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

  ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

November 21, 2006

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission members present were Jan Cox, Byron Stout, David Martine, Lynn Heath, and Jeff Syrios, Ray Jessen.  Others in attendance were City Council Liaison Member Caroline Hale, Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, and Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges.  Absent- Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll.

Call to order

 

 

Review the minutes of the regular October 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Jan Cox made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Byron seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Review the minutes of the regular October 17, 2006 PC mtg.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the October 10, 2006 and October 24, 2006 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the November 7, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications

 

 

SU:2006-06: Special Use request to establish a Fitness/ Sports performance training facility in the I-1 Industrial District located at 317 E. Commerce. (ATG Sports)

 

Public Hearing:  Chairman Coon opened the public hearing on the application.

 

Tim Simoneau, the applicant, was the first to speak.

 

Mr. Simoneau, 1018 Park Road, in Rose Hill Kansas, handed out letters from the adjacent property owners in the industrial park stating their support for the project.  He stated this proposed change of use from the contractor shop to a performance training center will specialize on individual training needs.  He stated that it would be a private training facility with a safe and positive environment; it would benefit the local economy and provide good recognition for the local athletes and national exposure for Andover. 

 

Chairman Coon asked if there were to be significant renovations to the building.  Mr. Simoneau replied that there would not be.

 

Chairman Coon asked how this facility is different than the YMCA.

 

Mr. Simoneau responded that this facility will be private and more personalized training will take place.

 

Chairman Coon asked how many people will be at the facility at the same time.

 

Mr. Simoneau responded that most of the training will be one on one.  There will be programs for groups perhaps up to 10.

 

Jan Cox asked where they are currently located.

 

Mr. Simoneau stated that they are currently renting a space at the Countryside Pet Clinic.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if they had looked at any other spaces.

 

Mr. Simoneau stated that they had, but ATG Sports was willing to sell the building.

 

Mr. Syrios stated that the Planning Commission has to keep their eye on the big picture and although they may want your business in Andover, perhaps that location may not work.  The Planning Commission has to look at broader issues.

 

Chairman Coon asked if ATG Sports will be vacating the building. Mr. Simoneau said yes they would be.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if there would be outdoor activities. Mr. Simoneau stated that there would not be at this time.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if limiting the use to indoors was a deal breaker. Mr. Simoneau said that it was not.

 

Elton Parsons of 1830 N. Lakeside Drive, Andover, represented Promote Andover Inc., who controls the industrial park on behalf of the group.  The Promote Andover Inc. board does not support this application and request that the special use be denied due to its incompatibility with the industrial uses in the park.  PAI guaranteed to the other industrial users that this would be an industrial park and their neighbors would be industrial tenants.  PAI will work with Mr. Simoneau to find another location in Andover.

 

Dave Martine asked why the adjacent property owners signed the letter supporting the application.

 

Mr. Parsons stated that he did not know.  He knew that when they were dealing with the companies locating in the park, those users stressed the desire be with other industrial users.  That was a critical factor for some of them.

 

Ray Jessen asked how long the industrial park has been there.

 

Les Mangus stated that this portion of the park has been there about 10 years.

 

Dennis Bush of 726 S. 159th Street, Andover stated that when he was Mayor and Sherwin Williams (Aerospace) came to town, they were very particular about locating in an industrial area.  PAI made a commitment to them and he felt that should be honored.  Mr. Bush stated that he remembered when the Sherwin Williams facility on 13th wanted to expand.  There were numerous people that spoke out against it.

 

Paul Driver, 1240 E. Meadow, Wichita, is the owner of ATG Sports.  He stated that there was not a lot of activity in the park and he wants to sell this building because he wants to build a bigger one.

 

Gary Hamilton of 750 N. Sagebrush Ct., Wichita, stated that he had been a member of PAI since day one.  He stated PAI could have sold the park numerous times over but they have been trying to preserve the land for industrial users.  He stated that there is not much industrial land in Andover.  Development of the industrial park is a long range goal and the City should not be short sighted about it.

 

Council Member Hale asked how many lots are available.

 

Mr. Hamilton stated that there is one big 40+ acre lot and there are 4 platted lots available.

 

Paul Driver stated that for his business it would have made more sense to be in St. Louis, there are a lot of restrictions in Andover.  Jabbara Airport also has land available that would make more sense.  He stated that the land is unattractive and he would like to see more businesses near him.

 

Elton Parson said that what Mr. Driver said was the exact reason for the preservation of the industrial park – to protect the integrity of the community. He stated that industrial parks take a long time to fill up.

 

Chairman Coon then closed the public hearing.

 

There was general discussion about the industrial park. Les Mangus stated that although the use may be desirable to be in the community, it is not compatible at all with the I-1 zoning.

 

The Planning Commission then began its deliberations.

 

In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the applicant desires to convert the existing industrial building from office and storage uses to a fitness/sports performance training facility. All of the zoning documents suggest against the intermingling of industrial and non-industrial uses. The intent and purpose of the I-1 Industrial District is to provide for light industries, with retail and service businesses which provide a particular service or convenience to industrial uses or employees thereof. The Comprehensive Plan suggests against the conversion of industrial land to other uses. The proposed use is not necessarily incompatible with the existing industries, but could cause some concern for conflicts with future industrial uses at this location in the middle of an industrial park. Staff recommends that the application be denied, based on the suggestions of the intent and purpose of the I-1 Industrial District and the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

SU:2006-06: Special Use request to establish a Fitness/ Sports performance training facility in the I-1 Industrial District located at 317 E. Commerce. (ATG Sports)

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5.

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2006-06

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

ATG Sports – Paul Driver Owner / Tim Simoneau

 

REQUEST:

Fitness Training Facility in the I-1 Industrial District

 

CASE HISTORY:

Existing industrial building currently occupied by ATG Sports.  ATG Sports constructs athletic fields around the country.

 

LOCATION:

317E. Commerce Street, Andover Industrial Park

 

SITE SIZE:

189’ X 400’, 1.8 acres

 

PROPOSED USE:

Fitness / sports performance training facility

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

I-1 Industrial – Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.

South:

I-1 Industrial – Vacant

East:

I-1 Industrial – Sherwin Williams Aerospace

West:

I-1 Industrial – Vacant

 

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:

Concur

 

 

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:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

5.   Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

X

STAFF:

 

 

X

PLANNING:

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

N.A. No land available in exact situation.  There is plenty of other commercially zoned land for this use.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

X

 

STAFF:

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Could affect the desirability of the adjacent industrial land.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13.   Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

 

X

STAFF:

Retail and service uses in the I-1 zone is limited to those which service the industrial park employees

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

X

STAFF:

Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Goals for Planning, “Land use (I) preserve future industrial land from competing uses in favor of long range development.

 

X

PLANNING:

Concur

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

Promote Andover Inc, the developers of the industrial park, do not support the application due to the long range goal of preserving the industrial park for industrial uses.

 

 

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:

The Andover Industrial Park restrictive covenants limit uses to “manufacturing, processing, storage, wholesale, office, laboratory, professional research, and development activities.

 

 

PLANNING:

Concur, and a recommendation from PAI not to approve.

 

 

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:

 

X

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-06 be disapproved to change the zoning district classification from the I-1 Industrial District to the I-1 Industrial District, Special Use for a Fitness Center, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Those findings being # 13, the request would not be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations, #14, the request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and #15 that PAI the developers of the Industrial Park request that the application be denied due to the incompatible use and inconsistency with the covenants of the park. Motion seconded by Jan Cox. Motion carried 4/3 (Commissioners Martine, Jessen, and Stout in opposition).

 

 

 

Motion by Dave Martine, seconded by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried 7/0.  BZA convened at 8:29 pm.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-08: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 74.95 square feet from the required 71.93 square foot to permit aggregate total wall signage of 146.88 square feet on property zoned as B-3 Central Shopping District and located at 253 N. Andover Road. (O’Reilly’s Auto Parts) 

 

Danny Yoast of 1060 East 167 North, Mulvane Kansas represented the applicant, O’Reilly’s Auto Parts.  He stated that the standard O’Reilly’s sign is larger than what is allowed in the zoning district and they would like a variance to put up the larger sign.  He also stated that there will be a monument sign that is consistent with the zoning regulations on the property as well.

 

There was discussion amongst the members regarding the visibility of the smaller sign versus the larger sign and the applicability of the regulations.

 

In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the applicant desires to exceed the 5% maximum surface area for wall signage in order to increase visibility of the new O’Reilly Auto Parts store. The request more than doubles the wall signage allowed in the B-3 Central Shopping District. Wall signage is in place on the building, which complies with the 5% limitation. Staff is of the opinion that no conditions exist that makes this location unique, or creates a hardship for the applicant.

BZA-V-2006-08: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 74.95 square feet from the required 71.93 square foot to permit aggregate total wall signage of 146.88 square feet on property zoned as B-3 Central Shopping District and located at 253 N. Andover Road. (O’Reilly’s Auto Parts) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have not been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move the finding that the Board of Zoning Appeals lacks the jurisdiction to consider the variance Therefore BZA Case-V-2008-08 be denied.  Motion seconded by Dave Martine.  Motion carried 6/1 with Commissioner Cox in opposition.

 

 

 

 

BZA-V-2006-09: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 400 square feet from the required 5,000 square foot minimum lot size limitation for the purpose of reducing the lot size of one of two lots of property zoned as the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District and located at 708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.

 

Gene Rath, of MKEC Engineering. 411 North Webb Road represented the applicant.  He stated that the lot, on which a duplex sits, cannot mathematically be divided into two conforming lots.  The applicant is asking for the variance to allow the lot split.

 

Les Mangus stated that this has been done before.  The geometry of the lot works against a conforming split/

 

In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the applicant desires to split the existing two-family dwelling to sell ownership of each unit separately. The proposed split line leave the west unit with 4,607 sq. ft. of lot area, which is 393 sq. ft. shy of the 5,000 sq. ft. required. Given that the lot is an unusual cul-de-sac shape yet meets the bulk regulations for lot coverage and building setbacks, Staff recommends approval as applied for.

BZA-V-2006-09: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 400 square feet from the required 5,000 square foot minimum lot size limitation for the purpose of reducing the lot size of one of two lots of property zoned as the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District and located at 708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.

 

 

 

 

 

F.

 

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

X

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

 

 

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

X

 

 

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Byron Stout move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2006-09.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Jessen.  Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

 

 

Motion by Jan Cox, seconded by Dave Martine to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and Reconvene the Planning Commission.  Motion carried 7/0.  The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:57 pm.

 

 

 

LS-2006-01: Review the proposed lot split located in Autumn Ridge Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1, 708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.

 

Gene Rath of MKEC Engineering, 411 N. Webb Road for the applicant.

 

Les Mangus stated that all the staff comments have been addressed.

 

In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the proposed lot split divides the existing two-family dwelling for the purpose of selling the individual units separately. The proposed division meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, except for the variance of the minimum lot area addressed in the previous BZA case. Staff recommends approval contingent on the granting of the minimum lot area variance.

 

Motion by Lynn Heath, seconded by Byron Stout to approve the lot spilt.  Motion carried 7/0.

LS-2006-01: Review the proposed lot split located in Autumn Ridge Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1, 708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.

 

 

 

Member items. Les Mangus gave an update of the activities of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the development on the west side of 159th Street and 21st Street.

 

Dave Martine wanted to discuss the issue of the lot grading and drainage standards in the city. After somewhat lengthy discussion, there was a motion by Byron Stout, seconded by Dave Martine, to request to the Council that they review and perhaps create a committee to do so to look at the 1.0 percent grading standards and the costs of changing them.  Motion carried 5/2 with Chairman Coon and Commissioner Cox in opposition.

Member items

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Jeffrey K. Bridges Jr.

City Clerk / Administrator

 

Approved this 16th day of January 2007 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.