromise.

 

 

 

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:

Case by case review of business uses along Andover Road between arterial street intersections.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Adjacent residences oppose more intense business uses.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

No public attendance at this meeting.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Support the previous decision and deny the application.

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Ron Roberts,, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-01 be modified & approve to change the zoning district classification from the B-1Office Business District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

“Permitted uses within Lot 2 (except the north 5 feet thereof) ” prohibited uses are: automobile service stations, bed and breakfasts inns, all and any uses of outdoor speakers, package liquor stores, food stores, as well as all restaurants , based upon factors & findings  6, 7, 11, 13, 14.

 Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion on a request for the waiver of the Subdivision Regulations page 6-10 D. requirement for a lot depth to not exceed three times its width for a division of Lot 12 of the Andover Industrial Park.

 

Les said this waiver of Subdivision Regulations requirement for not to exceed a 3 to 1 lot width to depth ration on Lot 12 of the Andover Industrial Park arises from the division of an industrial lot to accommodate a new auto body shop. The Subdivision Regulations exempts the division of platted industrial lots from replatting or lot split requirements, but the design standards for lots are still applicable. The design standards may be modified by the Planning Commission if the standard creates an unwarranted hardship.

 

Les said he supports the proposed modification because the remainder of the lot could be equally divided into two parcels that comply with the 3 to 1 ratio.  Les gave the Commissioners the history of this property.

 

Mayor Ben Lawrence of 1930 Grace Avenue Court said this auto body shop has been designed to limit the number of overhead garage doors to 2. All unrepaired vehicles will be enclosed in the fenced area at the rear of the lot.  He said this business does not require a great amount of visibility from Andover Road.

 

Quentin Coon asked about access off of Andover Road. Mr. Lawrence said they are allowed 1 ingress into that property from Andover Road and a cut off of King Street would not be beneficial. He said the lots will agree to share frontage onto Andover Road as they develop and will agree to cross lot circulation with the 2 remaining parcels. The other 2 parcels do not have any intended users at this time.

 

Clark Nelson asked if there was any public comment on this case. Hearing none, general discussion continued.

 

Quentin Coon asked if this is approved, if it would impact the orientation of future parcel owners. Les said no, that the next owner could take the remainder of the lots and have access to both King Street and Andover Road.

 

Clark Nelson said the strict application of the Zoning Regulations would be an unwarranted hardship and he noted there was no public present tonight to object to the application.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve this modification. Jeff Syrios and Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Discussion on a request for the waiver of the Subdivision Regulations

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to recess the Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m.  and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2005-02 Public Hearing on an application for variance of 300 square feet from the required 600 square foot maximum storage structure limitation for the purpose of constructing a 30’X30’ storage building in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 542 Angle Lane.

 

Eric Young owner/applicant of 542 Angle Lane said this is a Stockade Building from Suburban Buildings. It will be used for personal hobbies (not for sale) and general storage. The exterior colors will match the existing house.

 

Ron Roberts asked Mr. Young if he would be keeping the existing shed on the property. Mr. Young said he will not keep the small shed.

 

Ron Roberts asked how the Stockade Building would be constructed considering how close it is planned for the rear property line. Mr. Young said the builder said there is plenty of room.

 

Ron Roberts asked if vehicle noise from the garage would be a problem for the neighbors. Mr. Young said the truck to be kept in the building will seldom be worked on so noise will not be a problem.

 

David Martine asked if there would be a concrete or rock access to the building. Mr. Young said there would not be one, and the vehicle would be taken on the side of the house where there is 10 feet available.

 

There was general discussion about the orientation of the lots.  Les Mangus said Mr. Young owns just over 32,000 square feet. Mr. Young said it is 100 feet from the proposed garage to the house.

 

Charlotte Bass was concerned about the roof line of this garage being an eyesore for the neighbor to the rear. Mr. Young said the neighbor to the rear already has a 6’ privacy fence which will block some of the view. The side wall height of this building will be 10’.

 

David Martine asked if the appropriate notices were sent to the neighbors. Les Mangus said they were sent to all neighbors within 200’ and this case was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate.

 

David Martine asked if this neighborhood has a restrictive covenant. Les said he did not know, that the city does not get involved in those issues.

BZA-V-2005-02 Public Hearing 542 Angle Lane

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

X

 

 

2.

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

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

 

 

4.

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

X

 

 

5.

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

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-02 as requested. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

1.

None required.

 

 

 

 

BZA-V-2005-03 Public Hearing on an application for variance of 564 square feet from the required 300 square foot maximum storage facility limitation, AND a variance of 1,464 square feet from the required maximum gross floor area of 600 square feet permitted by Section 6- 100C4(1)  for the purpose of constructing a 24’X 36’ storage building on property zoned as the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 1221 N. Main St.

 

Les Mangus said this application for variance is very similar to those on the agenda over the last few months in the Bales/Green Acres area south of US-54. the subject property is over 1 ¼ acres, and would support the proposed accessory structures and come no where near the maximum lot coverage for the R-2 residential district. Staff supports the application contingent on the dedication of 9 feet of Street Right-of-Way to meet the minimum 32 foot half street required by the Subdivision Regulations. Les said this application not only exceeds the maximum of a single structure, but also exceeds the maximum total area of accessory structures. Les said part of the zoning process allows the government to acquire the minimum standard for right-of-ways and easements.

 

Keith Zinn asked about this property being zoned R-2 instead of R-1. Les explained the histories of the annexation of this property before zoning regulations were adopted.

 

Rick Turner, owner/ applicant of 1221 N. Main said this building is in response to a violation notice from the City of Andover concerning a boat and car stored in the yard.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the small existing shed would be kept. Rick Turner said yes he would but it would be moved to a different location on the property.

 

Clark Nelson asked Rick Turner if the dedication of 9’ right-of-way would be agreed to. Rick said there would not be a problem with that.

 

Ron Roberts asked if Mr. Turner would have to file a new plat to dedicate the right-of-way. Les Mangus said there is only a street easement dedication document which will be recorded with the Register of Deeds.

 

Chairman Clark Nelson asked if there was any other comment from the public. Hearing none, he began the review of the factors and findings.

BZA-V-2005-03 Public Hearing -1221 N. Main St.

 

 

 

F.

 

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

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

X

 

 

2.

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

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

 

 

4.

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

X

 

 

5.

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

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Jan Cox move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-03 as subject to the following conditions:

1. Dedication of 9’ of street right-of-way to meet the minimum 32’ half street required. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

1.

Dedication of 9’ of street right-of-way to meet the minimum 32’ half street required.

 

 

 

 

Jan Cox made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals at 8:10 p.m. and reconvene Planning Commission. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

Discussion on the Update of the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan. Les Mangus explained that Jeff Bridges is a representative to the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WAMPO). A comment form was included in Commissioners packets which staff would appreciate completion and return by Friday, April 22, 2005 to be submitted to WAMPO at their next meeting on Monday, April 25th. They are working on an updated Transportation Plan. Parsons Brinkerhoff has been hired by WAMPO as a consultant and is a specialist in Transportation Planning to help them with the update. After a meeting with Jeff and Les, they supplied this comment form for the Planning Commission to use.

 

There was discussion about 13th Street and 159th Street improvements, coordination of trails, BNSF abandoned track right-of-way, mass transit, and the Kellogg & 159th intersection.

 

Jeff Bridges said that during Andover’s 1 year membership in WAMPO, we have received 5.8 million dollars worth of projects. This is money can be spent because the matching funds are available. Clark Nelson praised the time and efforts given by Jeff and Les that make these funding options available.

 

There was further discussion about the KDOT criteria for signalizing certain intersections.

Discussion on the Update of the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan

 

 

Member Items:

David Martine- no comment

 

Lynn Heath- no comment

 

Ron Roberts- Complained again about semi-trucks parking at Harrison & Andover Road. Les said this would be passed on to the city Code Enforcement Officer tomorrow.

 

Jan Cox- Asked if the complaints about lights shining into the houses from the Village Crossing businesses had been addressed. Les said he drove by and the light fixtures are down-shaded & the appropriate wattage as approved by the Site Plan Review Committee, so he does not believe the light is a problem.

 

Quentin Coon- Was concerned about the Diamond Shamrock and Flint Hills Liquor being inconvenienced during the Kellogg & Andover intersection construction. Les said that unfortunately this is the price of progress. Jeff said when the “River at Andover” develops; there will be greater access for both of them to travel west to another intersection to exit the businesses.

 

Jeff Syrios- Said he appreciated the article in the packet about the “traffic calming engineer”.

 

Charlotte Bass- no comment

 

Clark Nelson- Said he appreciated the input of the Planning Commission members and Keith Zinn tonight. He appreciated the assistance of Staff for the workshop session.

 

Keith Zinn- Said his term as City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission may be ending soon and he has appreciated working with all the members of this Planning Commission.

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the meeting at 8:30 p.m. to the May 17, 2005 Planning Commission Workshop meeting at 6:00 p.m.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by 

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 17th day of May 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.