Public hearing on an application for special use to establish a place of
assembly at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive.
Les Mangus stated that the owners of the property, which is in the B-5 Highway
Business District, located at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive has operated under
temporary use permits for fireworks, haunted houses and dances in the past.
Mr. Mangus stated that this property is located at the southeast corner of 159th Street and U.S. Hwy 54. Mr. Mangus stated that Augusta R.V. did a lot
split 3-4 years ago and Mr. Krehbiel bought the property. Wholesale
Fireworks has come before the City Council in the past with temporary use
permit requests and been approved. Mr. Mangus stated that the purpose of
this request from the landowner is to expand the current uses and allow some
of the these requests to become permitted uses in order to eliminate the need
for them to have to appear in front of the City Council on such a regular
McEachern asked if any members needed to disqualify themselves. No one did.
McEachern asked if proper notice was given. Mr. Mangus stated that it was.
Notice to landowner was mailed November 21, 2000 and Public Notice was
published in the Andover Journal Advocate on November 22, 2000.
McEachern asked if there was any ex parte communication. There was none.
Mangus commented that this property is currently zoned B-5 Highway Business
District and was zoned this when the property was annexed into the city and
platted in the early 1990’s.
McEachern stated that there was a letter in the packet that needs to be
included in the minutes. It is as follows:
Planning Commission Members,
own the adjacent Cottonwood Point Housing Development and have concerns with
the special use request proposed by Wholesale Fireworks. The houses on our
northern border will be impacted by excessive noise and site pollution
generated by these and other uses requested at this location. Please review
carefully each special use request as if it were to be within 100 feet of
The definition of a special use PG 2-19 (by
ordinance 740) of the City of Andover says;
use of a structure or land which is not permitted outright within a zoning
district because of characteristics that might have an adverse affect upon
nearby properties or the future development of the district unless certain
conditions can be placed on the use which would make it suitable to the
purpose of the district and compatible to the other uses so designated. Such
uses are “special” in that they are facilities and/or whose location would
have planning implications for a neighborhood or the entire city.”
is our opinion that the application brought before this committee by
Wholesale Fireworks will have an impact to our housing development if the
activities are not restricted. Because the storefront of this business has
in its name Fireworks, we request the following restrictions are placed on
the special uses requested.
No outside storage of any kind.
a. This should include Balloons, signs, diesel
trailer, boom box, fencing materials and tents.
b. If a storage truck is used to unload equipment of
any kind, it will be unloaded and removed from the parking lot. If a storage
trailer is needed for any of these events a temporary use permit would be
No outside activities of any kind.
3. Boom boxes or remote radio stations vans will
not be allowed on the southern Side of the Wholesale Fireworks building.
4. No activity will be allowed which interferes
with the normal flow of traffic on public roads. If after the activities, a
public road has been littered or trashed, Wholesale Fireworks will clean up
5. Rave parties will not be allowed.
6. Seminars that are put on to sell Fireworks
should not be included in this special use permit or should any event that
includes Fireworks be assumed to be part of this special use request.
7. No activities will occur after 12:00 p.m.
weekends and 10:00 p.m. weekdays. If activities after 12:00 p.m. are
desired, a temporary permit must be applied for.
consider our concerns as related to the approved residential development
immediately to the south of these activities. If these uses are allowed,
without restriction, adjacent lot values, assessed values and ultimately
taxes collected will be impacted.
you for your consideration.
& Debie Bush, Owners of Cottonwood
Roth of the firm of Woodard, Hernandez, Roth & Day, LLC, of 237 N.
Broadway is representing the applicant, E. K. Investments, 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive. Mr. Krehbiel is out of state or he would have been at the
meeting. Mr. Roth views this application as clean up work. This property
has been zoned B-5 Highway Business District since Mr. Krehbiel has owned
it. Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Krehbiel has spent close to one million
dollars on this property so far, and has recently acquired some additional
land. Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Mangus suggested that this application be
brought in as a special use. Mr. Krehbiel would like to hold other functions
such as auctions, seminars, reunions, weddings and other such functions.
Prior to today he has had to come before the City Council and ask for a
temporary use. Mr. Roth didn’t believe any request had been turned down.
Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Krehbiel is asking for the right to do what he has
already been doing but without having to go in front of the Council each
time. These uses requested are not as onerous or disruptive as the allowed
B-5 uses. These uses seem to be in with the examples listed as special
uses. Mr. Roth stated that the letter from the Bush’s has many restrictions
requested that if they would be imposed would be very damaging. Mr. Roth
stated he believes this is part of a standing disagreement with neighbors.
Mr. Roth asked that the Planning Commission please not hinder the request for
the special use. Mr. Roth asked that Mr. Krehbiel be allowed to keep the
status quo and this be a special use instead of a temporary use.
McEachern then opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Debie Bush from Cottonwood Point Development spoke
on behalf of herself and Dennis Bush. She stated that they own the property
adjacent to the subject property and submitted the subject letter. She
stated that their addition, Cottonwood Point was approved and should be
developing within 1 ½ years. Mrs. Bush stated that their premise is that as
it is now the uses are not restricted. They are also concerned because the
word “Fireworks” is on the building. This gives the impression it is a
fireworks building 365 days a year.
The Bush’s do not feel that seminars having to do with
fireworks should be allowed. They do not feel there should be any outside
storage of any kind allowed at any time, however if there is storage allowed
it should be limited. They feel that there should be no outside activities
allowed as this is close to their property line. They feel that auctions
outside would be inappropriate. Mrs. Bush stated that boom boxes or remote
radio stations vans should not be allowed on the southern Side of the
Wholesale Fireworks building as it is detrimental to the residential area.
Mrs. Bush commented that after an event in his building there is a large the
amount of trash on the highway and he should clean it up. Mrs. Bush stated
that we don’t’ want “rave party” to be a perception of Andover. Mrs. Bush
commented on the seminars at this building. The Bush’s also expressed their
concern at the 2:00 a.m. curfew; they feel this is too late.
Bush asked why haunted house was not in the application as a special use.
Mr. Mangus stated that it was not listed on the application for the special
use. Mrs. Bush stated she did not understand the phrase “but not limited to”
on the application and wanted a definition of this. Mrs. Bush stated that
the biggest issue for them is the storage outside and the perception that
fireworks are sold there.
was no one else from the public to address the issue.
Mr. Roth responded to the issues in the letter and
the comments from the Bush’s. Mr. Roth stated that the permanent sign on the
building does say “Fireworks” but does not feel anyone thinks they can come
in 12 months a year and buy fireworks. He does not feel the sign with the
name of the company is an issue and should not impact any decision made
tonight. Mr. Roth addressed the issue of hours. Mr. Mangus stated that the
application had no hours of operation requested. Chairman McEachern stated
that this is a staff recommendation.
McEachern commented on the Rave party that was held at this location. He was
concerned that there were drugs and lots of young kids at the party. Mr.
Roth stated that this was a supervised party and the Andover Police
Department was there. Jeff Bridges stated that the name Rave just means a
dance party. If any drugs were there, the drugs are there illegal and
certainly not sanctioned by the owners of the property. Mr. Roth stated that
if there is a special use or a temporary use he would hope the Police would
be there and that obviously drug use is the worse thing in the world for the
property and the community.
Roth was not sure why the issue of seminars being held at the building was
brought up. He stated that Mr. Krehbiel has stands across the state and
sometime during the year he has a meeting to explain rules and regulations
and to educate them as to how to run the stands for the 4th of
July holiday. In regards to the outside storage it is allowed by any other
businesses in this area and there is no logical reason to deny their request
based on storage.
Roth stated that as for the trash, there is trash at both locations for the
fireworks in this area and that should be taken up with the parties which are
involved with licensing of the fireworks stands.
Roth stated that they are asking for everything which was allowed under the
temporary uses, none of which have had any restriction by the City Council
thus far. Mr. Roth also stated that none of the neighbors have had any
restrictions for boom boxes and he doesn’t feel his client should have any
Chairman McEachern asked if there were any further
comments from the public. Hearing none, Chairman McEachern closed the public
hearing at 7:45 p.m.
McEachern asked if the 17 uses in the zoning were outright allowed, such as
taverns. Mr. Mangus stated that they are outright permitted uses; there is
no need to go before the City Council for a permitted use. Chairman
McEachern confirmed that what the applicant is requesting is not a permitted
use. Mr. Mangus stated that an “assembly building” is not listed as a
permitted use. There was general discussion. Lynn Heath asked about
screening in the rear of the property. Mr. Mangus stated that the Site Plan
Review Committee approved an 8’ solid wood fence for the rear of the
property. Chairman McEachern asked if it was in place yet. Mr. Mangus
stated that it was not. The owner wanted to wait until this case was
Coon asked about the “but not limited to” phrase on the application. Mr.
Mangus stated that Mr. Krehbiel and Bickley Foster, the City Planning
Consultant, came up with this phrase to cover other similar uses, such as bar
mitzvahs, divorce parties, etc. Things that are similar but not necessarily