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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

July 20, 2004

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 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 Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, and David Martine.  Others in attendance were Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn. Commission Members Jan Cox, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Zoning Administrator Les Mangus were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the June 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the minutes of the June 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the June 8, 2004 and June 29, 2004 meetings. Charlotte Bass said that in the minutes of June 8, 2004 had an error on page 3. Jeff noted the correction. The remainder of the minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

 

 

SU-2004-02: Public Hearing on an application for Special Use by the City of Andover to exceed the 35-foot height limitation to allow the construction of a 60-foot communication tower for the new Police Station/911 Center located at 909 N. Andover Road in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

 

Chairman Nelson stated a memo from Les Mangus with information about both the conditional use and special use cases being presented tonight was included in the member's packets.

 

Clark Nelson opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. Chairman Nelson asked if any of the members needed to disqualify themselves due to conflict of interest or if anyone had received any Ex-Parte communications which would prevent them from voting. There were none.

 

Chairman Nelson said a notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on June 24, 2004 and notices were mailed to 18 property owners on June 28, 2004. In the memo from Les, the first factor that, in his opinion, justifies the granting of the request is that the conditions have changed for the operation of emergency communication facilities. With the overcrowding of radio frequencies, higher frequency bands have been utilized for emergency communications, which operate with a weaker signal and a taller antenna location. The second factor being that the relative gain to the public safety will far outweigh the visual affects of a taller tower, which is located between two large public buildings.

 

Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator for the City of Andover, Secretary to the Andover Public Building Commission, and representative to the applicant presented the Special Use case. Mr. Bridges explained the plan to upgrade the Police facilities and 911 center. He said there would be a 35' lattice style tower as well as another at the current Police Station. The plan is to replace the 2-lattice style towers with 1- 60-foot tower. The new tower will contain up to 18 antenna arrays serving a dozen different agencies throughout Butler and Sedgwick Counties.

 

Clark Nelson asked how long the City has known a freestanding tower would be needed. Jeff said they learned a few months ago the roof-mounted tower would not be sufficient.

 

Lynn Heath asked for the height limitations for towers in other zoning districts. Jeff said on page 3-16 section 6:

Þ    35 feet if self-supported and 45 feet if attached to a permitted structure in the R-1 Single Family Residential District

Þ    35 feet if self-supported units and 45 feet if attached to a permitted structure in B-1 District

Þ    60 feet if self-supported units and if attached to a permitted structure in B-3 & B-4 District

Þ    75 feet if self-supported units and if attached to a permitted structure in the B-5 District

Þ    100 feet in the A-1 Transition District

Þ    150 feet in the I-1 Industrial District, and on land owned by the public and used for recreation purposes

 

David Martine asked if the property across the street from City Hall is zoned industrial. Jeff said the frontage is business zone B-6 and 200 feet off of Andover Road is zoned industrial. He said there is currently a 190-foot tower on that property at the end of King Street.

 

Jeff said this location was chosen because it is the most direct access to a tower. The bank of radios will be inside the building. The City's repeaters are located at the 13th Street Sports Park.

 

Charlotte Bass asked for an explanation of "repeaters". Bill Duggan, Director of Communications, said that the radio in the building has a lower wattage that goes out to an antenna on the tower, that power is just enough to get the signal to the other tower, the repeater boosts the signal and retransmits it on another frequency.

 

Chairman Nelson said he appreciated all Bill Duggan's hard work on behalf of the City over the last months and has learned a lot from the explanations of what is involved with this project.

 

Clark Nelson said that with no further public comment given, he closed the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. and preceded with the Planning Commission deliberations.

SU-2004-02- Public Hearing on an application for Special Use by the City of Andover to exceed the 35-foot height limitation to allow the construction of a 60-foot communication tower for the new Police Station/911 Center located at 909 N. Andover Road in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                           

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2004-02

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

City of Andover/ Jeff Bridges

 

 

REQUEST:

60 foot communication tower

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Enhanced 911 communications require line of sight antenna location.

 

 

LOCATION:

909 N. Andover Road- Police Station/ City Hall

 

 

SITE SIZE:

180' x 660'    +/- 2.7 acres less R/W

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

911 Center/ Public Works Communication Tower

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- Andover Fire & Rescue/ Butler County EMS

 

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business District- The Horse of Course

R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District- vacant land

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- single family dwellings

 

East:

B-6 Business District- Folger's Gymnastics

 

West:

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- vacant land

 

 

 

Background Information:

With the addition of the Police Station to the City Hall building, 911 communications systems will be upgraded to the latest radio/data transmission capabilities, which require line of sight antenna location.

 

 

 

* 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:

North- Fire Dept./ South- The Horse of Course, vacant land, and single family dwellings/ East- Folger's Gymnastics/ West- vacant land.

 

 

 

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:

North- R-1 Single-Family Residential

South- B-2 Neighborhood Business, R-3 Multi-Family Residential, R-1 Single-Family Residential

East- B-6 Business

West- R-1 Single-Family Residential

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

4.   Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?

 

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

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:

Expansion of City facilities on site including 911 communication improvements.

 

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:

All are in place and adequate

 

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?

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

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:

Concur

 

 

 

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:

The 60-ft. tower would be more visible than the 35-ft. tower permitted in the R-1 zone.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur. Clark Nelson said there has been no opposition to this request.

 

Lynn Heath said if the zoning of this property had been B-3 then a 60-foot tower would have been permitted. He said it is not out of character for 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:

The Police Station/ City Hall building in the R-1 zone is not a common use of residential property.

 

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:

The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for expanded/ enhanced Police facilities.

 

X

 

PLANNING:

Concur- Lynn Heath stated the Comp Plan discusses making commercial areas along Andover Road as R-1 houses are vacated.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time. Property owner to the south has responded in support of the tower.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

None.

 

 

 

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:

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:

The enhanced capabilities for the 911 Center far outweigh the visual impact of the 60-ft. tower.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur- Lynn Heath stated the savings in cost of 1 - 60' tower vs. 2- 35' towers would be a benefit and the loss of capability would interfere with the quality of service.

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2004-02 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1 District to the R-1 Special Use District based on the findings of the Planning Commission (5, 11, 12, 13, 14) as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

Clark Nelson said this case will go before the Governing Body on August 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Protest petitions against the special use case can be filed within 14 days after tonight.

 

 

 

David Martine made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals at 7:27 p.m. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

BZA-CU-2004-01 Public Hearing on an application by the City of Andover for a conditional use to construct a 60-foot lattice wireless communication structure in lieu of the required monopole design on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

 

Jeff Bridges, City Administrator and Secretary to the Andover Public Building Commission said the reason for the lattice style tower provides better opportunities for mounting the 13-18 different antennas than a monopole would. The profile of the lattice style would only be 4" different at the top from the monopole one. Jeff said the base of the lattice style would be 48" at the base to 28" at the top, and the monopole is 24" from top to bottom. The tower is galvanized steel.

 

Ron Roberts asked about the size of the cable array coming down. Bill Duggan said the entire bundle of cable fits through the 9"x15" hole in the new building which will be run down the middle of the tower.

 

Charlotte Bass asked if the tower would be lighted. Bill said the tower will not be tall enough to fall under FAA Regulations for lighting.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if any of the members needed to disqualify themselves due to conflict of interest or if anyone had received any Ex-Parte communications which would prevent them from voting. There were none. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. with no comments.

BZA-CU-2004-01 Public Hearing on an application by the City of Andover for a conditional use to construct a 60-foot lattice wireless communication structure in lieu of the required monopole design on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

 

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                           

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

BZA-CU-2004-01

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

City of Andover/ Jeff Bridges

 

 

REQUEST:

Conditional use to allow the 60 foot lattice type 911 communication tower in lieu of the required monopole design

 

 

CASE HISTORY:

Enhanced 911 communications require line of sight antenna location.

 

 

LOCATION:

909 N. Andover Road- Police Station/ City Hall

 

 

SITE SIZE:

180' x 660'    +/- 2.7 acres less R/W

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- Andover Fire & Rescue/ Butler County EMS

 

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business District- The Horse of Course

R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District- vacant land

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- single family dwellings

 

East:

B-6 Business District- Folger's Gymnastics

 

West:

R-1 Single-Family Residential District- vacant land

 

 

 

Background Information:

With the addition of the Police Station to the City Hall building, 911 communications systems will be upgraded to the latest radio/data transmission capabilities, which require line of sight antenna location.

 

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing in order to decide whether a conditional use as an exception should be granted with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Board of Zoning Appeals 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.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

DOES THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT:

 

 

 

 

1.

The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable regulations, including lot size requirements, bulk regulations, use limitations and performance standards; unless a concurrent application is in process for a variance.

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

Concurrent application for special use to allow 60 ft. tower.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

 

2.

The proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

STAFF:

The proposed lattice type tower is +/- 48" in diameter at the base and tapers to +/- 28" at the top. The required monopole design would be +/- 24" from base to top.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

3.

The location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance wit the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the conditional use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to:

 

 

 

a.

The location, nature, size and height of building, structures, walls and fences on the site; and

 

 

 

b.

The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site.

 

 

 

STAFF:

a.       The proposed 60 ft. tower is located between the Police Station and Fire Department buildings which are in excess of 20 feet in height to provide separation and screening from adjacent properties.

b.      The tower is proposed between two 22-25 ft. tall buildings.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

 

4.

Off street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 5 of these regulations. Such areas will be screened from adjoining residential uses and located so as to protect such residential uses from injurious effects.

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

 

5.

Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.

Adequate access roads, entrance and exit drives and/or access control is available or will be provided by platting, dedications and /or guarantees and shall be so designed to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and roads.

 

 

 

STAFF:

N.A.

 

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Martine said this project has been approved by the Site Plan Review Committee.

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-CU-2004-01 and determined that the findings of fact in the conditional use report support the conclusions which are necessary for granting a conditional use as set out in Section 10- 108C of the Zoning Regulations, I David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the conditional use as requested with no conditions. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0. 

 

 

 

Keith Zinn asked why the tower needed conditional use approval. Jeff Bridges said the zoning regulations require wireless communications facilities make any deviations from the standards adopted by the Governing Body a purview of the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would require a conditional use. This allows deviations from the regulations to be site specific. There were further explanations given.

 

 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Review and approve the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

Jeff Bridges said that review and approval of the CIP is the annual responsibility of the Planning Commission. He said the Public Improvement information contained in the report would be of most interest to the Commission. Jeff explained from page 22 the process of Subdivisions coming online for special assessment financing and the debt management schedule. Jeff said that when a new phase of a subdivision can be financed when the current phase has been completed. When they have 35% of the lots with building permits, the developer may plat the next phase. When there is 35% full certificate of occupancies, they may receive financing for the next phase. The city borrows 60% of the prior year’s growth in assessed value for subdivisions each year. The last page of the report shows the available financing.

 

David Martine asked where the money comes from to maintain the parks. Jeff said the Park Improvement Fund is a mixture of liquor tax and fireworks fees. The Park Impact Fee is $675 charged per dwelling unit of new residential construction. Grants, donations, and bonds are other sources of financing for the park system.

 

David Martine asked for more information about projected improvements on 13th Street. Jeff said that in 2005 the bridge would be built, in 2006 the street will be paved into Sedgwick County. Jeff said this is flexible because of KDOT requirements and the intent is for when the street is paved together, the whole road will be open. Jeff said that between the bridge and the paving, the 13th Street project would cost around 4 million dollars.

 

David Martine asked how the city determines the order for repair of streets. Jeff explained the schedule of age of the roads and amount of traffic on each.

 

David Martine asked if it was planned to open another arterial road such as Prairie Creek Road. Jeff said the recommendation of staff is to finish 159th Street first. A proposal will be made within the next month to the Metropolitan Planning Organization and to City Council to submit a project request for 159th Street from Central to 21st Street. Jeff said this could be scheduled for work to be done in 2010.  David asked if the funding for this would be a 3-way split between Wichita, Andover, and the County. Jeff said it could be. Right now the city is proposing a 50/50 split with the MPO.

 

David Martine asked if the City has any plans to pave Central Avenue east of the park to encourage growth in that direction.  Jeff said tax dollars are not used to encourage development; it is a supplement to new development.

Review and approve the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

 

David Martine made a motion to recommend approval to the Governing Body for the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Plan as it has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

Clark Nelson congratulated Jeff Bridges for all his time and expertise in working with the future plans of the city.

 

 

 

Member Items: Ron Roberts said there is still a truck driver taking advantage of a parking lot on Harrison Street. Jeff said he would report it.

 

Clark Nelson asked the Planning Commission to read the contents of their packets before each meeting. He encouraged them to also read the Zoning Regulations to become familiar with them.

 

Chairman Nelson thanked Lynn Heath for his knowledge of Andover.

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m..  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

Adjournment

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 17th day of August 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.