|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
March
21, 2006
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met for a
regular meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 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, Ron Roberts and Jeff Syrios. Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community
Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, Management
Assistant Sasha Stiles and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale. Commission
Members Lynn Heath, Charlotte Bass, David Martine, and City
Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges were absent.
|
Call to Order
|
|
|
|
|
Review the minutes of the February 21, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting.
Jan Cox asked if the directional on the address on
page 4 was correct. Deborah Carroll said it should have been West 120 th Street instead of North and has been corrected.
Ron Roberts made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Review the minutes of the Feb.
21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council
minutes from the February 14, 2006 and February 28, 2006 meetings. Quentin
Coon asked if the Planning Commission would be receiving lap top computers as
well. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the March
7, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. Ron Roberts asked why the
address is 253 N. Andover Road for Site Plan and 229 N. Andover. Les
explained the site plan was only for the corner lot and the zoning case is
for the entire Pergola property. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the March
14, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and
filed.
Review the Potential
Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications
|
|
|
|
|
VA-2006-03:
Recommendation on the vacation of the right-of-way located at The South
fifteen (15) feet of the south side of Harry Street between Phyllis and Timothy Road.
Les
Mangus explained this case is to resolve a lawsuit involving the acquisition
of Street Right of Way to accommodate the installation of the waterline to
the Aspen Creek Addition between the City and Dan Taylor, the owner of the
property South of Harry St. & Andover Rd., the City has agreed to vacate
the acquired R/W, and in turn Taylor has agreed to dedicate a corresponding
easement for the existing waterline.
Quentin
Coon asked why this is so important. Les said that in fee title a public
street right-of-way belongs to the public whereas an easement belongs to the
property owner.
Jan
Cox asked if an easement is taxed. Les said yes it is.
Ron
Roberts asked if these 15 feet are in addition to the previous road
right-of-way and would it then line up with Aspen Creek’s right-of-way. Les
said the existing right-of-way was 30 feet and the acquisition from 7-8 years
ago was out to 45 feet. This vacation is the strip between 45 feet and 30
feet given up as a right-of-way and then dedicated back as an easement. Les
said it will line up with the easement line that is shown on the water line
drawing provided.
There
was discussion about the variation of right-of-way along Harry Street. Ron
Roberts said someday the City will have to buy this back. Les said yes, that
if ever there was a need for more right-of-way for a road project, the City
would have to buy this as a right-of-way which would overlap the utility
easement. Discussion continued.
Jan
Cox asked if this is not approved by the Planning Commission, does it go to
the City Council without recommendation. Les said the Public Hearing is held
by the City Council for a final decision.
Jeff
Syrios asked if this case is at the City Attorney’s recommendation. Les said
yes it is. Discussion continued. Jeff was concerned that the Planning
Commission does not have enough information to make a decision. The other
members agreed.
Jeff Syrios made a motion to send this case on to
the City Council without recommendation. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5/0.
|
VA-2006-03: Recommendation
on the vacation of the right-of-way located at The South fifteen (15) feet of
the south side of Harry Street between Phyllis and Timothy Road.
|
|
|
|
|
Z-2006-03:
Public Hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from
B-2 Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with
a Protective Overlay on property located at 229 N. Andover Road.
Les
explained this application arises from the sale of the vacant lot at the
Southwest corner of 2nd Street and Andover Rd for the construction
of an O’Reilly’s Auto Parts Store. O’Reilly’s discovered in the site planning
process that there is 5,000 square foot limitation per business in the
existing B-2 zone. The proposed B-3 zone would eliminate the business area
limitation, but through the use of a Protective Overlay eliminate some of the
permitted uses in the B-3 that may be objectionable to the adjacent
residences. Staff supports the application as written.
Chairman
Coon opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. and asked the applicant to
approach the podium.
Paul
Cavanaugh, architect from Places Architects, 100 E. Waterman in Wichita said he is the architect for the owner of Pergola Place. He said he has tenants
who need more than the 5,000 square foot as allowed which will require a
zoning change. He said the Protective Overlay should prevent objectionable
uses.
Quentin
Coon asked if the applicant approved of the B-2 zoning limitation of hours of
operation. Paul Cavanaugh said there are no limits to of hours of operation
in the B-3 zone.
Jeff
Syrios asked Les if there is a problem to not limit the hours of operation in
the Protective Overlay. Les said the B-3 zone does not have limits to the
hours of operations. Les said there is a possible tenant who wants an
exercise salon open 24/7 with a club membership.
Jeff
Syrios asked Paul Cavanaugh if there were any other reasons for changing from
B-2 to B-3. Paul said they want to broaden the option of uses within the
retail center. He said the fitness center is called “Anytime Fitness” with a
private membership. Paul said there would be less traffic with this type of
facility.
Byron
Stout asked if there would be aerobic
classes held there with loud music. Paul said this is only personal fitness.
Jan
Cox asked if there would be any security personnel on staff. Paul said no
there would not be.
Byron
Stout asked if there will be a sound
system inside the building. Paul said there would be one.
Quentin
Coon was concerned about the B-3 zone allowing a taller building. Les said
the bulk regulations are slightly different for the B-3 zone.
Jeff
Syrios asked Les if he has any concerns whether the stated exceptions cover
everything. Les said he has studied this and does not see anything of great
concern.
Ron
Roberts said if these businesses change in the future, the Planning
Commission should limit the use of outdoor sound systems. Discussion
continued about outdoor sound systems and drive-in and drive-thru
restaurants.
Byron
Stout asked about the storage facility
to the rear of the retail center. Paul Cavanaugh said he does not think the
owner is now going to build the storage units and is considering using that
lot for parking. Paul said there is a concrete fence between this property
and the residential neighborhood. Les said the existing concrete fence is in
place and 8’ high.
Quentin
Coon asked if the entire property is asking for the B-3 with the Protective
Overlay. Paul Cavanaugh said yes it is for the entire parcel.
Byron
Stout asked if O’Reillys would not
locate here if this zoning change were not approved. Paul said 6,800 square
feet is the smallest store they build.
Quentin
Coon asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak to this issue. No one
came forward. Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Caroline
Hale asked if the entire property is asking for the B-3 with the Protective
Overlay. Quentin Coon said yes it is for the entire parcel.
Discussion
continued among the members. Les said conditions could be added to the
protective overlay. Les continued to explain the Post Office is also in the
B-2 zone, the Catholic Church to the south is partially in a B-1 zone which
does not have any limitations on hours of operations.
Ron
Roberts asked if the back lighting to shield from the residential
neighborhood be taken care of at Site Plan Review Committee. Les said that
has been addressed with cut-off type fixtures.
Jeff
Syrios asked for discussion about drive-in and drive-thru restaurants. Quentin
Coon said the B-2 zone does not allow drive-ins. Jan Cox was concerned if
drive-in restaurants were prohibited in this overlay, would that exclude them
from that entire end of town. Les said the only true drive-in here is Sonic,
and it is there by special use. Drive-thru is considered an accessory use to
a restaurant. Les said drive-thru speakers are not mentioned at all in the
zoning regulations. Ron said if the speakers are placed on the side facing
the residential neighborhood, they would be more obnoxious.
Chairman Coon began the review of the rezoning
report at 7:39 p.m.
|
Z-2006-03: Public Hearing
on the proposed change of zoning district classification from B-2
Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a
Protective Overlay on property located at 229 N. Andover Road.
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 6
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
Z-2006-03
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Don and/or Jeff Walenta-
Paul Cavanaugh- Places Architects
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Zoning district
Classification change from B-2 Neighborhood Business District to B-3 Central
Shopping District with a Protective Overlay.
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
229 N. Andover Road- SW
corner of 2nd Street & Andover Road
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
2.8 acres- 452’ x 270’
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Retail Strip Center and Auto Parts Store
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-2 Pizza Hut Italian
Bistro
|
|
South:
|
B-2 Post Office
|
|
East:
|
MH-1 Andover Estates Mobile Home Park
|
|
West:
|
R-3 Two-Family
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
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:
|
See page 1
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Changing business conditions.
|
|
|
|
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 and adequate.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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 result in more traffic and activity.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
We may have more to add to this later.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Approval as applied for.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
No comment.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion continued. Quentin Coon wants to see
banning of outside speakers. Jan Cox said she would rather limit the outside
speakers rather than banning them. Ron Roberts said it would be better to ban
them at this point and variances could be applied for in the future if
warranted.
Jeff Syrios continued discussion about drive-ins and
drive-thrus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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-2006-03 be modified &
approved to change the zoning district classification from the B-2
Neighborhood Business District to the B-3 Central Shopping District with a
Protective Overlay as applied for with the addition of no outdoor sound
systems based on the findings 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 of the Planning
Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Jeff
Syrios. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Roberts made a motion to recess the Planning
Commission and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Quentin Coon seconded
the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2006-02:
Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 200 square feet from the
required 1,000 square foot limitation for the purpose of constructing a 1,200
square foot detached garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family
Residential District located at 620 Ruth Avenue.
Les
explained this application arises from the owner’s desire to construct a
30’X40’ detached garage, which exceeds the 1,000 sq. ft. limitation for
accessory structures in the R-1 zone. The lot is 1.09 acres, which is more
than twice the minimum size for the R-1 zone, and would easily accommodate
the 1,200 sq. ft. garage proposed. Staff supports the application.
Chairman
Coon opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. and asked the applicant to
approach the podium.
Rick Stevenson of 620 Ruth Avenue said he just wants
to build a garage.
Ron Roberts asked if this would be built on the
north side of the house. Rick said the garage will be on the south side. Les
said the house faces west.
Jan Cox asked if his driveway would be extended to
the opening of the garage. Rick said yes it would be.
Chairman Coon closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.
and began the review of the Findings of Fact.
|
BZA-V-2006-02: Public
Hearing on an application for a variance of 200 square feet from the required
1,000 square foot limitation for the purpose of constructing a 1,200 square
foot detached garage on property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential
District located at 620 Ruth Avenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Roberts made a motion
at 7:58 p.m. to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the
Planning Commission. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final Plat of the Cornerstone School Addition located at 21st Street and 159th.
Les
explained this is the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone
School Addition This plan was reviewed in preliminary form at the last
meeting, and has been finalized, and reviewed with recommendation for
approval by the Subdivision Committee. The plan utilizes the changes in
zoning district classifications and parcel boundaries that were approved as
an Amendment to the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD at the last meeting. The
engineer has addressed the comments on the Staff Checklist.
Ron
Roberts asked if the text was added as requested in the Subdivision meeting. Les
said the text is included about the 5,000 square foot limitation to avoid the
school and businesses being limited to that size. Rob Hartman said there was
other text concerning public easements being vacated by virtue of the plat.
Les said those words have to appear on the face of the plat to be able to
vacate any existing easements on the property and rededicate them as platted
easements.
Jan
asked where it states for Elementary School only. Les said that is in the
permitted uses.
Quentin
Coon asked about sidewalks. Ron Roberts said there are better sidewalks in
this subdivision.
Jan
Cox asked if there would be any parks in this plat. Les said this plat will
not have a public or neighborhood park. The plan shows a 5-acre park in the
parcel to the north of this one.
Jeff
Syrios asked Les if he sees any problems with this plat. Les said this
developer has worked hard with staff to integrate 8’ sidewalks and a system
of collector streets that limit access for the residences to the collector
streets. He said this is one of the better plans.
Quentin
Coon asked about the “t” at Keystone Parkway to go into the subdivision area.
Les said there will be a street that will “t” off of Keystone at the east
side of the Elementary School site that goes back into the residential area
and there will be another collector street that comes out of the residential
neighborhood and runs across the north end of the school site to create a
division between commercial and residential which each have their own collector
street systems.
Ron
Roberts asked about the entrance to the hospital that lines up with the
entrance to Quail Crossing. Les said there is a second entrance that will be
built in the future.
Ron Roberts made a motion
to recommend approval of this Final Plat of the Cornerstone School Addition to the City Council as presented. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried
5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Items:
Ron Roberts- Asked
about a future change of the 5,000 square foot limitation on B-2 Business
District. He asked if the Zoning Regulations needed some changes.
Les Mangus
said it is time to do an overhaul of the Zoning Regulations which were
originally drafted in the mid-1970’s. He said all the zones need review. Les
suggested a committee to take a look at even the style the regulations are
written in. Our regulations are based on permitted uses. Some are based on
prohibited uses or performance standards. Les recommended bringing our
regulations up to date so they would address things like video rental stores
and drive-up windows. Discussion continued about options of zoning changes.
This effort will need to be a mixture of City Council, Planning Commission,
Staff, and Planning Consultant.
Caroline Hale- Said
she thinks it is a good idea to review this.
Jeff Syrios-
Asked how the changes in the Zoning Regulations would affect the
Comprehensive Development Plan. Les said that was added in the latest
revision. Jeff Syrios asked how this process should begin. Les said the
Planning Commission could make the suggestion to the City Council to be
discussed in a workshop session. The Mayor and Planning Commission could
appoint members to a committee to spend a few months to study and make
revisions of the Regulations.
Caroline Hale- Said she thinks it is time for a joint workshop of the City Council
and Planning Commission where this could also be discussed. She said she
would mention this at the next City Council meeting.
Jan Cox- Asked
if there needs to be a motion to approve the minutes from the previous
meeting. She also asked about having a consent agenda for the Planning
Commission. Les said Deborah would research the bylaws to find the answer to
that.
|
Member Items
|
|
|
|
|
Byron Stout made
a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5/0.
|
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully Submitted by
__________________________
Deborah
Carroll
Administrative Secretary
Approved this 18th
day of April 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|