ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION                  

Agenda Item No. 7 

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2005-01

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Minor Emergency P.A. & Dr. George Howell/ Baughman Company

REQUEST:

Amendment to the Village Crossing PUD Parcel #2 except the North 225’ from B-1 Office Business to B-2 Neighborhood Business with limited B-3 Uses.

CASE HISTORY:

Original 2000 Preliminary PUD application was for B-2, but the Planning Commission & Applicant agreed to limit the North 425’ to B-1 uses.

LOCATION:

West side of Andover Road between village Road and Lexington Street.

SITE SIZE:

200’ x 250’

PROPOSED USE:

Limited retail & service businesses.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

Village Crossing PUD Office Business- Optometrist Office

South:

Village Crossing PUD Neighborhood Business- Retail Strip Center

East:

R-1 Single-Family Residences- Willowbrook

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residences- Andover Village

Background Information:

Originally platted as a part of the Andover Village Addition & zoned R-3 Multiple-Family Residential in 1977.

* 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:

PLANNING:

Documented 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:

PLANNING:

Documented 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:

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:

All are in place.

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:

Site Plan Review required.

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?

x

STAFF:

There are many vacancies in existing strip centers, and vacant land available already zoned for proposed uses.

x

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:

Opportunities already exist that are not being utilized.

x

PLANNING:

Les said there is considerable amount of B-3 property available in the city and very little B-2.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

Three existing offices adjacent to the north.

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:

More intense uses would create additional noise, light, traffic, and etc.

x

PLANNING:

Clark Nelson said this has been tempered now by the compromise.

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 uses along Andover Road between arterial street intersections.

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

Adjacent residences oppose more intense business uses.

PLANNING:

No public attendance at this meeting.

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:

Support the previous decision and deny the application.

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

17.                                                                                                                                                                                                                If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Ron Roberts,, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-01 be modified & approve to change the zoning district classification from the B-1Office Business District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the  following conditions be attached to this recommendation:

“Permitted uses within Lot 2 (except the north 5 feet thereof) ” prohibited uses are: automobile service stations, bed and breakfasts inns, all and any uses of outdoor speakers, package liquor stores, food stores, as well as all restaurants , based upon factors & findings  6, 7, 11, 13, 14.

 Motion seconded by Lynn Heath. Motion carried 8/0.

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 David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-02 as requested. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

H.

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

1.

None required.

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 Jan Cox move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-03 as subject to the following conditions:

1. Dedication of 9’ of street right-of-way to meet the minimum 32’ half street required. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 8/0.

H.

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

1.

Dedication of 9’ of street right-of-way to meet the minimum 32’ half street required.