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

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.

LS-2004-04: Review the proposed lot split of Lot 4 of Block 1 of the Autumn Ridge Subdivision- 711 & 715 Autumn Ridge Court.

 

 

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.

Review the Final PUD Plan for the Crescent Lakes Addition Phase 4:

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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 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.