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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 16, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting from July 19, 2005 on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Clark Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Caroline Hale.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the July 19, 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 July 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the July 12, 2005 and July 26, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the August 9, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report of August 12, 2005.

 

There was general discussion about the Butler Community College case that was just approved by the City Council. Chairman Nelson suggested a future workshop session on lessons learned from this experience.

Communications:

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

BZA-2005-08 Public hearing on an application for a variance of 3 ½ feet from the required 45 foot maximum height limitation for the purpose of construction of a three-story hotel with a 48’-6” maximum height on property zoned as the B-5 Highway Business District located at 600 S. Allen Street.

 

Les Mangus said this application for variance of the required maximum height limitation of 45 feet in the B-5 Highway Business District at 600 S. Allen St. is the result of the Hotel at the River developer’s desire for visibility from US-54. The building ridge elevation meets the 45 foot maximum height limitation, but the gable ends at the north end of the main lobby entrance are proposed to have parapets which extend to 48 ½ feet for aesthetics, and for an adequate surface for wall signage.  The proposed locations for the 48 ½ foot high parapets are on the opposite ends from the adjacent residences. The property is unique in that the hotel site is a few hundred feet south of, and 4-5 feet lower than the highway. The Site Plan Review Committee has approved the plan, pending approval of the height variance. Staff supports the approval of the application, limited to the locations shown on the supporting drawings.

 

Clark Nelson opened the Public Hearing and stated this case was published in the Andover Journal on July 21, 2005 and notices were mailed to the applicant and to 9 adjacent property owners on July 18, 2005. Chairman Nelson asked if anyone on the board needed to excuse themselves for a conflict of interest. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson called upon the applicant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the request and any response to the Zoning Administrator’s report.

 

Tim Johnson, owner/developer/applicant of the Holiday Inn Express said this request will accommodate parapets on the northwest and northeast corners of the building for primary areas of signage visibility for Hwy. 54 traffic.  He said the building is designed using the prototype of Holiday Inn Express across the country. He said the roof line is +/- 44’ 10”, but the parapets will rise 3 ½’ above that.

 

Quentin Coon asked for information about the design standard. Tim Johnson said most communities choose brick exterior finish but manufactured stone will be used for the Andover site.

 

Clark Nelson asked Tim Johnson if he is an interest owner in the overall River development. Tim said he is not, just an officer/agent of the overall development, and the sole owners are Hal and Nancy McCoy.

 

There was general discussion about the possibility of a 45’ high structure being built on Lot 1 of this development and how that might impact the visibility of the hotel from Hwy. 54. Tim said the plan for Lot 1 is for a restaurant or retail store that would not be over 18’ – 22’ high.

 

Clark Nelson asked Tim Johnson if he has had any communications with the homeowners to the south with respect to this variance application. Tim said he has not spoken to them. He said he and Hal McCoy have been sensitive to those residents to the south when designing this facility. He said those homes are screened with existing trees and shrubbery. Tim said some berms would be built around the outer perimeter of the site to alleviate headlights shining into the homes.

 

Quentin Coon asked if there would be a monument sign on the north end of Lot 1. Tim said there is no signage planned for Hwy. 54 at this time, but they are studying that option.

 

Clark Nelson asked if the 3 ½’ parapets would be illuminated. Tim said they will be back lit, reducing the impact on the neighborhood to the south.

 

Clark Nelson asked about parking lot lighting plans. Tim said the plan has been approved by the Site Plan Review Committee. Additional lighting around the perimeter of the site will be small monument markers noting the entrance on the south side of the hotel.

 

Quentin Coon asked about the entrance roads into the hotel. Tim said the main entrance would be from Hwy. 54 onto Allen Street, the other traffic would be east bound from Andover Road onto Cloud Avenue.

 

Clark Nelson asked about parking lot locations. Tim said the majority of the parking will be on the southwest side of the building. Tim said the approved box lighting will not affect the neighborhood to the south.

 

Les said he received a voicemail from the adjacent residential owner to the south whose only concerns are the height of the building, the height of the lighting, and screening and berming proposed to minimize the effects on their property.

 

David Martine explained the lighting and landscaping plans approved by the Site Plan Review Committee have adequately protected the residential neighborhood.

 

Lynn Heath asked if anything would be planted on the berms. David Martine said the frontage on the south side of the building would be a rolled berm with trees on it.

 

Clark Nelson asked about the intended berm height. Tim said 4’-5’.

 

Clark asked about the height of the new trees. David Martine said they will be 10’ tall at planting and the pine trees will be 5’ – 6’ tall at planting per city code. Tim said the business intent is to protect the residential neighborhood from all site lighting with the landscaping.

 

There was general discussion about the Finished Floor Elevation and the site being 6.6’ below Kellogg. Les said the berms on the site plan will be 5’ high at their crest.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone else wished to speak about this request. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 and began the review of the findings of fact.

BZA-2005-08 three-story hotel 600 S. Allen Street

 

 

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;

Clark Nelson said the need for this variance was caused by the property elevation being almost 7’ below Hwy. 54 and was not caused by 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.

Quentin Coon did not think the strict application of these regulations would constitute an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. There was further discussion. Les said there is nothing prohibiting this developer from building the site up 7’ and raising the pad site 7’ including the finished top elevation other than the expense of that decision. Clark Nelson said that height would be detrimental to the homeowners to the south. Les agreed. Discussion continued. Chairman Nelson called for a vote on this question. Vote 7/1 with Quentin Coon in opposition.

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.

Quentin Coon said he did not believe this is an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. Vote 7/1.

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 Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-08 as requested and subject to the following conditions:

1. Height limited to the locations shown on the supporting drawings.

2. That the elevation of the structure be as set forth on the site plan.

 

Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried8/0.

 

 

 

Member Items:

 

David Martine- none

 

Jan Cox- none

 

Ron Roberts- none

 

Quentin Coon- Concerned about the final aesthetics of the intersection of Kellogg and Andover Road when it is fully developed. He does not want the appearance of Webb Rd. and 21st Street. There was general discussion about regulation sign height and size. Les Mangus said regulations are in place to make that intersection to look similar to Kellogg and Greenwich Road.

 

Jeff Syrios- Asked for information about raising pad elevation of a site. Les said the expense to the owner is the greatest deterrent.

 

Tim Johnson returned to the podium to explain the great lengths that have been taken to protect the residential property owners to the south of this hotel and he explained the other options researched by the owners before applying for this variance, none of which would have worked in this situation. Tim explained the intent by the owners for quality of this development.

 

Quentin Coon asked Tim Johnson if consideration had been given to lowering the parapets to comply with the 45’ height regulation. Tim said that was researched and did not give the hotel the visibility they needed to attract Hwy. 54 traffic. Tim explained this hotel will not have enormous signage cluttering the site. Les said there were meetings with the owner, architect, and staff to discuss the elevation options.

Lynn Heath- Concerned about the area behind Phillips 66 – Cloud City. Les said that Cloud City Commercial has a new owner. Staff has had several meetings with that owner talking about concepts and he does intend to develop the land.

 

Charlotte Bass- none

 

Clark Nelson- none

 

Caroline Hale- none

Member Items

 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 20th day of September 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.