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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

April 18, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Jim Orr, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom and Quentin Coon.  Others in attendance were Tim McFadden, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:02 p.m.

Call to order.

 

 

Review of the minutes of the March 21, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Charles Malcom, seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 5 to 0.  John McEachern abstained as he was not at this meeting.

 

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

 

Minutes of the March 11, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Review of the minutes

 

 

Planning Commission member Lynn Heath arrived at 7:05 p.m.

Planning Commission member Lori Hays arrived at 7:06 p.m.

 

In regard to the committee and staff reports, Les Mangus told the Commission that the sign sub-committee had met and he had included in this weeks packet, copies of the minutes and the proposed changes to the sign regulations.  Les Mangus also stated that there would be an additional meeting on May 3, 2000 for this sub-committee.

 

Les Mangus stated that there had been a sub-committee meeting regarding telecommunication towers, which had gone very well.  He stated that the zoning regulations had not been updated as of yet and would be presented when revised.  The next meeting for this sub-committee has not yet been set.

 

Les Mangus also told the Commission the City Council returned, for further consideration, the Special Use application to establish a Public School Transportation Center in the 1900 block of North Andover Road.  Case No. ZSU-2000-01.

 

Bob Kaplan then asked if BZA-V-2000-02, Agenda Item #10, Public hearing on an application of Variance could be heard out of order.

 

At 7:10 a motion was made by Charles Malcom and seconded to Lynn Heath to bring Agenda Item #10 to the front of the agenda.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

At 7:10 a motion was made by Lynn Heath and seconded by Lori Hays to recess from the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried 8-0.

Committee & Staff Reports.

 

 

Public Hearing on BZA 2000-02.   Application by Ark Valley Concrete located at 16063 E. 13th, Andover, for variance of the maximum height restriction of 35’ to construct a 52’ concrete mixing facility in the I-1 Industrial District.  This application is to correction an omission in the former Variance BZA 99-04 to include the entire property.  

 

Bob Kaplan, 430 N. Market, Wichita, Kansas appeared on behalf of the applicant.  He gave a history of this issue.  He stated that only half of the property was changed on BZA V-99-04.  There was an error.  He eliminated part of the legal description.  This appearance is to cover the mistake on his part. 

 

Jim Orr asked if appropriate public notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated it had. 

 

John McEachern asked if anyone from the public wanted to address the issue.  No one responded. 

 

Joe Robertson asked for staff comments.  Les Mangus stated he would recommend that this variance be approved with the same conditions and findings of fact as the previous case.  This was an error on the legal description.

 

Ron Roberts asked what would keep these people from changing and building a taller building.  Les Mangus stated that the Site Plan Review Committee has already seen and approved the plans for the property and Ark Valley Concrete will be held accountable to conform to the approved plans.

 

Public hearing was closed at 7:19 p.m.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adopt the findings and conditions from case BZA-V-99-04 for case BZA-V-2000-02 and approve case BZA-V-2000-02.  Motion seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 8-0. 

 

At 7:20 a motion was made by Ron Roberts to recess from the Board of Zoning appeals and reconvenes the Planning Commission.  Motion seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 8-0.

Public Hearing on BZA 2000-02 at 16063 E. 13th,

 

 

Z-SU-2000-01:  Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385. 

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

John McEachern stated there was a quorum present. 

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

John McEachern asked Board Members if there has been any ex parte communication.  Mr. McEachern stated that he had been looking for the location of this property and asked Dr. Patrick Terry from U.S.D. 385 for the exact location of the property.  There were no other ex parte communications. 

 

Mr. McEachern asked if anyone needed to step down for any reason.  No Board member needed to step down.  Mr. McEachern stated  this is a revisit to what the Commission did last month.

 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST:

 

The applicant is U.S.D. #385, James Nightingale of Howard & Helmer represented U.S.D. #385.  Mr. Nightingale stated that U.S.D. #385 was given some additional items to address by the City Council at their meeting of April 11, 2000.  These issues include the following:

 

            a.         The effects of the additional traffic on Andover Rd.

            b.         The effects of site filling in the floodplain.

            c.         Adequate screening.

            d.         Adequate lighting. 

 

Mr. Nightingale addressed these issues.  He had additional information to pass out to the Commission and apologized for not having it ready for the packets the Commission received, however there was not sufficient time between the City Council meeting and the packet delivery date.

 

 Regarding the effects of the additional traffic on Andover Road, the second page of information is a grid tabulation of the traffic generated on Andover Road.  He stated there are currently 26 buses, this will grow to 35 buses and there will be additional office staff, maintenance staff and drivers added.  He stated the drivers will begin to arrive at about 6:00 a.m., leaving by 7:00 a.m. for their routes.  The buses will return to the Center by 9:30 a.m. 

 

The kindergarten routes will begin around 11:30 a.m., returning around 1:30 p.m.   Then the buses will leave around 2:00 or so for

the afternoon routes.  The buses will return between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m.  The current number of buses generates 280 vehicle trip ends. 

 

Mr. Nightingale also stated that the fuel island has been dropped from the plans and the buses will probably continue to fuel at the Presto store at 21st and Andover Road.

 

Regarding the effects of site filling in the floodplain, the proposal includes moving the floodway channel east and widening it, if possible.  There are concerns from the residents to the West.  The drainage channel that crosses Andover Road and goes to the West would not be affected by the floodplain filling on the site.

 

Mr. Nightingale stated that in reference to better screening of the area, his firm generated a computer model of the proposed site as to what it would look like.  He stated there would be parking from Andover Road back to the fence surrounding the Center for drivers and staff.  He stated this would be an unlit parking lot.  At 200’ from Andover Road the 8’ screening wall, which would be concrete, slump form, would be started.  It would screen the back of both the Dentist’s office and the Veterinarian Clinic, part of the church and then turn.  The fence would then be changed to an 8’ chain link fence for the balance of the fencing.  This is to control access and help prevent vandalism.  The 10’ high bus would be seen over the top of the fence but not much would be seen from street level on Andover Road.  U.S.D. 385 is also considering using wrought iron gates, to tie into the design theme at the existing Intermediate School.  The wall would create a buffer between the Clinics and the Center.  There would be landscape screening and vines on the wall.  There would also be openings and interceptor drains in the wall for drainage. The maintenance building would be 12’-15’ tall and placed farther back in the lot to the East. 

 

Mr. Nightingale stated there was also a lighting diagram attached to the information given to the Commission.  The foot-candle power is listed throughout the site.  The foot-candle power drops to less than ¼ foot-candle near the proposed concrete fence.

 

Ron Roberts asked what the width of the driveway would be.  Mr. Nightingale stated that it would be 28’. 

 

Jim Orr asked if there were any after hour traffic estimations and bus traffic for summer school.  Dr. Terry stated there would be some after hours traffic but it is sporadic.   He also stated there

would be no busing for summer school.  Jim Orr then asked if the mechanics would work second shift.  Dr. Terry stated no.

 

Ron Roberts asked if the whole driveway would be paved.  Dr. Terry stated that the whole driveway would be paved.

 

John McEachern asked if a traffic signal would be installed at this entrance onto Andover Road.  Les Mangus stated that one could be installed; however with that amount of traffic it would not be warranted.  The only travel during peak hours would be during the evening peak traffic and a large majority of the buses would not cross traffic to enter the Center.

 

Ron Roberts asked about the driveway and asked if there would be fencing around the driveway.  Mr. Nightingale stated there would not be fencing.  This would be an open parking area.

 

Joe Robertson asked if the School District had considered adding a road south from this property to the school sites.  Mr. Nightingale stated that this had been considered but the cost is very prohibitive due to crossing the flood plain and drainage channel.

 

Quentin Coon asked who owned the property to the North of the subject property.  Mr. McEachern stated the property was owned by Butler County Community College.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

John McEachern stated that there was a public hearing at the last meeting on this issue.  He stated that this meeting will allow public comments as long as they pertain to the new information presented or new additional information.

 

Jerry Andrews of McPherson, Kansas, is a co-owner of the dental clinic at 1926 N. Andover Road.  He thanked the Commission for the denial of the application last month.  His objections to the Center are as follows:

 

1.         Dental Clinic will be surrounded by buses.  The noise from these buses will be very distracting to patients.

 

2.         The area is zoned for business use of office type structures.  This requested use belongs is another zone. 

 

3.         The valuation of the surrounding property will be reduced.

 

4.         If the driveway is not paved there will be a lot of dust.

 

5.         The odor of diesel fuel will be all over this area.

 

6.         There is not an adequate driveway.  There is no mention of moving the utility boxes.  He does not feel there is enough room for buses to turn.

 

7.         Flooding is very common in this area.  If the elevation is raised it will change the natural drainage of the area and feels this would be illegal.  If there is any new additional development to the North this would add additional water problems.

 

8.         There is plenty of land in the Industrial Park.  He recommends selling this property or using it for a soccer field.

 

Mike Stegen, 226 Pine View Drive, Andover, stated he lives just west of the proposed location.  Mr. Stegen asked if there is an alternative location owned by the school district.  He stated that the property behind the middle school was being turned into an athletic field perhaps that would be more appropriate.  He also suggested the area by the railroad tracks would be a good area for the bus area and put athletic fields in the subject property.  Mr. Stegen stated the he doesn’t feel the screening proposed would be adequate.  He also does not feel the school board has looked well enough for alternative locations.  He feels this is a quick fix that will not benefit the City.  He doesn’t feel the drainage issue has been addressed adequately.  He feels changing the landscape will create additional problems.  He feels that the mandate for the Commission is to plan ahead for future growth, not just short term growth.

 

John McEachern reminded the public that we are to address the issues that effects land use, not the choice of property by the School Board.

 

Dr. Kevin Cederberg, of Countryside Pet Clinic, 1936 N. Andover Road, Andover, stated that he had several concerns also regarding the Transportation Center site.  He feels with the doubling of the schools, 36 buses will not be enough and there will need to be expansion and then the Center will have to be expanded.  He does not feel this is a good use of the corridor of Andover.  Dr. Cederberg stated that he would purchase some of the proposed site if it would help the school district purchase property elsewhere.  He also stated that it would not be appropriate to have a metal building in this neighborhood.  He also stated there is quite a water problem at this location.

 

Jerry Stanyer, 114 Pineview, Andover, Kansas.  He is concerned about the following items:

 

1.         This will devalue his property and would expect remuneration from someone.

2.         He stated he feels this is already a done deal.  The outcome of things depends on who you are and who you know.

3.         He also wondered if there was room for expansion and asked that a professional traffic flow study be done.

4.         He stated there is too much traffic in a condensed area and this would just add to the congestion. 

 

John McEachern reminded the public that if this plan is approved it would go before the Site Plan Review Committee prior to any construction for site plan approval.

 

Dr. Connie Andrews, 1926 N. Andover Road, has a dental practice in front of the proposed location.  She addressed the following issues:

 

1.         The noise level in the morning has not been addressed.  The buses will start running at 6:00 a.m. when people in the neighborhood would be sleeping. 

2.         Traffic is a major concern.  She stated that Andover Road is no Rock Road but it is busy.  No one knew 20 years ago that Rock Road would be as busy as it is now.  It is up to the Commission to alleviate problems for future generations. 

3.         The Site Plan Review Criteria, which she had to adhere to when she planned her business, states that one of the functions of the Site Plan is to encourage compatibility.   She asked if this is a compatible use.

4.         She asked about the fencing on the North side of the site.  Mr. Nightingale stated it will be chain link.  Dr. Andrews wanted to know if this is what we want everyone coming into Andover on 21st Street to see.

5.         She stated that it is up to the Commission to help see to the health and safety of the public.  There will be too much traffic and that will endanger the safety of the public.

6.         She did not feel there would be enough space for landscaping in front of the proposed wall.  Mr. McEachern reminded her that would be a Site Plan Review Committee issue and not a Planning Commission issue.

7.         She asked everyone is they would like this Center to be in their backyard.

 

Public comments were closed at 8:10 p.m.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS:

 

Joe Robertson asked about the number of buses.  If there are 26 now and there is proposed to be 36, how many buses will be needed to support the schools in 3 years?  Dr. Patrick Terry, 219 Dogwood Court, who is the School District Superintendent, answered this question.  He stated that there are currently 26 bus routes.  The district normally adds 2 routes every 3 years.  That is with a growth rate of 8%.  He stated our current rate of growth is now 3%.  If 9 additional routes were added with 60 children per bus, that would add 1,080 students.  That would be a 30% growth rate and we currently do not see that happening.  This amount of growth would be beyond the projections for the next 5 years.

 

Joe Robertson also asked how much time and effort was put into finding an alternative location.  Dr. Terry stated that considerable time and effort was spent.  As far as the Industrial Park is concerned, the costs are not budgeted for this area.  These properties have large special assessments for streets, water and sewer attached to them. 

 

John McEachern asked if the school board had looked at other school property.  Dr. Terry stated that they looked at using the land by the railroad tracks and that was not a feasible option because of its close proximity to the railroad track at the driveway on to Andover Road.  Dr. Terry stated that they have looked at other areas. 

 

Jim Orr asked a procedural question.  He asked why the questions to address, which were listed on the agenda, were not the same as on the City Council’s draft minutes.   Tim McFadden stated that Gary Fugit’s motion addressed the items on the agenda.  That would be on page 4, paragraph 5 of the City Council’s minutes. 

 

Jim Orr asked if legal notice had been given.  Les Mangus explained that only one notice was necessary for this case as this is a continuing process until the City Council makes the necessary change in zoning or agrees with the Planning Commission. 

 

There was then general discussion between the members as to traffic on Andover Road.  Ron Roberts asked Dr. Terry how many buses travel north and how many buses travel south.  Dr. Terry did not know.  Les Mangus stated that with the number of students today, 10%-15% of the students are north of the schools, the balance are south of the schools. 

 

Ron Roberts is concerned that the proposed driveway is not wide enough and would cause traffic to stack up on Andover Road. 

 

Les Mangus commented that any fill on this site to change the terrain would be reviewed by FEMA as this property encroaches a flood plain.  Les Mangus also stated that FEMA flood plain maps anticipate fill in the area between the flood plain and flood way boundary.  The problem in this area with the drainage is back-water from the box culvert under the Turnpike. 

 

John McEachern stated that all new developments will be required to have flood water retention ponds, like lakes that are currently in

other developments.

 

Quentin Coon stated that he has not seen any significant changes over the plans presented last month. 

 

Jim Orr stated that he thought the removal of the fuel tanks was significant.  Jim Orr asked if they would have to come back before the Commission if they decided to add the fuel tanks at a later date.  Les Mangus stated that they would not have to come back unless that was made a condition for the Special Use.

 

Les Mangus stated that the number of trips a day, which was 280 is what he considers a significant change, however, he feels that 280 trips a day is not a significant number added to the traffic in that area as there are currently 12,000 to 14,000 trips a day on that area of the road.

 

Ron Roberts stated that another significant change was the parking.  Originally it was in the back and is now in the front.  It was gravel driveway and now proposed is asphalt and the bus parking would be concrete.

 

John McEachern stated that the lighting was not addressed last time and information presented was a significant change over last meeting.

 

Lynn Heath felt the drainage was an issue; however the fact that the information would have to go before FEMA handled his concerns.

 

Joe Robertson stated that traffic, drainage and the exterior of the building are issues.  He feels this is not the right location for this facility. 

 

Lori Hays feels this is not the right location for this facility either.  She does not feel it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.  She asked what the Comprehensive Plan had to say about the issue.  Les Mangus stated that the Plan is not specific to this issue.

 

Charles Malcom stated he does not feel this building belongs at this location.

 

Ron Roberts stated that this is not his favorite location but Howard and Helmer did a good job of making this compatible.  His main concerns are the driveway and size of the entrance.  He feels FEMA will handle the drainage issue.

 

Quentin Coon stated that this is out of character for the neighborhood.

 

Jim Orr feels this is not compatible with other uses in the neighborhood.

 

Jeff Bridges let the Commission know that they don’t have to take any action or make any motion.  The City Council would just consider the original motion.  John McEachern stated that since the City Council returned this to the Commission he feels we need to send a new motion to the City Council.  He stated that the Council wanted us to reconsider and the Commission has.

Z-SU-2000-01:  Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385.

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-SU-2000-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385, represented by James Nightingale of Howard and Helmer, Architects.

 

REQUEST:

Public School Transportation Center in R-2 Single Family Residential.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant property between Andover High School and BCCC, 21st Street Campus.

 

LOCATION:

1900 block of North Andover Road, east side.

 

SITE SIZE:

± 2.7 Acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

U.S.D. #385 Transportation Center

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Vacant R-2 used for agriculture

South:

R-2 Andover High School and church

East:

Vacant R-2 used for agriculture

West:

B-1 Dentist Office, Veterinary Clinic and R-2 Andover Heights across Andover Road.

 

Background Information:

The majority of the land in and around this application to the east is in the 100 year flood plain, based on the new Flood Insurance Rate Map.

 

 

* 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:

See page 1

 

 

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:

See page 1

 

 

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:

Due to drainage in the area

x

 

PLANNING:

Due to drainage in the area, difficult to build something else.

 

 

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:

The school has outgrown its existing center and traffic in the area has greatly increased

x

 

PLANNING:

Property has changed, needs of the school have district has changed due to new schools, increased enrollment.  This would add to safety of present parking area

 

 

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 facilities and streets are in place

x

 

PLANNING:

All facilities and streets are in place

 

 

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:

No

x

 

PLANNING:

Utility and drainage easements would have to be dedicated

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

x

 

PLANNING:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A Special Use

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A Special Use

 

 

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:

N/A

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

With considerable fill to elevate the land above flood elevation

x

 

PLANNING:

With considerable fill to elevate the land above flood elevation

 

 

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

 

x

PLANNING:

No, John McEachern voted yes.  Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Joe Roberson, Jim Orr, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom and Lori Hays voting no.

 

 

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. Special Use

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes, as a Special Use in R-1 Zoning

 

 

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:

Expansion of school facilities on existing land

 

 

PLANNING:

Tie vote.  Lynn Heath, John McEachern, Ron Roberts and Jim Orr voted yes, Quentin Coon,  Charles Malcom, Joe Robertson, and Lori Hays voted no

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

PLANNING:

Community opposition includes drainage issues, traffic, fumes of buses, number of buses, wrong location and proper use as per the Comprehensive Plan

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval as applied for

x

 

PLANNING:

Heard from the School District, looked at maps, saw staff recommendations and heard opinions of the community. 

 

 

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:

The drainage problem is perceived as a detriment by the public, as are traffic, security, aesthetics, and environmental issues.  Vote was 4 - 4.  Joe Robertson, Lori Hays, Charles Malcom and Jim Orr voting yes.  Lynn Heath, John McEachern, Ron Roberts and Quentin Coon voted no.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the Special Use zoning application, Joe Robertson, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2000-01 be disapproved to allow a Special Use in the zoning district classification in the R-2 Residential District, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 3, 6, 11, 12 and 15. Also there were split votes on items 14 and 17 which is a mute point but nonetheless indicates how difficult this problem is.   Motion seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 6-2 with Lynn Heath and John McEachern voting nay.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing  

 

Motion was made by Quentin Coon for a 15 minute break.  Motion was seconded by Jim Orr.  Meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m.

 

 

 

Meeting reconvened at 9:25

 

 

 

Z-2000-01 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition to B-3 Central Shopping District at 1304 E. U.S. Highway 54, Andover, Kansas.  Darrin Lyon, the owner of the property, presented his information to the Commission.  He is going to put an automotive repair business in at this location.  The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.  There is an existing building that will be torn down and a larger building will be built. 

 

Ron Roberts asked why this is not going to the B-5 zoning district.  Les Mangus answered that the property was not large enough.  Ron Roberts asked if the Commission could require Right-of-Way.  Les Mangus stated they could require it. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if the east side door was a bay door.  Darrin Lyons stated that the bay door would be on the South side of the building and in the Northwest corner of the building.

 

Ron Roberts asked the applicant if he was aware of the future expansion of U.S. Hwy 54 and that he could possibly end up with a street at his front parking.  Mr. Lyons replied he did know this and he knows it is not in the near future.  He believes they have planned well enough to have enough front area after the expansion.

 

Chairman McEachern asked for public comment on this case. There was none.  Public hearing was closed at 9:45 p.m.

 

Z-2000-01 Public Hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition to B-3 Central Shopping District at 1304 E. U.S. Highway 54

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Darrin Lyon

REQUEST:

Zoning change from legal non-conforming Agricultural Transition to B-3 Central Shopping District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Annexed with Ross Western Wear as legal non-conforming.

 

LOCATION:

1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54.

 

SITE SIZE:

164’ x 301’.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Automotive Service Business

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Butler County Suburban residence

South:

A-1 Agricultural Transition - residences and legal non-conforming RV dealership.

East:

A-1 Agricultural Transition - John’s Animal World, feed and supply store.

West:

Butler County Conditional Use - feed store & livestock trailer sales.

 

Background Information:

The applicant intends to live on the property in the existing residence and operate the automotive service business.

 

* 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:

See page 1.

 

 

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:

See page 1.

 

 

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:

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:

The increased traffic on the U.S. Hwy 54 Corridor makes the property less desirable for residential use

x

 

PLANNING:

Same as above, however also recently rezoned property down the street to Highway Business

 

 

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:

City sewer and water are on site.  McCandless Road is unimproved grave.

x

 

PLANNING:

City sewer and water are on site.  McCandless Road is unimproved grave.

 

 

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:

Platting required with necessary easements and building setbacks.

x

 

PLANNING:

Platting required with necessary easements and building setbacks.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

x

 

PLANNING:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

 

 

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:

Not in the immediate area

 

x

PLANNING:

Not in the immediate area. These cases are on a case by case basis

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

10.  If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Provides services

x

 

PLANNING:

Provides services and additional employment opportunities

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

Less than 5 acres is unsuitable for agriculture

 

x

PLANNING:

Same as above

 

 

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:

Business uses on both sides along the Highway Corridor

x

 

PLANNING:

Same as above.

 

 

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  contingent on platting, including access control to U.S. Hwy 54.

 

 

PLANNING:

Approval  contingent on platting, including access control to U.S. Hwy 54.

 

 

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?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

x

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the zoning application, Ron Roberts, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-01 be approved to change the zoning district classification in the Agricultural Transition District, to the B-3 Central Shopping District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 5, 7, 12, 13 and 16.  Motion seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.

 

At 9:36 p.m. a motion was made by Joe Robertson and seconded by Lynn Heath to recess from the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-V-2000-03  Application by Darrin Lyon for variance of the side yard setback of 10’ in the B-3 Central Shopping District to allow construction of an automotive service facility with an 8’ side yard setback on the east side only at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54.  Contingent on granting the change in zoning from Agricultural Transition District to B-3 Central Shopping District.

 

John McEachern stated “It is 9:38 p.m. and I now call Agenda item #11 which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-V-2000-03 pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a variance of 2’ from the required 10’ limitation for the purpose of an 8’ side yard setback on the east side, of property zoned as the Agricultural Transition District, which has a concurrent application to change the zoning to B-3 Central Shopping District.”

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

John McEachern welcomed the public to the hearing and laid out some of the ground rules. 

 

1.  “It is important that you present any fact or views that you have as evidence in this hearing so that the findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.  In order to grant a variance five specific written findings of facts must all be met according to the state statutes and the City Zoning Regulations.

 

2.  This board is authorized by state statute to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing Body.

 

3.  After the Zoning Administrator provides us with some background information we will call upon the applicant and then we will hear from other interested parties.  After all have been heard, each party will have an opportunity for final comments.  The Board will close the hearing to further public comments and then will consider their decision during which time they may direct questions to the applicant, the public, the staff or our consultant. 

 

4.  In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board can require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of fencing and/or landscape may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions on the premise benefited by the variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-107D which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance upon other property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as are provided for in Section 10-108D.  Failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to the zoning permit for a variance shall constitute a violation of the regulations.

 

5.  You should also be fully aware that if the applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes.  For example, if the applicant proposes to build a brick building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building with asphalt shingles, it’s not something that the City can enforce. 

 

6.  Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address. 

 

So at this time we would like to proceed with the hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing or voting on this case because of their spouse owning property in the area of notification, or conflict of interest, or a particular bias in this matter.”  

 

DISCUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

 

No one disqualified himself or herself.

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

Notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal on March 23, 2000.  The notice was mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on March 23, 2000 unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present; I will declare that proper notification has been given.  No one made any comment. 

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:

 

Have any of the Board members received any ex parte verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  No one had any comments. 

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;

 

Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief background on the case.   He stated that this is in connection with the previous zoning case. 

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

 

Darrin Lyon stated that along the highway corridor, most or all will be B-5 zoning.  B-5 allows for 0’ side yard setback.  He is unable to go with B-5 zoning due to the size of the property and asked for B-3 zoning.  He will need the extra 2’ to turn vehicles into the new building easier.  This will only affect the east side setback.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

There were no public comments.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

 

There were no written communications.

 

CLOSING THE HEARING:

 

The public hearing was closed at 9:51 p.m.  There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.

 

This request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize the Board to grant a variance.  This request is allowed due to Item B. To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements:

Public Hearing on BZA-V-2000-03 at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54.

 

 

                                                                                March 23, 2000

                                                                                                Publication date

 

Board of Zoning Appeal Action                                               April 18, 2000

Variance                                                                         Hearing Date

 

BZA-V-2000-03                     Agricultural with pending B-3 application

                                                Zoning District

 

A.            Variances from the provisions of the zoning regulations shall be granted by the Board only in accordance with the standards in Section 10-107(d), and only in the following instances and NO others:  (A through G).

 

1.             To vary the applicable lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements, subject to the following limitations:

 

a)       The minimum lot width and lot depth requirements shall not be reduced more than 25%.

 

b)       The minimum lot area for a single or two-family dwelling shall not be reduced more than 20%.

 

c)       The minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements for multiple-family dwellings shall not be reduced more than 10%.

 

Dimension of lot 164’ X 301’  Variance requested ___Reduce required 10’ side yard to 8’ on east side.

 

B.            To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements:

 

1.             The bulk regulations for this district are:

 

35’ front setback or 150’ to center line of U.S. Hwy 54, 10’ rear yard, 10’ side yard.

 

2.             Variance would change bulk regulations as follows:

 

8’ side yard setback on east side.

 

 

C.            To vary the applicable off-street parking and off-street loading requirements.  (Must establish time schedule for compliance…See Article 5):

 

N/A.

 

 

D.            To vary the sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding nonresidential district regulations:

 

N/A.

 

E.             To vary certain provisions of the FP Flood Plain District as provided for in Section 4-114(L):

 

N/A.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.        Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning             Appeals As per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

1.      Approval of B-3 zoning.

2.      Platting.                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Jim Orr as follows:  Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance as  modified, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Approval of B-3 zoning.

2.         Platting

 

There was no discussion.  Motion passed 8-0.

 

 

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson, seconded by Lynn Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Scott A. and Jan M. Bishop

REQUEST:

Change from R-2 Single Family Residential District to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District

 

CASE HISTORY:

Legal non-forming mobile home in R-2.

 

 

LOCATION:

206 E. Lafayette

 

SITE SIZE:

152’ x 370’, ± 29,700 sq. feet.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Multiple Family Dwelling

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Railroad, then Andover Intermediate School.

South:

R-2 Single Family & R-3 Multiple Family Residential

East:

Railroad and R-3 Multifamily Residences owned by the applicant

West:

Legal non-conforming business and R-2 Single Family Residential..

 

Background Information:

Heorman Street adjacent to the west of the Applicant’s property was vacated many years ago

 

* 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:

See page 1

 

 

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:

See page 1

 

 

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:

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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 The school has outgrown its existing center and traffic in the area has greatly increased

 

 

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 facilities and streets are in place.

x

 

PLANNING:

All facilities and streets are in place.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Very little R-3 property is available for development in the city.

 

 

PLANNING:

Same

 

 

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:

N/A

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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, Provides a variety of housing options.

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes, Provides a variety of housing options.

 

 

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:

Comprehensive Plan states we should provide for a variety of housing.

x

 

PLANNING:

Same as above.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Additional traffic, perception of declining property values

 

 

PLANNING:

Additional traffic, perception of declining property values

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval contingent on platting

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval contingent on platting

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

The gains from revitalization of the property would out weigh the effects of additional traffic.

x

 

PLANNING:

The gains from revitalization of the property would out weigh the effects of additional traffic.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the Special Use zoning application, Quentin Coon moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-02 be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-2 Residential District to the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 3, 9, 13, 14 and 16, contingent upon platting..  Motion seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

 

 

Z-SU-2000-02  Public hearing on an application for Special Use to allow a car wash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 320 N. Andover Road.

 

Billy Ledgerwood, Jr. and Janelle I. Ledgerwood are the applicants.  They were represented by Options, L.L.C.  Mr. Shawn Penner presented the information for Options, L.L.C.  The proposed project is a unique concept, being a two bay car wash, which is touchless and automatic.  Mr. Penner feels this would be a great asset to the community.  Mr. Penner stated that the building would be 300-400’ from the homes to the car wash building.  They are proposing to build a concrete wall on the east edge of the property.  Mr. Penner stated that the majority of the drainage off the property will flow to Andover Road.  This property sits between the Subway and the boat business.  Options, L.L.C. will build a retaining wall on the North boundary. 

 

The building will be a pre cast concrete with color, and sandblasted.  The building will have a metal roof.  Mr. Penner stated that the landscaping plan has been drawn up and will be presented to the Site Plan Review Committee in May.  Mr. Penner stated that it will be a good looking building; it will be landscaped and will be away from the residential area.    The storm water runoff from the back part of the property will flow south to the tube that is on the property.  The drainage from the front of the building will flow west to Andover Road. 

 

The back 100’ of the property will not be paved.  The front 200’ will be concrete.

 

The proposed hours of operation are 24 hours.  Les Mangus stated that the B-2 district allowed hours of operation to between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.  Mr. Penner stated this is a unique situation with automatic bays.  His experience is that there is very minimal traffic at night.  Regardless if the car wash would be open or closed, it would be well lit.  Mr. Penner would like to have the car wash to remain open 24 hours a day.  The car wash could be set up to only be operational the hours that are permitted.  The consensus of the Commission is that they will have to conform to the hours of operation allowed in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.  They would have to apply for a variance for hours of operation.

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

John McEachern stated there was a quorum present. 

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

John McEachern asked Board Members if there has been any ex parte communications.  There were no ex parte communications. 

 

Mr. McEachern asked if anyone needed to step down for any reason.  No Board member needed to step down.

 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST:

 

Applicant would like to establish a 2-bay touch-free automatic car wash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

John McEachern opened the meeting for public comments.

 Lynn Meyers, 331 N. Porth, Andover addressed the Commission.  He stated he lived behind, or directly east of the proposed car wash.  He asked about the wall at the back of the building.  He wanted to know the height and how water would be moved from that side of the property for proper drainage.  John McEachern stated that the plans show a 6’ wall.  Lynn Heath said that it appeared that the 10’ easement to the west and east of the property line is being used for drainage.  Mr. Meyers stated that the car washes he has been to and seen are noisy. He would also like to request slots in the fence to help the water flow to the west.  The other concern he had was for trash.  He was concerned there would be a lot of it.  He wanted to know how often it would be dumped. 

 

Tim McFadden asked if this application is approved and wanted to expand in the future would it have to come back to the Planning Commission.  Les Mangus stated that this is an approval for the whole property.  They would not have to be approved for any changes; however Les reminded the Commission that they can impose any conditions they would like to on this Special Use case.

 

Mr. Penner responded to Mr. Meyers’ concerns by stating that the car wash doors close on both bays when the car wash is in use.  The doors stay closed during the drying of the vehicle also.  The bay doors are closed to contain the noise.  Mr. Penner stated that the back wall is proposed to be 6’ masonry with block outs for drainage. 

 

There were no further comments from the public.

 

Public hearing was closed at 10:36.

 

Tim McFadden asked how the applicant was planning on closing down operation at 11:00 p.m.  John Fenster, a partner in Options, L.L.C. stated that the car wash is computer operated.  They can be set up on time or temperature sensors.  The computers can be set to shut down at certain times.  He also noted that there is regular planned maintenance on these car wash bays.  He stated that there are daily physical checks on the car washes.  He also stated that the computer is set up to automatically page a maintenance person if the system goes down.  There were no further questions from the Commission.

Z-SU-2000-02  Public hearing on an application for Special Use to allow a car wash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 320 N. Andover Road.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-SU-2000-02

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Bill Ledgerwood/Options, L.L.C

 

REQUEST:

Special Use for a carwash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

328 N. Andover Road, Andover, KS

 

SITE SIZE:

130’ x 305’

 

PROPOSED USE:

Self service carwash

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2      Action Sailcraft

South:

B-2      Subway.

East:

R-1      Thomas Acres residential Sub-division

West:

B-2       Pizza Hut, KFC, Sonic, Coastal Mart.

 

 

Background Information:

Single Family residence removed ± 1990.  Vacant since that time.  Sonic Drive In Special Use approved with conditions ± 1999.  Owner declined zoning change.

 

* 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:

See page 1.

 

 

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:

See page 1.

 

 

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:

± 10 years

 

x

PLANNING:

± 10 years

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Expansion of commercialization of Andover Road

 

 

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:

Drainage is of great concern, but could be remedied

x

 

PLANNING:

Same and water should flow to the front of the lot and to rear to the 12” tube.

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A Special Use

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A Special Use

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

10.  If the request is for business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Provides more services

x

 

PLANNING:

Same.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Only if adequate separation and screening are provided to the nearby residences to the east.

x

 

PLANNING:

Same as staff recommendation.

 

 

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, Special Use.

x

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

There is a case by case review of commercial applications along Andover Road.

x

 

PLANNING:

Same

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Lights, noise, trash, drainage, traffic

 

 

PLANNING:

Lights, noise, trash, drainage, traffic

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval and additional 10’ drainage easement along the rear of the lot.

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval and additional 10’ drainage easement along the rear of the lot.

 

 

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:

The proposed use would generate no more effect on the nearby residences than many of the uses permitted in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District, i.e. Service Station, Package Liquor Store, Restaurant.

 

 

PLANNING:

The proposed use would generate no more effect on the nearby

 residences than many of the uses permitted in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District, i.e. Service Station, Package Liquor Store, Restaurant.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the Special Use zoning application, Lynn Heath, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2000-02 be modified and approved to allow a Special Use in the zoning district classification in the B-2 Business District, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12, also an additional 10’ drainage easement at the rear of the property.  The Planning Commission asked that the Site Plan Review Committee consider an 8’ fence and other screening to cut out light and noise to residence, in regards to Item 8.  Motion seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion approved 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Jim Orr asked why Ordinance 828 was given to the members.  John McEachern stated he had asked Jeff Bridges for a copy of it to see what was done for the previous car wash.

 

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.

 

 

 

Revised Final P.U.D. Plan for Crescent Lake, Phase 2.  Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates spoke on behalf of Crescent Lakes.  Mr. Hill stated that the Subdivision Committee approved Phase 2.  The owners, after reviewing sales, want to downsize to about half of the original lots for Phase 2.  They want to go from 58 lots to 29.  This is all the same as the originally approved P.U.D., except the number of lots.  The water and streets will be extended.  Sewer will be from existing interceptors.

 

The Chairman asked for comments from Les Mangus.  Les Mangus stated that he is going to need a title report provided, a final drainage plan and restrictive covenants.  Mr. Hill stated those would be provided. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to approve the Revised Final P.U.D. Plan for Crescent Lakes, Phase 2 with the comments as stated by Les Mangus which are:

1.         Provide Title report

2.         Provide Final Drainage Plan and,

3.         Provide Restrictive Covenants.

Motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion passed 8-0.

Revised Final P.U.D. Plan for Crescent Lake, Phase 2. 

 

 

BZA-VA-00-02.  Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals.  Gary Schmidt is seeking a variance to construct an accessory building prior to construction of single family dwelling on property generally located at 12360 SW Blazing Meadows Road, Andover, Kansas.

 

Les Mangus stated that Gary Schmidt is asking for a variance to allow him to build his outbuilding on this property prior to building the single family dwelling.

 

There was general discussion between the Commissioners regarding this subject.  It centered around whether or not this should be allowed as the rules state the dwelling should be built first, then the accessory buildings.  Ron Roberts stated that this variance has been allowed in other cases.

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to recommend to the Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals that they follow the letter of the law and disallow the variance.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

Motion was made by John McEachern to recommend approval to the Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals providing the following conditions are added:

 

1. Provide a bond sufficient to remove the accessory building if the single family dwelling building permit is not issued and building started within two years from the building of the accessory building.  Motion was seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 8-0.

BZA-VA-00-02.  Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals

 

 

Review of Streetscapes Guildelines.  After general discussion, it was agreed that this agenda item be tabled and put on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting, which will be May 16, 2000.

Review of Streetscapes Guildelines

 

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adjourn the meeting.  Motion was seconded by Lori Hays.  Motion carried 8-0.  Meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m.