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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

May 21, 2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met May 21, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, John McEachern, David Martine, David Ledgerwood and Joe Robertson.   Others in attendance were Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator; and Amy Train, Administrative Secretary. 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:03 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Review the minutes of the April 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion was made to approve the April 16, 2002 minutes of the Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, as written, by Charles Malcom. Lynn Heath stated that on page 22 there was a motion that needed a second and if that were changed he would second the motion.  Staff stated the minutes would be changed to add the second.  Motion carried 8-0. 

 

Review the minutes of the April 16, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

 

 

Minutes of the April 9, 2002 and April 30, 2002 minutes of the City Council meetings were received and filed.  Minutes of the April 9, 2002 Subdivision Committee minutes were received and filed.

 

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  Les Mangus told the Planning Commission that the City Council accepted a $10,000 Community Capacity Grant to update the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Mangus stated we are negotiating with Foster and Associates to help us with that plan.  This will be an update of the Comprehensive Plan, including public hearings, which are required by the grant program and possibly take the Plan a few steps further with community input.  Mr. Mangus stated they will be working on this Plan for the next few months and hope to be done by the end of the year.  Chairman Coon asked if there was a deadline.  Mr. Bridges stated that he believes we have a year to get it done.  Mr. Mangus stated the City Council is anxious to have it done by the end of the year.  Mr. Mangus stated most of the information is now available from the 2000 Census and we have already been through a list and will add items that are required by the Community Capacity Grant.   Chairman Coon asked the Planning Commission’s role in the Plan revision.  Mr. Mangus stated the Planning Commission would participate in the public hearings and formally recommend approval of the Plan when it is completed.  Review of the Plan will be done at Planning Commission meetings.  Mr. Mangus stated it might require some additional meetings.  Mr. Bridges stated that the Commission might want to pick some members of the Commission to sit with the Consultant at some of the public meetings, which will be held to gain community participation in the program.  Mr. Mangus stated that at the end of the public hearings and drafts the Planning Commission will call a public hearing on the adoption of the entire plan.   Mr. Robertson asked if a timeline could be presented to the Commission at the next meeting.  After discussion Mr. Mangus stated we would have a timeline in the future. 

 

Mr. Mangus reminded the Commission that one additional member needs to be appointed to the Subdivision Committee.  Chairman Coon asked for a volunteer for the Subdivision Committee.  After discussion David Ledgerwood stated he would be glad to volunteer.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate David Ledgerwood to the Subdivision Committee.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Ron Roberts made a motion that nominations cease.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.  Motion to nominate David Ledgerwood to the Subdivision Committee carried 8-0.

Committee and Staff Reports. 

 

 

Recommendation on a petition for annexation for the McFadden property on the south side of U.S. Highway 54 between McCandless and Yorktown Road.  Les Mangus stated it is basically the 80 acres adjacent to the east of Cloud City and south of Highway 54 with the exception of a couple of tracts.  Bob Kaplan presented a meets and bounds description and a map of the property to the Commission.  Mr. Mangus stated that sewer and water are available, sewer from the southwest and water along Highway 54.  Mr. Mangus stated this property is adjacent intermittently on three sides to the City of Andover.  Mr. Mangus stated this is not an island annexation.  Joe Robertson asked if this is by request and contingent upon anything.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is by request and contingent upon satisfactory zoning.  Chairman Coon asked if the Commission was to just make a recommendation to the Council.  Les Mangus stated that the Commission is to recommend against or for annexation.  Dave Martine asked if the Davis property on the map is in the City limits.  Mr. Mangus stated it is in the City limits. 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend annexation of the McFadden property on the south side of U.S. Highway 54 between McCandless and Yorktown Road, to the City Council.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Joe Robertson asked if the land was vacant.  Mr. Mangus stated that the majority of the land is agricultural and there is one existing house.  Motion carried 8-0.

Recommendation on a petition for annexation for the McFadden property on the south side of U.S. Highway 54 between McCandless and Yorktown Road. 

 

 

Z-2002-02  Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture to B-5 Highway Business District (Tract 1, 7.97 acres), and B-3 Central Shopping District with a Special Use for a mini-storage facility (Tract 2, 8.56 acres), MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District (Tract 3, 57.22 acres).  Mr. Mangus stated that in the packet there is a letter from the applicant asking to amend the application to remove the MH 1 Manufactured Home Park District which was advertised for 57.22 acres, therefore we will only look at the 7.97 acres of B-5 Highway Business and the 8.56 acres of B-3 Central Shopping District.  Chairman Coon asked if anyone needed to disqualify himself or herself from the hearing.  There was no one.

 

Les Mangus stated the along with the application there are some letters of support that the applicant had gathered from his neighbors.  Each one of those properties that wrote a letter of support are noted on the map.  Mr. Mangus stated there was a letter on the podium from Frank Jackson.  Lynn Heath stated the he received an ex parte letter regarding the mobile home park.  Joe Robertson asked if this pertained to the agenda item.  Mr. Mangus stated it did not. 

 

Chairman Coon stated that he would have the applicant’s representative make a presentation then after the presentation he will open the floor for public comments.  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.

 

Bob Kaplan appeared on behalf of the applicant, Mr. James McFadden.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Mr. McFadden is present and the engineer, Kenny Hill of Poe & Associates is also present.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he wants everyone to all be aware that they are not going to be presenting tonight an application for approval of the MH-1 Manufactured Housing Park.  He stated that that part of the application has been withdrawn.  Mr. Kaplan stated that they are requesting B-5 Highway Business District Zoning and this property fronts onto Highway 54 and immediately south of that is the other tract in which the applicant is seeking B-3 Central Shopping District for use as mini-storage units.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the Commissioners each received a packet with information including information on the MH-l, which will not be applicable at tonight’s discussion.  There is also a PowerPoint presentation regarding the three zoning districts.  The booklet contains many tabs.  Tab #1 is a metes and bounds description of the property, with a map.  Tab #2 is a conceptual site plan only.  Mr. Kaplan wanted to state that the storage is all interior storage, there will be no outdoor storage, and it is all under roof and is typical enclosed storage units.  Tab #3 is information regarding MH-l.  Tab #4 is information regarding MH-1.  Tab #5 is information regarding MH-1.  Tab #6 contains letters of support.  Tab #7 is a map showing the relation of the letters of support to the McFadden property.  Mr. Kaplan then showed his Power Point presentation which contained pictures of the applicant property and surrounding property.  There were general comments by Mr. Kaplan regarding traffic capacity.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the only comment from Les Mangus on this project was regarding the concern people have for increased traffic.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he does not believe that traffic will be much of a concern on Highway 54 for these business districts as these are light capacity businesses.  Mr. Kaplan stated there are a number of platting issues that will be taken up at the appropriate time.  Lynn Heath asked if there is to be a service road or anything.  Mr. Kaplan stated that there will be a service road and that will be done at time of platting.  Ron Roberts asked if this is the same depth as the Cloud City commercial project.  Mr. Kaplan did not know.  Mr. Mangus stated they are very similar in the depth from the highway.  Mr. McFadden compared the maps and ownership of the parcels.

Chairman asked if there was any other additional ex parte communication.  Les Mangus stated there was a letter from Frank Jackson and Howard and Linda Swartz.   Mr. Mangus stated that he has had numerous phone calls from people who were unable to attend tonight and the majority of them have been in opposition to the MH-1 zoning.

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing.  Chairman Coon stated we will only be addressing the B-3 and B-5 zoning request. 

 

Bob Hawley of 600 McCandless asked where everybody was going to turn on Highway 54 after the businesses get put in there?  Mr. Kaplan stated that Kenny Hill from Poe & Associates is an engineer and he will be responsible for the traffic engineering.  Mr. Hawley voiced his concern regarding increased traffic.  Chairman Coon stated that at this time we are considering the zoning only and depending on the outcome of the hearing other factors will be considered when the property is platted.  Mr. Hawley asked if traffic isn’t a concern at this time.  Chairman Coon restated that these items are addressed specifically during the platting process not during the zoning process.  Mr. Hawley wanted to know if he would have some cost for a new road.  Chairman Coon stated he did not know. 

 

John Wolf an attorney representing several homeowners from the McCandless area, whose major concern has been somewhat eliminated or postponed until the next meeting, which is the mobile home park.  He stated some other concerns including the MH-1 and when the City annex it would the annexation be contingent upon satisfactory zoning and then what if the zoning doesn’t change?  “Will we want to annex it into the City before we make that decision?”    He stated it seems to him that the applicant should have pulled the decision to annex until it is decided what the property will be zoned.  Mr. Wolf stated he thinks this is putting the cart before the horse to decide to annex it into the City before you decide what the zoning is going to be, if there is going to be an attempt to change the zoning.  Mr. Wolf also stated that with respect to the B-3 zoning Mr. Kaplan stated that it was going to be all covered storage but he stated it seems to him that if it zoned B-3 without any restrictions it can be whatever B-3 is and B-3 can currently have outside storage.

 

Mr. John Vanguard, who lives on McCandless, stated that he likes the quiet neighborhood and it is a nice neighborhood and asked the Commission to envision 55 acres of trailer houses sitting out there and asked which picture is the best.  He asked the Commission to consider the change in the quality of his life.  Mr. Vanguard also likes the quiet and the look of the area. 

 

Chairman Coon encouraged the audience that when a notice comes on the 55 acres that they participate in that meeting as well.

 

Terry Buller, 755 S. McCandless stated that his concern is the same as Mr. Wolf, why are we annexing property without knowing the zoning.  He was especially concerned with Parcel 3.  He was also concerned because neighbors have removed trees and thinned hedgerows and will be able to see the mobile homes.  Mr. Buller also wanted to know the names of the people who signed notices stated they thought that development would be okay.  He wanted to know how many there are.  Mr. Buller stated his concerns will be further addressed when the mobile home park is in front of the Commission.  Mr. Buller is also concerned with the traffic and does not want to add more traffic to the highway at McCandless.  Mr. Buller feels that we should know the zoning of the property before annexing it.

 

Phillip Oakely of 655 S. McCandless stated he agrees with what has already been spoken.  Mr. Oakley bought the property with the idea of adding improvements and value to the property and adding storage behind him would not add any value to his property and he doesn’t care for that.  Mr. Oakely also stated that his experience with row storage facilities encourages break-ins and wants to stop crime from coming to their homes.  Mr. Oakely also stated that he has cleaned some of the hedgerow out to prevent fires.  Mr. Oakley stated “If we have to have this thing then let’s put a 12 foot privacy fence around it or something.”  He stated he is not in favor of it but if we have to have it at least try to protect the homeowners in the area.  Mr. Oakely also asked how many of the people who have $100,000 homes would want this behind their house. 

 

Bud Collins of 545 McCandless stated he agrees with his neighbors regarding the mini storage and also wants to know why we need a mini storage when there is already one about a half mile to the west.  Mr. Collins was also concerned with what the buildings will look like.  Mr. Collins wanted to know if the 2 fine existing homes right behind his property would be torn down or turned into a strip mall.  Mr. Collins also asked where the water and sewer would be coming from.  Chairman Coon stated that sewer and water are available, sewer from the southwest and water along Highway 54.   Mr. Collins asked what district the water was coming from.  The Chairman stated it is City Water, not rural water.   Mr. Collins was also concerned with what will this will do to his property tax because he doesn’t need any more taxes on his property and neither do any of his neighbors.

Mr. Kaplan stated there is no annexation until the Ordinance is published and the publication of the Ordinance is not done until the zoning is complete.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the hedgerow is very thick.  Mr. Kaplan stated that as far as the mini storage goes, the Commission can put conditions on the usage and can require it to be indoor storage only. 

 

The public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.

There was general discussion about the Highway Corridor Plan by the Planning Commission.

Z-2002-02  Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from Butler County Agriculture to B-5 Highway Business District (Tract 1, 7.97 acres), and B-3 Central Shopping District with a Special Use for a mini-storage facility (Tract 2, 8.56 acres), MH-1 Manufactured Home Park District (Tract 3, 57.22 acres). 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

James W. McFadden and Robert Kaplan, agent

 

REQUEST:

City and County Agriculture to B-5 and B-3 with special use for mini storage.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Amendment to exclude the 57.22 acres MH-1 from the application.

 

LOCATION:

+/- ½ mile East of Andover Road on the South side of U.S. Highway 54.

SITE SIZE:

+/- 73.75 Acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Highway Business, Central Shopping, mini storage

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

City R-1, legal non-conforming manufactured home park

Butler County Commercial and Manufactured home zoning, mixed uses.

 

South:

Butler County Agricultural

East:

Butler County Agricultural, legal non-confirming single-family residences.

City Agriculture, legal non-conforming single-family residences.

 

West:

Cloud City P.U.D., R-2 and B-3 vacant land.

Butler County Agricultural, legal non-conforming single-family residence

 

Background Information:

Located adjacent to U.S. Highway 54 and the proposed alignment of Yorktown Road (collector street).

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

STAFF:

North:  City R-1, legal non-conforming manufactured home park, Butler County Commercial and Manufactured home zoning, mixed uses.  South:  Butler County Agricultural East:  Butler County Agricultural, legal non-confirming single-family residences. City Agriculture, legal non-conforming single-family residences.  West:  Cloud City P.U.D., R-2 and B-3 vacant land.  Butler County Agricultural, legal non-conforming single-family residence.

 

 

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:  City R-1, legal non-conforming manufactured home park, Butler County Commercial and Manufactured home zoning, mixed uses.  South:  Butler County Agricultural East:  Butler County Agricultural, legal non-confirming single-family residences. City Agriculture, legal non-conforming single-family residences.  West:  Cloud City P.U.D., R-2 and B-3 vacant land.  Butler County Agricultural, legal non-conforming single-family residence

 

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No.

 

x

PLANNING:

No.

 

 

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 commercial property along the highway corridor, Cloud City, Andover Crossing, etc.

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:

Sewer and water can be provided.  Streets could be provided in conformance with the U.S. Highway 54 Corridor Master Plan and Subdivision Regulations.  Sewer is on the property at SW corner, Water is adjacent to Highway 54.

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:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Screen business parcels from existing residences

x

 

PLANNING:

Screening required

 

 

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:

Some B-5 and B-3 property is available at the SW corner of U.S. Highway 54 and Andover Road

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes as above.

 

 

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:

Business uses could provide services and employment opportunities

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

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:

Increased traffic conflicts on U.S. Highway  54.

 

 

PLANNING:

Increased traffic conflicts on U.S. Highway 54.

 

 

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:

Yes

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14.   Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

 

 

STAFF:

­Page 8-11 Commercial “encourage highway business areas on both side of U.S. 54/96

 

 

PLANNING:

­Page 8-11 Commercial “encourage highway business areas on both side of U.S. 54/96

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Opposition-  Increased traffic conflicts on Hwy 54

 

 

PLANNING:

Opposition-Increased traffic conflicts on Hwy 54.__Changing from rural to urban.

 

 

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:

Staff recommends approval contingent upon platting in accordance with U.S. 54 Corridor Master Plan and Subdivision Regulations

 

 

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 public is perceived.

 

 

PLANNING:

Increase in

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

There was general discussion regarding height limits and the B-3 Central Shopping District allowable uses.  Mr. Mangus was asked to talk to Beckley Foster regarding B-3 Central Shopping District uses. 

 

Chairman Coon called a recess at 8:58 p.m. and reminded the Commission not to discuss the case during the recess. Chairman Coon called the meeting to order at 9:06 p.m.  Mr. Mangus stated that after talking to Mr. Foster the only way that the Commission could pick and choose uses out of that district was if you went back and re-advertised this as a Planned Unit Development.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Foster does agree the uses could be limited at the applicant’s agreement to just the Special Use that was applied for.  After some questions of Mr. Mangus he stated that if the applicant agreed he could limit himself to the mini storage only outside of a Planned Unit Development but to pick and choose uses would require a P.U.D.  There was general discussion regarding what was told to the Commission.  Chairman Coon asked the applicant if he would accept the B-3 special use only.  The applicant agreed.

 

 

 

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. Z-2002-02 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the Agricultural District to the B-5 Highway Business District for Tract 1, B-3 Central Shopping District only for a Special Use of a mini storage, restricted to inside storage only, in Tract 2, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation

 

CONDITIONS:

 

1.                  Special use mini storage is restricted to indoor storage only.  

 

The finding numbers to support the motion include Item Number 5, the request is caused by changing conditions such as the expansion of commercial property along the highway corridor; Item Number 6, adequate sewer, water and other public facilities are available and in conformance with the Highway 54 Corridor Master Plan and Subdivision Regulations; Item Number 10, the business uses could provide services and employment opportunities; Item Number 14, the request for the zoning change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which states on page 8-11 “encourage highway business areas on both sides of U.S. Highways 54/96.”

 

Motion seconded by Joe Robertson.

 

After general discussion, the motion passed 8-0. 

 

Mr. McFadden stated he appreciated all the work by the City Staff on this project.

 

Chairman Coon stated that this item could appear before the City Council on June 11, 2002.  Mr. Mangus stated that if the applicant requests, this item could wait until the second application goes to Planning Commission, which would postpone it until July 9, 2002.  Chairman Coon thanked the public for participating.

 

 

 

Z-2002-03 Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from B-4 Central Business District to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District with Special Use to allow multiple dwelling units for the elderly and handicapped on Lot 2 of Block 1 of the Meadows Third Addition. Chairman Coon asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves or if anyone received any ex parte communication.   Quentin Coon, Joe Robertson and David Martine all stated that Dr. Lemons is their physician.  No one believed that would be a factor in the decision.  No one received any ex parte communication.

 

Robert Kaplan represents the applicants, Dr. Lemons and Dr. Lehr.  Dr. Lemons and Dr. Lehr operate Preferred Medical Associates just east of the existing Plaza Shopping Center.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the applicants are requesting a less intensive residential use with a special use to allow the senior citizens dwellings.  

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m. No one from the public addressed the Commission.  The public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m.

 

Z-2002-03 Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from B-4 Central Business District to R-4 Multiple Family Residential District with Special Use to allow multiple dwelling units for the elderly and handicapped on Lot 2 of Block 1 of the Meadows Third Addition.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.  7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Lemons & Lehr, L.L.C.

Robert Kaplan, agent

 

REQUEST:

B-4 to R-4 with a Special Use for multiple dwelling units for the elderly & handicapped.

CASE HISTORY:

Originally platted and zoned as a part of the Meadows Plaza Shopping Center.

 

LOCATION:

1 block East of Andover Road on the North side of Central Avenue, next to Preferred Medical Associates.

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 4.86 Acres = 385’ x 550’

 

PROPOSED USE:

Assisted living center

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single-family homes

South:

MH-1 Andover Estates – Manufactured home park

East:

R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single family homes

West:

B-4 Preferred Medical Associates – medical clinic

 

Background Information:

 

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

STAFF:

North:  R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single-family homes.  South:   MH-1 Andover Estates – Manufactured home park.  East: R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single family homes  West:            B-4 Preferred Medical Associates – medical clinic

 

 

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-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single-family homes.  South:   MH-1 Andover Estates – Manufactured home park.  East:  R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single family homes  West:            B-4 Preferred Medical Associates – medical clinic

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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:

Street and water are in place and adequate.  Sewer must be extended to the site, from the lot to the west

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

No.  Already platted with guarantees for installation of the sewer line.

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Site Plan Review required.

 

 

PLANNING:

Site Plan Review required.

 

 

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:

Not applicable, special use.

 

 

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:

Business uses could provide services and employment opportunities

 

 

PLANNING:

Business uses could provide services and employment opportunities

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

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:

No greater detriment to the neighborhood is perceived between B-4 and R-4 Special Use.

 

 

PLANNING:

No greater detriment to the neighborhood is perceived between B-4 and R-4 Special Use.

 

 

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:

Yes

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14.  Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Provides an alternative housing type for the elderly and handicapped

 

 

PLANNING:

Provides an alternative housing type for the elderly and handicapped

 

 

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.

 

 

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 public is perceived.

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

There was general discussion regarding the Special Use and height restrictions.  Chairman Coon asked the applicant if he was amenable to the Special Use only.  Bob Kaplan, the applicant’s agent stated “Yes, that is what they asked for and that is what they want to do.”

 

MOTION:

 

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. Z-2002-03 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-4 Central Business District to the R-4 Multiple-family District only for the Special Use of housing for the elderly and handicapped, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following condition shall be attached to this recommendation.  

 

1.  The buildings will be restricted to 35’ in height.

 

The finding numbers to support the motion include Item Number 6, adequate streets, water and sewer are available; Item Number 10, the business uses could provide services and employment opportunities; Item Number 13, the request is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations; Item Number 14, the request for the zoning change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically providing housing for the elderly and handicapped and as a buffer between R-2 Single-Family Residential and B-4 Central Shopping District. 

 

Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.

After general discussion, the motion passed 8-0.

 

 

 

Z-SU-2002-01  Public Hearing on an application for Special Use in the B-4 Central Business District to establish a retail agriculture outlet to allow the sale of farm supplies with limited outdoor display and storage of products at the Plaza Shopping Center, 500-600 block of North Andover Road.  Chairman Coon asked if there were any members that needed to disqualify themselves.  No one did.  Chairman Coon asked if anyone received any ex parte communication.  No one did.  Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing at 9:43.  Les Mangus gave copies to the Commission of some information suggested by Beckley Foster on this case as to limiting the amounts of outdoor storage if you choose to grant this Special Use and the amount and type of products that could be displayed outside.  Mr. Mangus stated that the B-3 and B-4 zoning around this property don’t allow any outside storage or display.   Mr. Mangus stated that this would be something new and different to this neighborhood and may have some effect on the neighborhood if it is not controlled.  Ron Roberts to what extent do our regulations control storage on the front lot.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is a required parking area in this shopping center that can’t be used as storage or display, which is in the zoning regulations for the B-4 Central Business District.  Lynn Heath commented that the applicant is asking for outside storage in the back.  Tony Utter from Transamerican Management Company, which is the management and leasing agent for the Plaza Shopping Center and Mr. Brek Banion is also present and he is the owner of the new store.  Mr. Utter stated that Mr. Banion would like to use 3,000 to 4,000 sq. feet in the rear of the shopping center, which would be paved, for goods for sale and storage, this would also be fenced in.   Brek Banion, 805 Maplewood Drive, El Dorado, stated that generally most of the items that would be stored outside would be stock tanks, fence post and barbed wire, in the rear of the Shopping Center.  David Martine stated that the area Mr. Banion is speaking of abuts the rear of the Preferred Health Clinic building.  Joe Robertson asked how high the storage would be stacked.  Mr. Banion stated that the fence would be whatever the ordinances allow and be a privacy fence.   Ron Roberts asked if the fence would be wood or concrete.  Mr. Banion stated it would probably be wood.  Dave Martine stated that this fence would be seen from Central, Preferred Health Clinic and Crescent Lakes.  Dave Martine suggested this be sent to the Site Plan Review Committee.   Mr. Mangus stated that the Planning Commission is able make a recommendation to the City Council for screening.  Mr. Mangus stated that if the Commission approved this application that there should be a condition that any improvements go through the Site Plan Review Committee.  Ron Roberts asked the applicant if he had a store in El Dorado.  Mr. Banion stated he worked at the Orscheln Farm and Home Supply store in El Dorado, he only worked there.  Mr. Banion stated this is for Flint Hills Farm & Ranch and would be independently owned, by several individuals in El Dorado.  Mr. Banion stated that Les Mangus told them they could use the berm area to display one or two only, not to stack a lot there and it couldn’t be displayed for more than 30 days.  Mr. Mangus stated that no outdoor display is allowed in that zone, but he has applied for some outdoor display and that is something you (the Commission) could allow as a condition of a special use.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Noel Testa, 617 Havenwood Court, Andover, lives right behind the businesses and wanted to make the Commission aware that she would be able to see anything that is happening in those businesses.  She is concerned with the fencing and wants to know what type it will be.  She stated she is also concerned with the traffic, which is minimal now and that will increase noise and traffic in the area. 

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 9:53 p.m.

 

There was general discussion regarding outdoor displays, storage and fencing. 

Z-SU-2002-01:  Public Hearing on an application for Special Use in the B-4 Central Business District to establish a retail agriculture outlet to allow the sale of farm supplies with limited outdoor display and storage of products at the Plaza Shopping Center, 500-600 block of North Andover Road.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-SU-2002-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Andover LLC/Transamerican Management Company

 

REQUEST:

Retail agriculture outlet in B-4 Central Business District

 

CASE HISTORY:

Plaza Shopping Center – former IGA store

 

LOCATION:

530 N. Andover Road

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 11 Acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Sale of Farm Supplies with limited outdoor display and storage of products

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-3 Central Shopping – Andover Ace Hardware

South:

B-3 Central Shopping  - Walgreens

R-1 Single-family residential

East:

B-4 Central Business District – Preferred Medical Associates

R-2 Crescent Lakes P.U.D., single family homes

West:

B-1, B-2, B-3 – Various businesses

R-1 single-family residences

 

Background Information:

The applicant plans to occupy the space of the former Andover IGA.  The farm supply store would be similar in nature to Orscheln or Tractor Supply.

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

STAFF:

The subject property is a strip shopping center built in the 1980’s with a high vacancy rate.

 

 

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:  B-3 Central Shopping.  South: B-3 Central Shopping & R-1 Single-family residential, East: B-4 Central Business District, single family homes, West: B-1, B-2, B-3 – Various businesses & R-1 single-family residences.

 

 

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:

Newer commercial centers with similar zoning are fully occupied

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

No

 

 

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

The strip center lost it’s anchor tenant grocery store

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

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:

Sewer and water are in place and adequate

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

No.  Already platted

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

8.   Would a screening plan be necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Screening of outdoor storage required

 

 

PLANNING:

Screening of outdoor storage required

 

 

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:

B-5 Highway Business property is available on U.S. Hwy 54

 

 

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:

Business uses could provide services and employment opportunities

 

 

PLANNING:

Business uses could provide services and employment opportunities

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

 

 

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:

Outdoor  storage adjacent to single family houses on the east

 

 

PLANNING:

Outdoor  storage adjacent to single family houses on the east

 

 

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:

Yes

 

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

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, page 8-11 suggest that the central shopping area and the highway business area be separate and distinct locations

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

One neighbor is concerned with noise, increased traffic and what will outside her back yard

 

 

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 with conditions

 

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

17.  If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Approval without adequate limitations could result in a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

* Conditions:

 

1.         Outdoor display limited to items which are moved to the front lawn area only during business hours.

2.         No display on the parking lot.

3.         Outdoor storage limited to 10,000 square feet at the rear of the building.

4.         No outdoor storage within 50 feet of the residential neighborhood to the east property line.

5.         Outdoor storage screened with 8’ solid fence with all gate openings facing the rear of the building.

6.         All items stored outdoors must be of a size which can be completely screened by the 8’ solid fence.

 

 

There was general discussion regarding the special use.

 

MOTION:

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Ron Roberts, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2002-01 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-4 Central Business District to the B-4 Central Business District with the Special Use of limited agricultural outdoor display and storage of products, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  The following conditions shall be attached to this recommendation.  

 

1.      Outdoor display allowed in the front of the building on the sidewalk only.

2.      No storage allowed in the parking lot.

3.      Outdoor storage allowed in the rear of the property equal to the area occupied by the applicant’s store which shall not be in any easements and must be no closer than 50’ of any properties owned for single-family residential use. 

4.      Outdoor storage shall be limited to accessory farm equipment which shall not include large moveable equipment, vehicles including recreation vehicles, buildings or enclosed structures over 8’in height. 

5.       The outdoor area shall be completely enclosed by an 8’ solid screening fence with all gate openings to face the rear of the applicant’s building and be closed when not in use.

6.      Approval of the Site Plan is required before a zoning permit is issued. 

 

The finding numbers to support the motion include Item Number 5, the request is caused by changing conditions in the area of the subject property; Item Number 6, adequate streets, water and sewer are available; Item Number 10, the business uses would provide services and employment opportunities.

 

Motion seconded by David Martine.

 

After general discussion, the motion passed 6-2 with Joe Robertson and John McEachern opposed. 

 

Chairman Coon stated this item is to go before the City Council on June 11, 2002. 

 

Chairman Coon called for a recess at 10:38 p.m.  Meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m.

 

 

 

VA-2002-01 Recommendation on the vacation of the front yard utility easement at 301 S. Cypress Court, Lot 46, Block 2, Green Valley Green 6th Addition.  Les Mangus presented the request for vacation of the 20’ easement. This is across the street from one the Commission approved a few months ago.  Mr. Mangus stated that in this case the water and sewer are both on the other side of the street so that easement in between the right of way line and the front of the house wasn’t necessary.  Mr. Mangus stated that all the utilities have been notified.  Mr. Mangus stated that he went out and checked, after he called Dig Safe and there are no other utilities in the easement other than the service lines to the house.  Mr. Mangus stated the City has no conflicts with this request. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend to the Governing Body approval of the vacation of the front yard utility easement at 301 S. Cypress Court.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

VA-2002-01 Recommendation on the vacation of the front yard utility easement at 301 S. Cypress Court, Lot 46, Block 2, Green Valley Green 6th Addition. 

 

 

Review the Final P.U.D. Plan for the Diamond Creek Addition First Phase.  Kenny Hill of Poe and Associated presented information regarding the Plan, on behalf of the developer.  Les Mangus stated the Subdivision Commission has looked at the First Phase Final Plan and approved it with a couple of conditions, which have been noted in the staff review.  Kenny Hill showed the Commission a map of the area.  Mr. Hill stated this is a 64 lot phase for this addition.  The average net lot area is now 11,387 square feet.  It was 10,831 square feet on the Preliminary and 8,400 square foot minimum is allowed.  Mr. Hill stated there is more open area on this Plan than was on the Preliminary.  This Phase his 15.86 % open area, the Preliminary had 14.7% open area.  The 8’ sidewalk will go along the north side of the reserve.  Mr. Hill estimated it would probably be three months before the developer breaks ground.  Les Mangus stated that KGE requested additional easements for this Plat.  Mr. Hill believes they have received that information.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for the Diamond Creek Addition First Phase to the City Council, with the following conditions:

 

1.                  C5.      Provide permanent benchmark

2.                  C17c.   Acknowledge mortgage holder, if any.

3.                  D1.      Provide title report

4.                  D2.      Provide final drainage plan.

5.                  D3.      Provide restrictive covenants if any.

6.                  Correct estimated completion Phase 1 = 71 units (should be 64 units)

7.                  KGE additional easement

 

John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Review the Final P.U.D. Plan for the Diamond Creek Addition First Phase. 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals, with a second by Joe Robertson.  Planning Commission recessed at 11:04 p.m.  Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 11:04 p.m.

 

 

BZA-CU-2002-03  Public hearing on an application for a Conditional Use to allow off site semi parking for trailers and/or trucks at 106 East 13th Street.   The applicant, J & H Trucking, Inc., 1534 N. Main, Andover, was represented by John Blickenstaff and Bud Cooper, co-owners presented information on the application. The applicant is renting the property for use as off site semi parking for trailers or trucks in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that the neighborhood is mostly industrial around that property.  There was general discussion regarding trucks to be parked (mostly trailers), overnight parking (occasionally) and usually no more than 8 trailers will be there at a time.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that most of their parking is not in Andover.  Joe Robertson asked if they transported Hazardous Materials.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated the most hazardous materials they get is paint from Sherwin Williams. 

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 11:15 p.m. 

 

Chris Butts, 1305 Lavern, in Andover stated that since the Homeplate Grille went out of business trucks have been parking in the lot.  The lot is being torn up, the speakers have been damaged, and the sidewalks are cracked.  Mr. Butts stated there are some pretty good divots in the grass because it is a tight turn for a big truck.  Mr. Butts stated that his biggest concern is with the new bike path being torn up by big semis driving over it.   Mr. Butts stated he can hear traffic but that the noise is not an issue.

 

The public hearing was closed at 11:20 p.m.

 

BZA-CU-2002-03  Public hearing on an application for a Conditional Use to allow off site semi parking for trailers and/or trucks at 106 East 13th Street.  

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 11

 

CONDITIONAL USE REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

BZA-CU-2002-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

J & H TRUCKING, INC

 

REQUEST:

OFF SITE SEMI PARKING FOR TRAILERS OR TRUCKS IN THE B-2 NIEGHBORTHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT.     

CASE HISTORY:

VACANT LOCATION OF SEVERAL FAILED RESTAURANT OPERATORS

 

LOCATION:

106 E 13TH SREET, Northeast CORNER OF 13TH STREET AND ANDOVER ROAD

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 150’ X 350’

PROPOSED USE:

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Kansas Turnpike right-of-way

South:

B-6 Business District, vacant lots

East:

I-1 Industrial District, vacant building

West:

R-2 Residential District,

WESTAR Energy Transformer Station

 

Background Information:

none

 

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.

 

 

 

HAS THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED STATEMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT COMPLYING WITH SECTION 10-108A 1-4? Yes __x__       No ____

If no, provide explanation:                                                                                            

 

 

IN WHAT ZONING DISTRICT(S) IS THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO BE PERMITTED?

B-2 Neighborhood Business District

 

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. The consensus of the Board is yes.

 

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

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 with 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 the Board voted yes/true.

b.                              The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site. The Board voted yes/true.

 

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. N/A.

 

5.                  Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.  The Board stated this is not applicable. The Board stated this is not applicable.

 

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. The Board stated yes.  Existing concrete driveway approaches and gravel parking areas.

 

There was general discussion among the Board regarding the parking lot.  With regards to the bike path, Mr. Mangus stated that the City will have thicker concrete at the driveways.

 

DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on the findings, Chairman Coon called for a motion and any restrictions that might be imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations, Section 108-D (Conditions).

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-CU-2002-02 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 10-108 C of the Zoning Regulations, I, Ron Roberts move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the conditional use as modified, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.                The conditional use shall cease to exist if:

a.                 The property sells or,

b.                 J & H Trucking ceases to rent or lease the property. 

2.                J & H Trucking will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for review every 2 years.

3.                Parking and driving is to be on gravel and paved areas only.

4.                No inoperable vehicles.

5.                No hazardous materials.

 

           John McEachern seconded the motion. After discussion Ron Roberts removed Condition #1, with a motion and  John McEachern agreed with a second, and the conditions were as follows:

 

Applicant must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a review of compliance and/or conditions every 2 years, after the date     of this resolution.

1.                Parking and driving is to be on gravel or paved areas only.

2.                No inoperable vehicles re to be parked or stored on the premises.

3.                No hazardous materials as defined in Section 2-102 of the Zoning Regulations shall be allowed at any time on these premises.

 

Motion carried 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Chairman Coon thanked the participants in this hearing.

 

A motion was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Joe Robertson, for adjournment of the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission.  Motion carried   8-0.

 

Review the draft revisions to the R-1 and R-2 Single-Family Residential District Bulk Regulations and authorize a Public Hearing to consider the changes to the Zoning Regulations.  Motion was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Joe Robertson to move this item to next month’s agenda due to the lateness of the hour.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

 

Motion by John McEachern to adjourn.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.