ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

December 20, 2005

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Clark Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were Lynn Heath, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges.  Commission Members David Martine, Jan Cox, City Council Liaison Caroline Hale and  Zoning Administrator Les Mangus  were absent.

Call to Order

Review the minutes of the November 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

Charlotte Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the minutes of the Nov. 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the November 8, 2005 and November 29, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the December 6, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Chairman Nelson noted Les Mangus is not here tonight due to illness.

Communications:

SU-2005-04: (Continued from November) Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to establish a Used Automobile Sales Facility in the B-5 Highway Business District located at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive, Andover, Kansas.

Clark Nelson stated a letter has been received from Richard and Shane Krehbiel who asked this hearing be continued until the January Planning Commission meeting so they could attend.

Jeff Syrios made a motion to defer this Public Hearing until the January 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

SU-2005-04: (Continued from November) Public Hearing for SU to establish a Used Automobile Sales Facility in the B-5 Highway Business Dist.

Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the Planning Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Recess

BZA-V-2005-09: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 83 square feet from the required 67 square feet maximum sign area limitation for the purpose of allowing a 150 square foot wall sign on property zoned as the B-5 Highway Business District located at 1114 W. US Hwy. 54(Mid-Kansas Marine).

Clark Nelson opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Jeff Bridges explained that if this application is approved, the total signage is still less that what is allowed on the property. Jeff said according to the memo from Les, he supports the application conditioned on the limitation of no additional pole, ground, or monument signs.

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone from the audience wished to address this request.

Andy Schroeder, employee of Mid-Kansas Marine said he would try to answer any questions of the Commissioners.

Chairman Nelson asked Andy Schroeder if the store would comply with the conditions requested by Les. Andy said he was not sure what was planned by the owner. Discussion continued about temporary signage.

Clark Nelson asked if there were conditions placed by the Site Plan Review Committee for the signage on this property. Deborah and Jeff researched the minutes of that committee. Discussion continued. Andy Schroeder said this new sign will be lighted.

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. Hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. and began the checklist of factors and findings.

Jeff Bridges said he had the Site Plan Review Committee minutes from this case. They state the owner agreed to plant some low growing shrubs on the corners of the property. There was concern about the driveway not being  very well defined so they will plant shrubs along the frontage road  where they won’t be driven over.

Jeff Syrios asked if the property owner was aware of the condition of no future signage. Jeff Bridges said in the minutes of the Site Plan Review Committee, the owner made no request for additional signage. Discussion continued.

BZA-V-2005-09: Public hearing on an application for a variance of 83 square feet from the required 67 square feet maximum sign area limitation for the purpose of allowing a 150 square foot wall sign on property zoned as the B-5 Highway Business District located at 1114 W. US Hwy. 54. (Mid-Kansas Marine)

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;

Clark Nelson said due to the frontage road adjacent US 54; it is difficult to place signage.

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.

Lynn Heath said the property is not conducive to a pole sign.

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.

Clark Nelson said there is less square feet of signage than is allowed for the property.

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.

Clark Nelson said that is not exclusively based upon making more money.

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 Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-09 as requested subject to the following conditions:

1. Limitation of no additional pole, ground, or monument signs.

Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

BZA-V-2005-10: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 2 feet from the required 6 foot maximum fence height limitation for the purpose of constructing an 8 foot chain link fence with gates around the maintenance facility on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District located at 1608 N. Andover Road. (USD #385) Chairman Nelson asked if anyone was present to speak on this application.

Tracy Smith, Director of Maintenance and Custodial Services for USD #385 came to the podium said she would answer questions of the Commission.

Jeff Bridges said this area is prone to vandalism and security is an issue for the district.

Quentin Coon asked if there is an existing 6’ fence. Tracy Smith said there is no fencing currently in this area but the poles are already set for the 8’ fence pending tonight’s approval. There was general discussion about fencing at the other school. Discussion was had about the vandalism and dumping in this area.

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and began the review of the checklist of factors and findings.

BZA-V-2005-10: Public hearing on an application for a variance of 2 feet from the required 6 foot maximum fence height limitation for the purpose of constructing an 8 foot chain link fence with gates around the maintenance facility on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family Residential District located at 1608 N. Andover Road. (USD #385)

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 Charlotte Bass move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-10 as requested.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

H.

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

1.

None required.