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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

March 21, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were Jan Cox, Byron Stout, Ron Roberts and Jeff Syrios.  Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, Management Assistant Sasha Stiles and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Members Lynn Heath, Charlotte Bass, David Martine, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the February 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Jan Cox asked if the directional on the address on page 4 was correct. Deborah Carroll said it should have been West 120 th Street instead of North and has been corrected.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the minutes of the Feb. 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the February 14, 2006 and February 28, 2006 meetings. Quentin Coon asked if the Planning Commission would be receiving lap top computers as well. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the March 7, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. Ron Roberts asked why the address is 253 N. Andover Road for Site Plan and 229 N. Andover. Les explained the site plan was only for the corner lot and the zoning case is for the entire Pergola property. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the March 14, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

 

 

VA-2006-03: Recommendation on the vacation of the right-of-way located at The South fifteen (15) feet of the south side of Harry Street between Phyllis and Timothy Road.

 

Les Mangus explained this case is to resolve a lawsuit involving the acquisition of Street Right of Way to accommodate the installation of the waterline to the Aspen Creek Addition between the City and Dan Taylor, the owner of the property South of Harry St. & Andover Rd., the City has agreed to vacate the acquired R/W, and in turn Taylor has agreed to dedicate a corresponding easement for the existing waterline.

 

Quentin Coon asked why this is so important. Les said that in fee title a public street right-of-way belongs to the public whereas an easement belongs to the property owner.

 

Jan Cox asked if an easement is taxed. Les said yes it is.

 

Ron Roberts asked if these 15 feet are in addition to the previous road right-of-way and would it then line up with Aspen Creek’s right-of-way. Les said the existing right-of-way was 30 feet and the acquisition from 7-8 years ago was out to 45 feet. This vacation is the strip between 45 feet and 30 feet given up as a right-of-way and then dedicated back as an easement. Les said it will line up with the easement line that is shown on the water line drawing provided.

 

There was discussion about the variation of right-of-way along Harry Street. Ron Roberts said someday the City will have to buy this back. Les said yes, that if ever there was a need for more right-of-way for a road project, the City would have to buy this as a right-of-way which would overlap the utility easement. Discussion continued.

 

Jan Cox asked if this is not approved by the Planning Commission, does it go to the City Council without recommendation. Les said the Public Hearing is held by the City Council for a final decision.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if this case is at the City Attorney’s recommendation. Les said yes it is. Discussion continued. Jeff was concerned that the Planning Commission does not have enough information to make a decision. The other members agreed.

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to send this case on to the City Council without recommendation. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

VA-2006-03: Recommendation on the vacation of the right-of-way located at The South fifteen (15) feet of the south side of Harry Street between Phyllis and Timothy Road.

 

 

 

 

Z-2006-03: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a Protective Overlay on property located at 229 N. Andover Road.

 

Les explained this application arises from the sale of the vacant lot at the Southwest corner of 2nd Street and Andover Rd for the construction of an O’Reilly’s Auto Parts Store. O’Reilly’s discovered in the site planning process that there is 5,000 square foot limitation per business in the existing B-2 zone. The proposed B-3 zone would eliminate the business area limitation, but through the use of a Protective Overlay eliminate some of the permitted uses in the B-3 that may be objectionable to the adjacent residences. Staff supports the application as written.

 

Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. and asked the applicant to approach the podium.

 

Paul Cavanaugh, architect from Places Architects, 100 E. Waterman in Wichita said he is the architect for the owner of Pergola Place. He said he has tenants who need more than the 5,000 square foot as allowed which will require a zoning change. He said the Protective Overlay should prevent objectionable uses.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the applicant approved of the B-2 zoning limitation of hours of operation. Paul Cavanaugh said there are no limits to of hours of operation in the B-3 zone. 

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les if there is a problem to not limit the hours of operation in the Protective Overlay. Les said the B-3 zone does not have limits to the hours of operations. Les said there is a possible tenant who wants an exercise salon open 24/7 with a club membership.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Paul Cavanaugh if there were any other reasons for changing from B-2 to B-3. Paul said they want to broaden the option of uses within the retail center. He said the fitness center is called “Anytime Fitness” with a private membership. Paul said there would be less traffic with this type of facility.

 

Byron Stout asked if there would be aerobic classes held there with loud music. Paul said this is only personal fitness.

 

Jan Cox asked if there would be any security personnel on staff. Paul said no there would not be.

Byron Stout asked if there will be a sound system inside the building. Paul said there would be one.

 

Quentin Coon was concerned about the B-3 zone allowing a taller building. Les said the bulk regulations are slightly different for the B-3 zone.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les if he has any concerns whether the stated exceptions cover everything. Les said he has studied this and does not see anything of great concern. 

 

Ron Roberts said if these businesses change in the future, the Planning Commission should limit the use of outdoor sound systems. Discussion continued about outdoor sound systems and drive-in and drive-thru restaurants.

 

Byron Stout asked about the storage facility to the rear of the retail center. Paul Cavanaugh said he does not think the owner is now going to build the storage units and is considering using that lot for parking. Paul said there is a concrete fence between this property and the residential neighborhood. Les said the existing concrete fence is in place and 8’ high.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the entire property is asking for the B-3 with the Protective Overlay. Paul Cavanaugh said yes it is for the entire parcel.

 

Byron Stout asked if O’Reillys would not locate here if this zoning change were not approved. Paul said 6,800 square feet is the smallest store they build.

 

Quentin Coon asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak to this issue. No one came forward. Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.

 

Caroline Hale asked if the entire property is asking for the B-3 with the Protective Overlay. Quentin Coon said yes it is for the entire parcel.

 

Discussion continued among the members. Les said conditions could be added to the protective overlay. Les continued to explain the Post Office is also in the B-2 zone, the Catholic Church to the south is partially in a B-1 zone which does not have any limitations on hours of operations.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the back lighting to shield from the residential neighborhood be taken care of at Site Plan Review Committee. Les said that has been addressed with cut-off type fixtures.

 

Jeff Syrios asked for discussion about drive-in and drive-thru restaurants. Quentin Coon said the B-2 zone does not allow drive-ins. Jan Cox was concerned if drive-in restaurants were prohibited in this overlay, would that exclude them from that entire end of town. Les said the only true drive-in here is Sonic, and it is there by special use. Drive-thru is considered an accessory use to a restaurant.  Les said drive-thru speakers are not mentioned at all in the zoning regulations. Ron said if the speakers are placed on the side facing the residential neighborhood, they would be more obnoxious.

 

Chairman Coon began the review of the rezoning report at 7:39 p.m.

Z-2006-03: Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a Protective Overlay on property located at 229 N. Andover Road.

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2006-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Don and/or Jeff Walenta- Paul Cavanaugh- Places Architects

 

REQUEST:

Zoning district Classification change from B-2 Neighborhood Business District to B-3 Central Shopping District with a Protective Overlay.

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

229 N. Andover Road- SW corner of 2nd Street & Andover Road

 

SITE SIZE:

2.8 acres- 452’ x 270’

 

PROPOSED USE:

Retail Strip Center and Auto Parts Store

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2          Pizza Hut Italian Bistro

South:

B-2          Post Office

East:

MH-1      Andover Estates Mobile Home Park

West:

R-3          Two-Family Dwellings

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

See page 1

 

 

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:

See page 1

 

 

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:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Changing business conditions.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

6.   Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the subject property?

 

x

 

STAFF:

All are in place and adequate.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Site Plan Review required.

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

12.   To what extent would removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Could result in more traffic and activity.

 

 

PLANNING:

We may have more to add to this later.

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

No comment.

 

 

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Discussion continued. Quentin Coon wants to see banning of outside speakers. Jan Cox said she would rather limit the outside speakers rather than banning them. Ron Roberts said it would be better to ban them at this point and variances could be applied for in the future if warranted.

 

Jeff Syrios continued discussion about drive-ins and drive-thrus.

 

 

 

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-2006-03  be modified & approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a Protective Overlay as applied for with the addition of no outdoor sound systems based on the findings 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing.  Motion seconded by Jeff Syrios. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-02: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 200 square feet from the required 1,000 square foot limitation for the purpose of constructing a 1,200 square foot detached garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District located at 620 Ruth Avenue.

 

Les explained this application arises from the owner’s desire to construct a 30’X40’ detached garage, which exceeds the 1,000 sq. ft. limitation for accessory structures in the R-1 zone. The lot is 1.09 acres, which is more than twice the minimum size for the R-1 zone, and would easily accommodate the 1,200 sq. ft. garage proposed. Staff supports the application.

 

Chairman Coon opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. and asked the applicant to approach the podium.

 

Rick Stevenson of 620 Ruth Avenue said he just wants to build a garage.

 

Ron Roberts asked if this would be built on the north side of the house. Rick said the garage will be on the south side. Les said the house faces west.

 

Jan Cox asked if his driveway would be extended to the opening of the garage. Rick said yes it would be.

 

Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m. and began the review of the Findings of Fact.

 

BZA-V-2006-02: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 200 square feet from the required 1,000 square foot limitation for the purpose of constructing a 1,200 square foot detached garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District located at 620 Ruth Avenue.

 

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 Jeff Syrios move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-03 as requested. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion at 7:58 p.m. to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

 

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Cornerstone School Addition located at 21st Street and 159th.

 

Les explained this is the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone School Addition This plan was reviewed in preliminary form at the last meeting, and has been finalized, and reviewed with recommendation for approval by the Subdivision Committee. The plan utilizes the changes in zoning district classifications and parcel boundaries that were approved as an Amendment to the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD at the last meeting. The engineer has addressed the comments on the Staff Checklist.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the text was added as requested in the Subdivision meeting. Les said the text is included about the 5,000 square foot limitation to avoid the school and businesses being limited to that size. Rob Hartman said there was other text concerning public easements being vacated by virtue of the plat. Les said those words have to appear on the face of the plat to be able to vacate any existing easements on the property and rededicate them as platted easements.

 

Jan asked where it states for Elementary School only. Les said that is in the permitted uses.

 

Quentin Coon asked about sidewalks. Ron Roberts said there are better sidewalks in this subdivision.

 

Jan Cox asked if there would be any parks in this plat. Les said this plat will not have a public or neighborhood park. The plan shows a 5-acre park in the parcel to the north of this one.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les if he sees any problems with this plat. Les said this developer has worked hard with staff to integrate 8’ sidewalks and a system of collector streets that limit access for the residences to the collector streets. He said this is one of the better plans.

 

Quentin Coon asked about the “t” at Keystone Parkway to go into the subdivision area. Les said there will be a street that will “t” off of Keystone at the east side of the Elementary School site that goes back into the residential area and there will be another collector street that comes out of the residential neighborhood and runs across the north end of the school site to create a division between commercial and residential which each have their own collector street systems.

 

Ron Roberts asked about the entrance to the hospital that lines up with the entrance to Quail Crossing. Les said there is a second entrance that will be built in the future.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to recommend approval of this Final Plat of the Cornerstone School Addition to the City Council as presented. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Review the Final Plat of the Cornerstone School Addition located at 21st Street and 159th.

 

 

Member Items:

Ron Roberts- Asked about a future change of the 5,000 square foot limitation on B-2 Business District. He asked if the Zoning Regulations needed some changes.

Les Mangus said it is time to do an overhaul of the Zoning Regulations which were originally drafted in the mid-1970’s. He said all the zones need review. Les suggested a committee to take a look at even the style the regulations are written in. Our regulations are based on permitted uses. Some are based on prohibited uses or performance standards. Les recommended bringing our regulations up to date so they would address things like video rental stores and drive-up windows. Discussion continued about options of zoning changes. This effort will need to be a mixture of City Council, Planning Commission, Staff, and Planning Consultant.

Caroline Hale- Said she thinks it is a good idea to review this.

Jeff Syrios- Asked how the changes in the Zoning Regulations would affect the Comprehensive Development Plan. Les said that was added in the latest revision. Jeff Syrios asked how this process should begin. Les said the Planning Commission could make the suggestion to the City Council to be discussed in a workshop session. The Mayor and Planning Commission could appoint members to a committee to spend a few months to study and make revisions of the Regulations.

Caroline Hale- Said she thinks it is time for a joint workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission where this could also be discussed. She said she would mention this at the next City Council meeting.

Jan Cox- Asked if there needs to be a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. She also asked about having a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. Les said Deborah would research the bylaws to find the answer to that.

Member Items

 

 

Byron Stout made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 18th day of April 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.