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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

January 16, 2001

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Ron Roberts, Sheri Geisler, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, and Charles Malcom.  Joe Robertson was absent.  Lori Hays arrived at 7:27 p.m. Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, 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 December 19, 2000 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes with the following change on page 18, “check on the building” changed to read “check on the building at 135 S. Andover Road” by Charles Malcom, seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 6 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the December 19, 2000 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the December 12, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the January 2, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the December 26, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  None.  Chairman McEachern asked Mr. Mangus if he had received any further drainage reports on the proposed Goodwill site.  Mr. Mangus has not. 

Committee and Staff Reports

 

 

Z-99-03 Diamond Creek P.U.D. as returned by the City Council to reconsider the location of the 8 ft. bicycle/pedestrian path.  Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates presented a new location for the pedestrian path.  He stated that after the Planning Commission approval of the location for the pedestrian path he and the developer met with Les Mangus with an alternate route for the path. Mr. Mangus stated that he agrees with the proposed alternate route from Mr. Travis as it puts the paths into the reserve areas and off the main street.  Mr. Hill stated that Mr. Mangus suggested that this alternate be taken to the City Council and discussed.  Mr. Hill did this at the January 9, 2001 meeting and the City Council returned this item to the Planning Commission for re-consideration.  In October of 2000 the Planning Commission had the following requirement:  An 8’ sidewalk on the North side of Diamond Drive, then through Reserve A (behind lots 1-7) to Fieldstone and 5’ sidewalk on the rest of Diamond Drive and Garnet and Pearl on either side of the street. 

 

The proposed alternate location is to install a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of Diamond Drive from SW 120th Street to Reserve “A” and on the south side from Reserve “A” to Fieldstone Drive and along either side of Garnet Drive and Pearl Drive.  An 8’ bicycle/pedestrian path is proposed along the east side of Reserve “B” from SW 120th Street to Diamond Drive and along the west side of Reserve “A” from Diamond Drive looping northward to the north end of Diamond Drive near Fieldstone Drive.  5’ access sidewalks are proposed to connect Emerald Circle and Onyx Court to the 8’ bicycle/pedestrian path and in Reserves “A” and “B”.

 

There is also a future 8’ bike/pedestrian path shown along 159th Street to 120th Street and from the corner of 159th Street and 120th Street to the end of the subdivision property on SW 120th Street.

 

After general discussion Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend approval of the Diamond Creek P.U.D with the alternate location of the bicycle/pedestrian path as shown in the drawing received at this meeting. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  The motion carried 6-0.

Z-99-03 Diamond Creek P.U.D. as returned by the City Council to reconsider the location of the 8 ft. bicycle/pedestrian path.

 

 

Z-2000-05 Public hearing on an application to amend the Village Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow drive-in and drive through restaurant facilities on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, located at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Village Road.   Chairman McEachern asked if there was any ex-parte communications regarding this project.  Commissioner Geisler stated that Mr. and Mrs. John Cash, 306 Village Road, which is lot 7, communicated with her that she and her husband do not want a drive-thru or drive-in restaurant in that area.  Les Mangus shared a voice mail he received with Chairman McEachern from Bill Blair, the owner of the duplexes directly west of this location, and Mr. Blair stated he has no opposition to this request. 

 

Mr. Bob Kaplan of 430 N. Market, Wichita, is an attorney representing the applicants Dr. A. J. Reed and Dr. George Howell.  Mr. Kaplan stated that is an application regarding the south 150’ of the property, which is the property that borders Village Road and Andover Road.   Mr. Kaplan stated that at the time of the original application for P.U.D. two uses were presented and deleted, which were liquor stores and restaurants with drive-thru facilities.  He stated that at that time there were no prospects for either.  Mr. Kaplan stated that since that date Dr. Reed and Dr. Howell have had contact with Spangles and are now requesting amendment to allow a drive-thru restaurant.  Mr. Kaplan stated he has reviewed the minutes of the past meeting for this subject and the “hot button” seemed to be the outdoor speakers and there was a lot of discussion and concern regarding this issue.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he wanted to bring in the intended user and have them address the issues the Committee may have. 

 

Mr. Kaplan stated he has brought into the meeting Dave Dooman, from Spangles to go over specific site information.  He has also brought Curt Radi, who is a distributor and vendor for speaker systems to simulate giving an order and give a sense of the noise decibel level.  Mr. Kaplan asked Mr. Radi what his decibel level was for his speaking in the meeting and Mr. Radi stated that it was averaging 68 decibels.   Mr. Kaplan stated that the order board will not be any louder than 68 decibels and the sound will be directed at one car only and also towards Andover Road, not the housing to the west. 

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that the access to Village Road was previously approved and not an issue for this hearing but also stated he brought Mr. Bill McKinley to address the traffic issues, he is a traffic engineer retired from the City of Wichita.  Mr. Kaplan stated Phil Meyer with Baughman Company was also in attendance to address any site planning and land use issues.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that the Commission has imposed an 8’ masonry wall on the west property line and wanted to remind the Commission there is also an existing cedar fence west of the proposed masonry wall.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this meeting is only addressing the south 150’ of the site. 

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that Mr. Blair owns the lots directly west of the 150’ site and is not in opposition to this use.  Mr. Blair has talked to Dr. Reed about this and also left a voice mail for Mr. Mangus stating his opinion.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Charles Malcom’ s motion from the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, stated his motion amended the original motion to allow speakers with a reasonable audio, not obtrusive to the adjoining neighborhood, which was approved.  Mr. Kaplan stated that restaurants were approved, outdoor speakers were approved and the access was approved.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the Planning Commission is here to address permitting a restaurant with a drive-thru.  Mr. Kaplan also stated that Grant Tidemann, of J. P. Weigand Realtors, the realtor for the project, was also present for any questions.  Mr. Kaplan then presented a letter from Curt Radi from 3M that offers an explanation of decibels. 

 

Commissioner Lori Hays arrived at 7:27 p.m.

 

Dave Dooman, 1128 N. Linden Circle, Wichita is the CFO and Director of Real Estate for Spangles.  He stated he was here to address the speaker orientation.  His company has recently spent a considerable amount of money on a new prototype building in Hutchinson, and is now in the process of refining the building.  This is what he will be showing the Commission.  He stated that one of the most important aspects of their business is the drive-thru, which accounts for nearly 50% of business.  The building design is oriented with the front of the building to face a major street.  In this case the sketch doesn’t orient the building to Andover Road but to Village Road and Spangles is willing to turn the orientation of the building.  The main reason to change the orientation is to relocate the drive-thru menu board and speaker box to the north and east instead of to the west.  Speaker and menu noise will be directed in a “V” shaped pattern toward Andover Road and won’t be heard by residents to the west and possibly even to the commercial on the north side of the site.  Mr. Dooman stated that they’ve satisfied concerns with the site speaker noise and sound levels.  Mr. Dooman stated that no matter what happens there will be car noise just like a restaurant without a drive-thru.  Ron Roberts asked if the building is rotated 90°, can’t the speakers be to the front.  Mr. Dooman stated that he has tried to work that out but he wants to make the traffic flow user friendly.  He could put the speakers in the front but the parking lot wouldn’t be user friendly.  Lynn Heath asked where the pick up window would be.  Mr. Dooman stated the pick up window will be on the west side of the building with no microphone, voice only.  Sheri Geisler asked what the building will look like.  Mr. Duman stated it is a 50’s style and submitted photos of the prototype building in Hutchinson to the Commission.

 

Curt Radi of 317 Roberts Street in Hutchinson, with Sound Products presented information regarding sound decibels.  Mr. Radi presented a demonstration of the proposed speaker set up at a preset 70 decibels.  He stated that 65 decibels is a normal conversational level.  Mr. Radi stated that the proposed speaker would be approximately 80’ east of the masonry wall.  Mr. Radi stated that a person usually can’t hear someone’s order when they are in front of you in the drive-thru order line.  He set up a unit on a chair and demonstrated 70 decibels.  Mr. Radi stated the speaker will be mounted lower than the chair seat height.  Lynn Heath asked if they provided the units for Wendy’s.  Mr. Radi stated they are authorized but didn’t know if they had done the Andover Wendy’s.  Mr. Heath stated that he is not able to hear people in front of him when they order or when the window is talking back.  Mr. Radi stated the new speakers are smaller and more efficient.  Sheri Geisler asked what the hours of the B-2 are.  Lynn Heath stated 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 

 

Quentin Coon asked what percentage of traffic flow will come from Village Road.  Mr. Bill McKinley, 304 Wind Rose Lake Drive in Goddard, a traffic engineer retired from the City of Wichita, answered the question.  He stated that only a small number of the traffic flow will come from Village Road.  Mr. McKinley sated that 90-95% of the traffic will come off of Andover Road.  Village Road will just be used for 50’ or so to get the entrance.  Mr. McKinley stated he feels the majority will come off of Village Road but not penetrate further than the driveway on Village Road.

 

Chairman McEachern asked Mr. Dooman what HC and HC VAN meant on the site drawing.  Mr. Dooman stated this stands for handicap and handicap van.   Chairman McEachern thought the location was a tight fit.  Mr. Dooman stated that Mr. Mangus had noted that also, and this item would be addressed by the architect.

 

The public hearing opened for public comment at 8:10 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone from the public to address the issue.

 

Jo Schreiber of 216 Village (lot 13) asked to address the Commission.  She stated this is an emotional issue to her.  She stated that when the developer first met with the neighborhood residents a year or so ago she was impressed with the quality of the proposed project but now it has all changed.  She also commented that the Braum’s lot is a public nuisance and something should be done.  Mrs. Schreiber asked why Spangle’s can’t put in a window and talk person to person.  She also stated she has problems with the access for Braum’s and Spangles being on Village Road and stated she feels this will cause traffic problems.

 

Guy Rupert of 119 Lexington stated he is living behind the office suites.  He stated he also went to the meeting a year ago and went with a negative point of view, but that changed.  He stated that Braum’s and Spangles will cause a lot of additional traffic on Village Road.  He stated that 50% of their business is drive-thru, just wait until the new High School was complete over there and watch the increase in traffic.  Mr. Rupert stated that having a drive-thru in the area could change the prices of homes.  He also stated he likes Spangles burgers, eats there often but doesn’t want Spangles at this location.  Mr. Rupert stated this may affect the buildings to the north of this location also.  He doesn’t believe anyone speaking lives in Andover and stated there are lots of traffic problems there now, and this will add to it.  Mr. Rupert stated he doesn’t know how you can add to the traffic in this area. Mr. Rupert stated that the areas south of Kellogg hasn’t been touched for development and asked why all the growth is to the north of Kellogg. 

 

Xury Hole, 318 Willowbrook is not concerned with the speaker boxes.  He stated people live closer to Taco Bell than anyone will live to Spangles but the auto dealer on the corner of Kellogg and Andover Road was extremely loud.  He stated he believes the City needs to look at the noise levels on Andover Road and on the highway.  It needs to be looked at and addressed.

 

Bob Kaplan, as a rebuttal to public comments, stated that during the meeting approximately a year ago there was no concern that the property was to be commercial.  That most of the attendees knew that property would be commercial.  He also stated the north side of the property is zoned for office business use only. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone else from the public to address the issue.  There were none.  The public hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m.

 

Charles Malcom asked how long it would be until the road from the neighborhood would be built to Kellogg.  Mr. Mangus stated that Jamestown is already built over to Onewood Drive and out to Highway 54.  Mr. Malcom asked if we knew how much traffic is on it.  Chairman McEachern stated there is not much, mostly the homeowners in the neighborhood.  Les Mangus stated there are no other provisions for roads to connect to Kellogg.  Mr. Mangus stated there is a cul-de-sac east of Onewood Drive but no changes have been approved. 

 

Quentin Coon commented that there is a lot of traffic on Village Road and Andover Road.

 

Ron Roberts asked the question when will we need to look at widening Village Road approach to Andover Road due to traffic. 

 

Les Mangus reminded the Commission that this is an application to add one use to the B-2 Parcel. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that this is an application for drive-thru and drive-in restaurants, a restaurant is already allowed and wanted to comment there will be cars idling at a drive-thru or a restaurant.  Lynn Heath commented that there is not much traffic by 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. in Andover.  He remembered that this was to be an upscale area with a lot of trees.  He doesn’t think this quite lives up to what was being proposed for in this area.  He doesn’t feel the speaker noise or evening traffic will not affect the neighborhood.  Mr. Heath again commented that he did not feel this was the type of building he envisioned from the previous P.U.D. presentation.

 

Ron Roberts echoed Mr. Heath’s comments and stated if a drive-thru was allowed he would like one-way in and out curb cuts.  He is very concerned with the curb cuts and not concerned with the speakers.

 

Sheri Geisler and Lori Hays agreed with Mr. Heath and Mr. Roberts.  Charles Malcom stated his concern was with traffic. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked Commissioner Hays if she had enough information to consider this issue since she had arrived.  He stated she did.  Then Chairman McEachern stated that the Planning Commission denied the drive-thru originally in July of 2000.  He asked what circumstances have changed to change the minds of the Planning Commission. 

 

Les Mangus addressed the traffic issue.  He stated that the traffic generation information from the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual states that a high turnover sit down restaurant averages 164 traffic trips for each 1000 square feet of restaurant space per week day.  A drive-thru restaurant averages 553 traffic trips for each 1000 square feet of restaurant space per week day.  Mr. Mangus then stated that sit down restaurants have between 39 and 150 trips per peak hour, and a drive-thru restaurant of this size could generate 300 trips per peak hour. Mr. Mangus stated that peak hour at a restaurant is considered noon to 1:00 p.m. He stated that there are now approximately 2,200 cars per hour during the peak time on Andover Road.  Mr. Mangus stated this drive-thru could add a 10-15% increase to the Andover Road traffic.

 

Mr. Dooman, the Director of Real Estate for Spangles, stated that he doesn’t feel the traffic count would be that high.  He stated that 500 cars a day is a pretty good day and he feel that 50% of the business in the drive-thru may be a high estimate, generally stores average 40-42% of their business from drive-thru traffic.  Chairman McEachern asked if there was a peak time in the evening.  Mr. Dooman stated that there is not any real peak time in the evening.  Fast food has traditionally not been able to attract a lot of evening business.  Lynn Heath asked if they served breakfast.  Mr. Dooman stated they did and that is a steady business, not a rush hour type business.

 

Mr. Kaplan wanted to clarify that when this was originally approved there was a permitted access on Village Road.  This entire acreage could exit onto Village Road, which was the idea of the original plan and now it appears to be an impediment to this project. 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the application, Quentin Coon moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that the application to amend the Village Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow drive-in and drive through restaurant facilities on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, located at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Village Road be denied based on the findings that this wasn’t the original intent of the P.U.D. and the increased traffic concentration on Village Road.  John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Chairman McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing. 

 

Chairman McEachern called for a recess of the meeting at 8:52 p.m. 

 

Meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.

 

Chairman McEachern stated that he neglected to ask Mr. Mangus if proper notice had been given.  Mr. Mangus stated that the notices were mailed to the property owners on 12/18/00 and notice was published in the paper on 12/21/00.

 

Z-2000-05 Public hearing on an application to amend the Village Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow drive-in and drive through restaurant facilities on the south 150 feet of Parcel 1, located at the northwest corner of Andover Road and Village Road. 

 

 

Z-2000-08: Public hearing on application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single Family Residential to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1519 N. Andover Road.  Les Mangus stated that the notices were mailed to the property owners on 12/18/00 and notice was published in the paper on 12/21/00.   Amy Emond, 9527 S.W. Otto, Augusta is the applicant.  She stated that she is interested in changing the zoning of this property for the purpose of opening a small “Victorian” tea room.  She stated she feels this is the perfect “grandma house” for a tea room.  There is one tea room in Augusta and one in Wichita which are doing very well.  Mrs. Emond stated that there would be seating for 19-20 people and parking for 7-8 vehicles.  At this time the hours are proposed to be 8:30 a.m.  - 2:30 p.m.  She feels they may have an occasional evening birthday party or shower.  Her intent is to furnish with antiques and “Victorian” memorabilia, serving teas, soups, salads and desserts.  She then stated that the driveway comes off of Andover Road and goes through to Lafayette Street.  Les Mangus stated the parking issue would have to go before the Site Plan Review Committee and this location would require at least 5-6 spaces. 

 

The public hearing was opened to public comments at 9:09 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone from the public to address the issue.

 

Wayne Duggan of 117 W. Lafayette stated he lives adjacent to the property, directly west.  He stated he has lived at this location for 22 years in this residence.  He stated there have been no significant changes to this neighborhood.  He stated that he is against spot zoning business development.  Mr. Duggan stated he feels that B-2 zoning should be further south on Andover Road.  Mr. Duggan stated he thinks there is plenty of other property already zoned B-2 to choose from.  He stated that anything else allowed in the B-2 could go into this location if this goes out of business.  He stated that the house across the street on the corner of Andover Road and Waggoner is already zoned for business.  He doesn’t feel this “spot zoning” fits into the Comprehensive Plan and neither does having business zoning on this part of Andover Road. 

 

David Clay owns the duplexes directly south of the subject property and agrees with Mr. Duggan.  He stated he is opposed to the B-2 zoning. He stated this is the old original town site and wants to keep it a residential district. 

 

Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 9:13 p.m.

 

Z-2000-08: Public hearing on application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single Family Residential to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1519 N. Andover Road. 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-08

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Kerry and Robert Graham/ Amy Emond

 

REQUEST:

R-2 to B-2

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing single family home on corner lot

 

LOCATION:

1519 N. Andover Road, southwest corner of Andover Road and Lafayette.

SITE SIZE:

100’ x 150’ = 15,000 square feet.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Victorian Tea House and Gifts

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-1 Office Business District with legal non-conforming multi-family dwellings.

South:

R-2 Single Family Residential District with legal non-conforming multi-family dwellings.

East:

R-2 Single Family Residential dwellings

West:

R-2 Single Family Residential dwellings

 

Background Information:

 

 

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

 

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

 

H.

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

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

See above

 

 

PLANNING:

See above

 

 

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 above

 

 

PLANNING:

See above

 

 

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:

Increased traffic makes the location undesirable for residential use.

x

 

PLANNING:

Increased traffic makes the location undesirable for residential use. One property south and east  zoned B-2 six to nine months ago

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

Dedication of half- street right-of-way to 50’ on Andover Road and 32’ on Lafayette. 

x

 

PLANNING:

Dedication of half- street right-of-way to 50’ on Andover Road and 32’ on Lafayette. 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Site Plan approval required

x

 

PLANNING:

Site Plan approval required

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A, existing structure

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A, existing structure

 

 

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, more services and employment opportunities would be provided.

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes, more services and employment opportunities would be provided.

 

 

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:

It is less desirable to remain R-2

 

 

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:

Increased traffic, lighting, etc. would not be compatible

 

x

PLANNING:

Increased traffic, lighting, etc. would not be compatible

 

 

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:

Case by case review of business applications between 13th Street and Andover Road.

x

 

PLANNING:

Case by case review of business applications between 13th Street and Andover Road.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

None.

 

x

PLANNING:

Applicant in support, 2 neighbors in opposition, want to keep this area residential._

 

 

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:

Approval as applied for

 

 

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 is perceived with adequate screening and parking improvements.

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment is perceived with adequate screening and parking improvements.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

There was general discussion regarding whether this area was suitable for the B-2 zoning.  Mr. Mangus stated that this area has 15,000 trips a day of Andover Road.  He also stated that if this property was a vacant R-2 lot it would probably not be the most desirable.  Lynn Heath read all the uses allowed in the B-2 zoning.  Mr. Heath stated that he feels the zoning change will begin to upgrade the area.  He stated this area is not conducive to single family dwellings.  Ron Roberts stated he is not keen on sticking B-2 zoning in a residential neighborhood, but a tea house is a nice use.  Lori Hays stated this is a nice compromise having a business trying to retain the residential feeling and there would only be 5-6 cars around at a time.

 

Jim Orr asked if he could make some comments.  They include: 

 

1.         Tea room would maintain the residential look but believes there would be more than 5-6 cars around the area. 

2.         The property on Andover Road may all be investments as well as rentals.

3.         Mr. Heath had commented about the reason a home near Andover and Douglas not selling due to the amount of traffic, however Mr. Orr feels the reason it hasn’t sold is unrelated to a traffic issue and doesn’t agree with Mr. Heath’s opinion.

 

Terry Emond of 9527 SW Otto, Augusta, asked to speak to the Commission.  He stated that the big issue seems to be liquor stores.  He stated he doubted a liquor store or hardware store would go in there, they would want a higher traffic area.

 

Ron Roberts stated the business isn’t the issue the zoning is the issue.

 

Les Mangus and Jeff Bridges provided the information that state law provides a 200’ separation from schools, churches and libraries from liquor stores and cereal malt beverage sellers.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Charles Malcom, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-08 application for change of zoning district classification from R-2 Single Family Residential to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1519 N. Andover Road be approved based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, to support the motion include items 5, 6, 14 and 16.  John McEachern seconded the motion.   Motion carried 6-2 with John McEachern and Ron Roberts opposed.

 

 

 

Member items.  Chairman McEachern asked Mr. Mangus about the concrete fence at Andover Crossing Apartments.  Mr. Mangus stated that the fence was to be 8’ across the north side of the property line behind Blockbuster Video and Taco Bell and then 6’ the rest of the way. 

Member items. 

 

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to adjourn.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.

Adjourn