|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
September
21, 2004
Minutes
|
|
The
Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, September
21, 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, 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. Commission Member David Martine was absent.
|
Call to Order
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the minutes of the August 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Lynn Heath said a correction needs to be made on the
first line of page 12, “I Lynn Heath made make a motion”.
Lynn
Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Charlotte Bass
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
Review the minutes of the
August 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council minutes from the August 10,
2004 and August 31, 2004 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the September 7, 2004 Site Plan
Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the September 14, 2004
Subdivision Committee meeting. Jan Cox said on page 3, fourth paragraph,
“extend to Lakecrest Drive” should be “extend to Woodstone Drive”. The
minutes were corrected and filed.
Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications:
|
|
|
|
|
SU-2004-03:
Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a mini storage
facility in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of
Block A of the Branson Subdivision. Clark
Nelson asked the members to refer to the memo provided by Les Mangus for further information.
Paul
Cavanaugh, architect from Places Architects, Wichita, Kansas, represented the
property owners Don & Jeff Walenta. Paul said this property is on the
southwest corner of 2nd Street and Andover Road. He said this plan
is for a 13,000 square foot retail center on the site and the owner is asking
to build a mini storage facility along the west property line. Future
development shown on the site drawing is a restaurant on the north side. The
site will be surrounded by an 8’ high poured concrete fence that will have
the look of slump block. The eave of the storage facility roof will be 8’
tall to prevent any view of the buildings except for the roof line from Andover Road. On the north end will be a keyed access gate. The property owners do not want
the view of the storage buildings to detract from the surrounding properties
or the upscale design of the retail center.
Paul
said there is a 10’ easement on the west side between the west property line
and the concrete wall which will allow for maintenance access of the grounds.
There are 7,000 square feet of mini storage buildings in this proposed development.
Clark
Nelson asked about the total number of storage units being proposed. Paul
said there will be approximately 20 (10’x15’) units.
Clark asked if the storage is limited to the interior of
the building. Paul said there will be no exterior parking available.
Clark asked if there would be access to these storage
units from the south. Paul said the only access would be on the north end at 2nd Street which will be a swipe-card key lock.
There
was general discussion about the future plans of the retail center and
restaurant on this site. Paul said they will continue working with the Site
Plan Review Committee concerning architecture, aesthetics, building
materials, and landscaping. Clark asked if the designated future restaurant
area would ever have mini storage buildings on it. Paul said the owner would
never consider mini storage units along Andover Road.
Lynn
Heath asked about the dumpster area outside the entrance to the storage
facility. Paul said that is an enclosed area which is a continuation of the
8’ concrete wall. It will service both the retail center and restaurant.
Lynn asked if the only access to the storage facility
would be off of 2nd Street, and if it would be paved. Paul said it
would be paved from 2nd Street and the entrance could be accessed
from both Andover Road and 2nd Street.
Charlotte
Bass asked if there will be an office for the storage facility. Paul said
there will be a tenant in the retail center that will oversee this business.
Ron
Roberts asked if the mini storage would have a flat roof. Paul said it will
have a shallow slope pitch roof. Each of the units will have a fiberglass
roll-up overhead door.
Clark
Nelson said the special use request appears to encompass the entire site and
he wondered if a friendly amendment to limit the storage units to those
depicted on the drawing would be appropriate. Paul said the owner would be
okay with that.
Clark
Nelson asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor or against these
storage units. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing 7:18
p.m. to consider the 17 factors and findings.
Clark asked if the mini storage units are permitted
without a special use permit within this B-2 District. Les said they are not.
Clark asked if any of the members needed to disqualify
themselves due to ex-parte communications or conflict of interest. There were
none. Notice for this case was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on
August 26, 2004 and notices were mailed to the adjacent landowners on August
18, 2004.
|
SU-2004-03: Public Hearing
on an application for Special Use to establish a mini storage facility in the
B-2 Neighborhood Business District on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block A of the
Branson Subdivision.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 5
|
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
SU-2004-03
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Don
& Jeff Walenta
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Establishes
a mini storage facility in B-2 Neighborhood Business District
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Vacant
lots
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
West
side of Andover Road between 1st & 2nd Streets
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
270’
x 451’
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Retail
strip center with adjacent mini storage facility
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business District- Pizza Hut
|
|
|
South:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business District- Post Office
|
|
|
East:
|
MH-1
Manufactured Home Park District- Andover Estates Mobile Home Park
|
|
|
West:
|
R-3
Multiple Family Residential District- Two-Family dwellings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
Site Plan Review Committee has approved a
preliminary site plan, which includes a retail strip center with a mini
storage facility on the western +/- 80 foot of 270 foot deep lots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
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:
|
North- Pizza Hut; South- Post Office; East- Andover
Estates Mobile Home Park; West- Two-family dwellings.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
North (B-2) South (B-2) East (MH-1) West (R-3)
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Water, sewer, and streets 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:
|
Already platted
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Fencing & landscaping are required by mini storage
facility special use conditions.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur. Clark Nelson said the applicant has adequately addressed
the screening of this site. Lynn Heath asked if more screening would be
required to the west. Les said no other would be required other than between
the business and the multi-family area and there are no longer standards for
that screening but would be at the approval of the Site Plan Review
Committee. Les said this applicant has been before the SPRC in preliminary
form only. Les said the conditions for mini storage are listed on page 4-4 of
the Zoning Regulations.
Quentin Coon asked if the west storage wall would be
across the entire back. Paul said it just goes from the south property line
to the trash enclosure. The homeowners have existing fences along the back. Les
said a final plan would have to be presented to the Site Plan Review
Committee for approval and that after the special use is decided, the
Planning Commission will no longer have control over screening issues. Les
said there will be screening required between the future new business and the
adjacent R-3 Multi-Family homes.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Would provide indoor storage space for the many
mulit-family dwellings & manufactured homes in the area.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur, Clark Nelson said this supports the intent of
the Comprehensive Development Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
The property is already zoned for neighborhood business.
The proposed use would create fewer detrimental affects i.e. lighting,
traffic, noise, trash, objectionable odors, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur. Clark said storage units are historically quiet
and he thinks this would be a good buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
The purpose of the special use process is to assure the
compatibility of certain land uses.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur. Lynn Heath said other special uses listed in the
B-2 Zoning District are car wash, lumber yard with outside storage, and
public buildings like City Hall.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
14.
Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Comprehensive Plan pg. 8- 14 suggests case by case
zoning on Andover Road “to balance neighborhood concerns with traffic access
and the intensity and design of commercial enterprise.”
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
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 as applied for limited to the western 80 feet
of Lots 2 & 3, as shown on the preliminary site plan.
|
|
|
|
|
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 general public is perceived with the
implementation of mini storage facility design requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron
Roberts said the lighting issue has not been addressed. Les said the
conditions for mini storage require all lights shall be shielded to direct
light on the uses established and away from adjacent property, however they
may be of sufficient intensity to discourage vandalism and theft.
Keith
Zinn asked if the new fence would be concrete. Paul said yes it would be.
Keith asked if there is an existing chain link fence. Paul said there is an
existing wood fence which is on the property line and the concrete wall will
be built 10’8” from the existing wood fence. Keith was concerned about an
unmanageable maintenance area.
Jan
Cox is concerned about the building materials of the metal storage facility.
Paul said the building will be steel framed with metal wall panels, and metal
exterior siding, similar to a pre-engineered building. Paul said most of the
traffic will only be able to see the edge of the roof.
Jan
asked if a survey has been done concerning the demand for more storage units
in the City of Andover. Paul said the owner has done a feasibility study and
said there is a need for a storage facility like this one.
Les
asked Paul about the distance off of the west property line that would
accommodate the needs from the property line to the eastern edge of the
eastern building. Paul said it is 78’ from the property line to the eastern
edge of the mini storage. Approximately 220’ from north to south. Clark asked if the owner would be satisfied with the motion limited to 220’ x 80’. Paul
said the owner would agree to that restriction.
Having
considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the
rezoning application, I Quentin Coon move that we recommend to the Governing
Body that Case No. SU-2004-03 be modified and approved to allow a special use
of a mini storage based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as
recorded in this summary hearing based upon 7, 10, 12, and 13. The mini
storage shall be restricted to the southwest 80’x 220’ portion. Lynn Heath
seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/1 with Jan Cox in opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SU-2004-04:
Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a country store
in the B-5 Highway Business District at the southwest corner of US-54 and
Daisy. Clark Nelson said agenda
item number 9, Final Plat for the River at Andover is related to this
property and to accommodate the developers, the issues will be dealt with
consecutively.
Dave
Matson from Purina Mills, Wichita, Kansas, and partner of property owner Hal
McCoy said this store will be marketing items relating to pets and the
“country” lifestyle. He said this is not a “tractor supply store” or typical
feed store.
Dave
Matson said the store will be located at the southwest corner of Daisy and
US-54 and this property will be replatted as 1 lot. The main store will be
14,000 square feet, with the garden center/hay storage facility which will be
located in an east- west direction. The parking will be around the perimeter
of the buildings with an entrance on the south end of the property and the
main entrance on the east end, and one toward the north end of the east side
of the property.
Dave
Matson submitted proposed site elevation and floor plans of the country
store/ garden center building. He said most of the existing trees will be
saved as the property is developed. Most outdoor sales will relate to the
garden center (bedding plants, trees, shrubs, etc.)
Lynn
Heath asked if Daisy Street would be renamed in the commercial area. Les said
that is a platting item and will be discussed during the next agenda item.
Clark asked Les if he is in favor of this application.
Les said there is nothing specific in the Zoning Regulations that address a
“country store”. Lynn Heath read from the Zoning Regulations #13 of Special
Uses “other special uses not otherwise specifically listed”.
Clark
Nelson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or
opposition of this request. Hearing none, Chairman Nelson closed the Public
Hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Clark asked the Planning Commission if they had received any ex-parte communication or
needed to disqualify themselves for any reason with respect to this matter.
Hearing none, Clark Nelson said notice for this case was published in the
Andover Journal-Advocate on August 26, 2004 and notices were mailed to the
required landowners on August 23, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 6
|
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
SU-2004-04
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Dave
Matson & Hal McCoy
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Country
store in the B-5 Highway Business District
|
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Currently
zoned B-5 and occupied by the Dent Doctor- auto repair shop.
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
307
W. US-54 / SW corner of US-54 & Daisy
|
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
+/-
300’ x 400’
|
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Country
store
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
Vacant-
R-2 Single-Family Residential
|
|
|
South:
|
Vacant-
B-5 Highway Business District owned by the applicant
|
|
|
East:
|
Vacant-
B-5 Highway Business District owned by the applicant
|
|
|
West:
|
Vacant-
B-5 Highway Business District owned by the applicant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
The existing Dent Doctor building is planned to be
demolished to clear the site for the Walnut Valley Country Store. This
property is a part of the River at Andover Final Plat and is the first in a
series of new business facilities in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
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:
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Adequate sewer is in place. Water and streets will be
constructed as required by the River Final Plat.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Replatting is in progress.
|
|
|
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:
|
No screening is required.
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur. Quentin Coon said that it is because it is surrounded
by the rest of the development area.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Provides additional business service and employment
opportunities.
|
|
|
X
|
|
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:
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
No detriment is perceived above and beyond the uses
already permitted.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Special use process provides for the establishment of
uses not specifically listed “but which are in keeping with the intent of
Section 4-113 and compatible with the uses permitted in Section 4-113A.”
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Comprehensive Plan pgs. 8-14 “encourage highway business
areas on both sides of the highway which are served by frontage roads and
contain uses of a regional nature”.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
None at this time
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The Site Plan Review Committee has approved a
preliminary site plan. Staff recommends approval as applied for.
|
|
|
|
|
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 general public is perceived. The
proposed use is less likely to be found objectionable than many of the
permitted uses.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quentin
Coon was concerned about the application which states “a country store
including, but not limited to”. Les said those words were crafted by Bickley Foster who suggested there be some words that suggest the intent but not limited to that
because a country store also sells chicks on Easter, Christmas trees during
that season, and seasonal items that will change often. Quentin asked if that
would allow a kennel. Les said it would have to be something in the “country
store” intent. If any pets were sold, they would have to be kept inside the store;
otherwise the outdoor kennels would have to be called out. Lynn Heath said
the application states retail sale which is more specific.
Clark
Nelson asked if the Planning Commission loses control over the development if
it is approved tonight. Les said the country store must only sell items that
stay within that theme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. SU-2004-04 be approved for the special use to include a
country store based upon the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded
in the summary of this hearing, based on #6, 10, 13, and 14. Quentin Coon
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
Syrios made a motion to take agenda item #9 out of order for the convenience
of the developers. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final PUD for the River Subdivision, a replat of portions of the Allen
Bales Tracts and Carl Mitchell Addition located at US-54 and Daisy Street. Les Mangus said there was additional information given to each
member from Hal McCoy regarding his intent for restrictive covenants and Les
has now received the title report.
Quentin
Coon asked Les when the Preliminary Plat was done for this property. Les said
this is a replat because 4 different plats are being platted into 1. Les said
that all the issues in the contents of the checklist have been addressed with
the exception of the naming of Cloud Avenue and Daisy Street.
Kenny
Hill of Poe & Associates said the owner; Hal McCoy wants to change the
name of Daisy Street to Riverview. Pointer Drive has been changed to Cloud Avenue which connects to the existing street.
Clark
Nelson asked if anything was being done with regard to the south access
point. Kenny Hill said for the residential termination of Daisy Street, a
hammerhead turnaround would be provided.
There
was discussion whether that access would be continued through this addition
or terminated with a gate that would provide access for emergency vehicles.
Kenny would like to see this determined when the site plan is developed for
this particular lot, which would then return to the Site Plan Review Committee
for review. Les said Kenny’s suggestion is acceptable to him.
Lynn
Heath said he lives on Daisy Street and he does not have a problem with
leaving access open on Daisy into the commercial area. There was general
discussion about delivery trucks for the commercial area, using Daisy Street, which is a gravel road.
Kenny
Hill suggested not making a decision on this access until it is to be
developed. Les said the solution could be a simple set of fire gates. Kenny
said they are not restricting access by the plat, but it will be available
through a platted right-of-way into the commercial lot.
Hal
McCoy, owner of this property, said this access was designed to accommodate
the possible desire of the residential area to enter the commercial area. Mr.
McCoy said he will agree with the Planning Commission decision either way.
Keith
Zinn was concerned about the dead end for Daisy Street residential area. Les
said there are 2 houses shown on the plat that face Daisy Street, and that
block is only 400’ long. The next block down is Feather Street that runs east
and west parallel to Pointer. A house is at the corner of Pointer Street and
Allen that would continue to face the new Cloud Avenue., so the only real
change in access would be the one block from Feather to what was Pointer.
Jeff
Syrios was concerned about Fire & EMS service into that neighborhood if Daisy Street is dead ended. Les is not concerned about the 1 block long cul-de-sac being in
danger. Quentin Coon asked Kenny why Lot 2 Block 1 is not split. Kenny Hill
said it is because the entire development is under 1 ownership.
Jan
Cox asked about the perimeter screening for this development. Les said
screening is required along the south property where it is adjacent to
residentially zoned properties, but screening is not required where a street
separates commercial and residential uses, but a 10’ landscape strip would be
required along the other side of the street between the business and the
residence. Les said that screening will be addressed at the Site Plan Review
Committee when the buildings are developed.
Lynn
Heath asked if sidewalks would be required along Cloud Avenue. Kenny Hill
said all sidewalks proposed are within the reserves around the pond which are
shown on the site plan. Les said the City Council will require 8’ sidewalks
along Cloud Avenue which would mirror the 8’ sidewalk on Cloud east of Andover Road. Les said there will be a stoplight that will be triggered by further
development on the Cloud City project. Les said that does not need to show on
the replat. The City Council reviews and accepts the plans for street and
drainage.
Quentin
Coon made a motion to approve the Final PUD for the River Subdivision as
presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
Quentin
Coon restated the motion to approve the Final Plat for the River Subdivision
subject to the Restrictive Covenant as set forth on the letter dated
September 20, 2004 from Hal McCoy to Les Mangus to be included on the replat,
and with the issue of the termination of Daisy Street being open until it is
developed on that lot. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried.
|
Review the Final PUD
for the River Subdivision, a replat of portions of the Allen Bales Tracts and
Carl Mitchell Addition located at US-54 and Daisy Street.
|
|
|
|
|
LS-2004-04: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 4 of Block 1 of the Autumn Ridge Subdivision- 711 & 715 Autumn Ridge Court. Lynn
Heath said there have been a number of lot splits approved in this area.
There was no one present to answer questions on this issue. Les said this lot
split meets all the criteria for bulk regulations and all the contents of a
lot split.
Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the lot split of Lot 4 of Block 1 of the Autumn Ridge Subdivision. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review the Final PUD Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 4: Kenny Hill with Poe and Associates, said this is the final
plat for Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel A was approved previously in final
form and now a part of the 80 acres has been added to the east and they are
platting 18 lots of that proposed plan and including it with Parcel A. He
said all of staff comments have been complied with. A drainage plan has been
submitted as required. The title report was submitted tonight.
Kenny said this will all be Single-Family Residential
District. Les said there is a mortgage holder that will be listed on the
plat. Lynn Heath asked if all the sidewalks have been listed on the plat.
Kenny Hill said they have been and they will be 8’ with one short section of
5’ on Woodstone in Parcel A.
Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the Final PUD
Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 4 Parcels A & B. Lynn Heath
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Planning
Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ron Roberts seconded the
motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2004-08: Public Hearing on an application for a
variance of the required 300 square foot maximum accessory structure area
limitation for the purpose of construction of a 21’x27’ detached workshop in
the R-2 Single-Family Residential District at 835 Highland Drive. Brian
with B&R Construction represented the owner Larry Thompson, said this
completed building will mimic the home in regards to construction, window
& siding materials, etc. Brian said this will be no closer than 15 feet
to the home. He said the lots to the rear of this property are farmland.
Brian said the owner wants to park personal vehicles in this garage.
Lynn Heath asked if access to this new garage will be on
the west side of the home. Brian said that on the west side of the lot, there
is 8’ between the home and the property line. Charlotte Bass asked if this
structure would be for private or commercial use. Brian said it is for
personal use only.
Homeowner Larry Thompson of 835 Highland Drive said he
owns a 1940 Ford pickup that he wants to park in the garage. He said no
neighbors have objected to this application.
Jan Cox asked how the vehicles will enter the new shop.
Larry Thompson said he has an attached 3 car garage and the 3rd
car area has a door in the rear to drive through into the back yard.
Keith Zinn asked if the neighbors have been notified of
this case. Clark Nelson said the notice of this hearing was published in the
Andover Journal-Advocate on August 26, 2004 and mailed to the appropriate
owners on August 24, 2004.
Jan Cox asked if the existing structure in the rear yard
would remain. Larry Thompson said the 13’x 18’ existing structure is in the
process of being demolished.
Hearing no further public comment, Clark Nelson closed
the Public Hearing at 8:48 p.m.
Lynn Heath made a motion that based upon the
application this request meets the criteria for Section C-2 pertaining to
maximum side and front yard setback which gives the Planning Commission
authority to discuss and decide this issue. Quentin Coon seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Ron Roberts move that the
Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case
No. BZA-V-2004-08 as requested. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion
carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lynn
Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene
the Planning Commission. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member
Items: Lynn Heath stated his name
was omitted as a Planning Commission member on the 2005 Planning Schedule.
Clark
Nelson said he is working with Les to schedule some short (1-1 ½ hour)
workshops to discuss:
Ø A, B, C’s of Planning & Platting process
Ø Board of Zoning Appeals duties
Ø Special Use and Conditional Use case requirements
Ø P.U.D.’s
Ø Understanding Drainage Plans
Ø Board members and conflict of interest
Jeff
Bridges suggested obtaining some
instructional videos that could be used with questions and answers following.
Clark
Nelson suggested these workshops could be held on Saturday mornings.
Quentin Coon asked when the
open house is scheduled for the new police station. Jeff Bridges said it will
be around October 20th.
Jeff Syrios said he
appreciates the memo Les is including in the packets now, but would like to
have a broader concept of each case.
Keith Zinn commended the
entire Planning Commission for the work they do. He said this is an important
position to the City of Andover.
Clark Nelson said the Planning
Commission is trying to keep the well being of the community at heart. He
also thanked city staff for all their hard work and for making things easier
to understand.
|
Member Items
|
|
|
|
|
Lynn
Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Charlotte Bass
seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
Adjournment
|
|
Respectfully
Submitted by
__________________________________
Deborah
Carroll, Administrative Secretary
Approved this 19th day
of October 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|