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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

January 18, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Jim Orr, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath and Quentin Coon.  Others in attendance were City Council liaison, Tim McFadden, Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator, and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant.

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:00 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Review of the minutes of the December 21, 1999 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Jim Orr, seconded by Charles Malcom.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

 

Minutes of the January 4, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee minutes were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the December 28, 1999 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed. 

 

There were no committee or staff reports.

Review of the minutes of the December 21, 1999 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 

 

 

Andover Planning Commission member Lori Hays arrived at 7:03 p.m.

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case # Z-99-05, Lots 7, 34 and 35 in Thomas Acres, at the Southeast corner of Andover Road and Central, was opened at 7:37 p.m.  A quorum was declared.  The question was asked if there had been any ex parte communications, no one answered in the affirmative.  The question was asked if anyone needed to excuse themselves from the proceedings.  No one answered in the affirmative.  That being the case, Chairman McEachern asked the applicant to come forward. 

 

Bill King, 3663 SW Prairie Creek Road, Andover, Kansas is the applicant.  He stated that the property is a mixture of commercial and residential.  This change in zoning is to consolidate the zoning to commercial.  It is his intent to clear off the property and develop it. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked for public comment.

 

Mr. Melvin Helena, at Lot 36 in Thomas Acres, 404 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas, stated that he lives on the lot adjacent and south to the subject property.  He stated that he has had the property surveyed in the past; he had 3 pins at one corner of the lot.  He stated that the pins were all moved when the street was widened. He wanted to know what could be done about the pins being gone.  He didn’t feel he should have to pay for it.   He said that he saw someone measuring this area again the other day and would like to know what “they” were doing. 

 

Les Mangus stated that the next item on the agenda is a replat of the subject property.  All boundaries have to be re-established and that will take care of Mr. Helena’s pin problem.

 

Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 

 

John McEachern then read the following Rezoning Report.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case # Z-99-05, Lots 7, 34 and 35 in Thomas Acres

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No.     5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-99-05

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

William & Charlotte King

 

REQUEST:

R-1 Residential to B-3 Central Shopping District

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

Southeast corner of Andover Road and Central Avenue

 

SITE SIZE:

3.1 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Commercial development.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-3 & B-4 Plaza Shopping Center

South:

R-1 Single Family Residential

East:

R-1 Single Family Residential

West:

B-3 Andover Square Shopping Center

 

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: B-3 & B-4 Plaza Shopping Center;  South: R-1 Single Family Residential;  East: R-1 Single Family Residential; West:            B-3 Andover Square Shopping Center

 

 

PLANNING:

North: B-3 & B-4 Plaza Shopping Center;  South: R-1 Single Family Residential;  East: R-1 Single Family Residential; West:            B-3 Andover Square Shopping Center

 

 

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:

See #1

 

 

PLANNING:

See #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:

Yes, this property could not reasonably be redeveloped for single family residences

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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:

Yes, future expansion of the intersection requires removal of some of the residential structures

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:

Yes

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, dedication of right of ways and vacation of some utility easements.

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:

Yes, Site Plan review of future commercial construction would be 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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

A B-3 zoned lot is available across the street to the west.

 

 

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:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

No, see #3.

 

x

PLANNING:

No, see #3.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes, with appropriate screening of adjacent residences

x

 

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:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur.

 

 

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 contingent on platting

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PLANNING:

This property could not reasonably be redeveloped for single family residences

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

A motion was made by Ron Roberts as follows:  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-99-05 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1District to the B-3 District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. and that the following conditions be attached to this recommendation.  Motion seconded by Jim Orr.

 

1. Condition: This property could not reasonably be redeveloped for single family residences.

 

Motion passed unanimously, 8-0.

 

 

 

Final Plat of the Andover Central Addition, a replat of Lots 7, 34 and 35 in Thomas Acres.   On property owned by William and Charlotte King.  Les Mangus told the committee that the City of Andover Subdivision Committee voted to approve this replat at the January 11, 2000 meeting.  The only comments were regarding traffic flow.  Les Mangus also stated that a tax certificate is required to record the plat.  The utilities do not have any additional recommendations or requirements at this time except for the City of Andover sanitary sewer lines.  Mr. King has agreed to demolish the lines in place, which will be set forth in the developer’s agreement.

 

Mike Thompson of Poe and Associates presented information on behalf of Mr. King regarding the lot lines.  He stated there would be a shift in the lot lines of Lots 1 & 2.  The 180’ frontage of Lot 2 will change to 165’ frontage.

 

John McEachern asked if the access to the driveway were agreed upon.  Les Mangus replied yes.

 

Ron Roberts asked if there was going to be an access problem on 165’ of frontage, as the Committee has seen on other properties.  Les Mangus stated that this would be address by the Site Plan Committee when the developer goes before that Committee.

 

Lynn Heath stated that Sonic has 150’ frontage and has two entrances and it works well with them being one way entrances.

 

Les Mangus stated that the Site Plan Review Committee would look at the type of businesses going into the property and determine the access.

 

A motion was made by Joe Robertson to approve the Andover Central Addition Final Plat, replat of Lots 7, 34 and 35 of Thomas Acres, with the following conditions: 

1.  Tax certificate be provided. 

2.  Title Report. 

3.  Notice in the developer’s agreement regarding the sewer demolition. 

Jim Orr seconded the motion.  Motion was approved unanimously 8-0.

 

Keith Schmidt of 436 S. Andover Road then asked a question.  He asked if something could be done about the timing delay on the traffic signals at Central Avenue and Andover Road.  He stated it is very tough to get turned if you are traveling North or South on Andover Road. Les Mangus stated that there are plans on the table now to do construction at this intersection this summer.  This will include widening the intersection all four directions, to increase to 5 lanes, which would create dedicated left turn lane each direction.  Les Mangus also stated that the plat of the property will cover this and that most of the widening will be on the south and East Side of the intersection.  This plat will complete the design standards for the entire intersection.

Final Plat of the Andover Central Addition

 

 

Butler County Planning Commission Case #RZ-99-36, Donald E. and Roselyn Schmidt and Gary G. Lawson, seeking a rezoning classification to change from Agricultural to Commercial on property described as:

 

Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Block 2 of Schmidt First Addition, subdivision in the SE ¼ of Section 20, Township 27 South, Range 3 East of the 6th P.M., in Butler County, Kansas.

 

General location:  1508, 1522, 1608, and 1620 US Hwy 54, Andover, Kansas.

 

Les Mangus stated that the City of Andover received notice of this hearing for their January 4, 2000 agenda, on 12/29/99, which did not allow the City enough time to hear the matter.   After a phone call to the County, they allowed the time to let the City hear the case. 

 

Ray Connell, Attorney at Law, from Connell & Connell, 318 W. Central, El Dorado, Kansas, represented the applicant, Kent Schmidt.  He stated that the lots were zoned commercial then reverted to agricultural with special use from a change in the Zoning Regulations.  There is now highway-commercial use zoning.  The Zoning Administrator from Butler County recommended the zoning change.  Ray Connell also stated that they are not changing the site in any way, there are no new buildings or changes. 

 

Lynn Heath asked if 161st Street was going to be built to US Hwy 54.  Les Mangus stated that 161st (also known as Prairie Creek Road) will probably be extended to Central within the next 10 years.

 

Les Mangus stated that to be in compliance with the corridor management KDOT agreement, one of the entrances from this property onto the highway would have to be closed.  The access they have now, right in, right out, will not be allowed in the new KDOT agreement.  The other road in front of the property is, right now, just gravel and not a well-defined frontage road. 

 

Kent Schmidt, 1516 Rose Lane, Andover, Kansas, which is behind the buildings, appeared on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that Brown Drive, to the west of the subject property is a private drive.  Les Mangus stated that Brown Drive is a public road.  He then got out the County Appraiser’s map and showed that it is public north for ¼ of a mile.

 

Joe Robertson asked if it would present a hardship to the businesses to abandon the right in, right out access.  Kent Schmidt stated it would be a hardship as there would be no access if Brown Drive were closed.  Joe Robertson stated that the businesses could use 161st Street access or Brown Drive instead of the right in, right out access.  Lynn Heath stated that KDOT would want to clean that right in, right out access up and eliminate it.  Les Mangus stated that there is a 50’ R.O.W. to connect Brown Drive to US Hwy 54.  Charles Malcom asked if Bruno Township maintained the roads there.  Mr. Schmidt stated that the township does maintain the road.

 

There was then general discussion between the Committee Members regarding the issue of the frontage road.  There was concern regarding surface of the frontage road.  Ron Roberts stated that Mike Bertrand; the Butler County Planner had told him that the frontage was not finished as required.  Much discussion occurred regarding the surface finishing of the subject property.    Mr. Connell stated that his client would be willing to upgrade or pave the frontage road at the time the road was connected to 161st Street and Brown Drive.  There was discussion as far as using what standards.  Les Mangus stated that the County accepts the City’s standard of 7” of paving, and curb and gutter are not necessarily required.  There was then general discussion as to a time frame to have the work done.  Views varied from right now to the development of 161st Street. 

 

Les Mangus asked the Committee Members if they thought that the direct access (right in, right out) should be removed from the property. 

 

All Committee Members agreed that direct access to US Hwy 54 should be eliminated. 

 

Tim McFadden asked if there was a time limit for completion of the work being completed, who would enforce the limit?  He also asked how it would be enforced.  We presently have a way to see that the work gets done.  Who will be around in 5 years to see that the work gets done?   Who will remember to watch for the work to be done?  Who will enforce seeing the work done? 

 

Mr. Connell stated that if the work is not done in the time period required the County could revoke the zoning and possibly impose a fine.  Mr. Schmidt stated that he is not opposed to paving, he is opposed to immediate paving and asked that his time schedule to pave be tied into the development of 161st Street.

 

Ron Roberts stated that 161st Street is a township road not a county road.

 

A motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend approval to the Butler County Planning Commission of the zoning classification change in Case #RZ-99-36, from Agricultural to Commercial with the following conditions:

1.  The removal and vacation of the entry access onto US Hwy 54 between 161st Street and Brown Drive.

2.  Frontage road defined and improved.

3.  Three years to improve the frontage road with paving be done to City of Andover standards and KDOT corridor standards.

The motion seconded by John McEachern.

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to add an amendment to the motion triggering the paving of the frontage road being done when 161st Street is developed.  The motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Vote was 4 - 4 with Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath, Quentin Coon and Lori Hays approving.  The motion to add an amendment failed.

 

The was then a vote on the motion.  Vote was 4 - 4, with Charles Malcom, Lori Hays, Quentin Coon and Jim Orr opposed.  This vote meant no recommendation to Butler County.

 

A motion was then  made by John McEachern to recommend approval to the Butler County Planning Commission of the zoning classification change in Case #RZ-9936, from Agricultural to Commercial with the following conditions:

1.  The removal and vacation of the entry access onto US Hwy 54 between 161st Street and Brown Drive.

2.  Frontage road needs to be defined and improved.

3.  Two years to pave the frontage road with paving be done to City of Andover standards and KDOT corridor standards. Any property east or west of this property or to 161st Street being developed shall trigger immediate paving of the frontage road.

 

The motion seconded by Quentin Coon.

 

There was general discussion regarding the motion.

 

A  motion was made by Ron Roberts to amend the motion as follows:

1.  The removal and vacation of the entry access onto US Hwy 54 between 161st Street and Brown Drive should be done immediately.

2.  Frontage road needs to be defined, and improved immediately

3.  Two years to pave the frontage road with paving to be done to City of Andover standards and KDOT corridor standards. Any property east or west of this property or to 161st Street being developed shall trigger immediate paving of the frontage road.

 

Amendment to the motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Amendment to the motion carried 7-1, with Charles Malcom voting against.

 

The motion with the amendment, carried 7-1 with Charles Malcom voting against.

 

Butler County Planning Commission Case #RZ-99-36 General location:  1508, 1522, 1608, and 1620 US Hwy 54, Andover, Kansas.

 

 

Site Plan Review Criteria recommended changes.  Les Mangus reviewed the recommended changes to the Site Plan Review Committee Applicability of the guidelines.  There was general discussion regarding the proposed changes.

 

A motion was made by John McEachern to recommend to the City Council a public hearing be held for the purpose of a change in the Site Plan Review Criteria in the Zoning Regulations.  The motion was seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 8-0.

Site Plan Review Criteria recommended changes

 

 

A motion was made by Charles Malcom for adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting.  The motion was seconded by Lori Hays.  Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Adjourn