ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

June 20, 2000

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Lori Hays, Lynn Heath, Sheri Geisler and Quentin Coon.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:00 p.m.   Chairman McEachern welcomed Sheri Geisler as a new member to the Planning Commission.

Call to Order

Review of the minutes of the May 16, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Ron Roberts, seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Minutes of the May 30, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Review of the minutes of the May 16, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Committee and Staff Reports.   None.

Z-97-03.  Tuscany - Amendments to Preliminary P.U.D.   Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates and Mark Cox the developer presented information for revisions to the Tuscany Preliminary P.U.D.  Kenny Hill stated that this is an amendment to the preliminary P.U.D.  He listed the changes:

1.         Amending Parcel 4 and 5.  Previously Parcel 5 was 2.3 acres and zoned B-2 Commercial.  They are changing to 6 acres as B-2 Commercial.  Parcel 5 uses have been expanded to include a hotel.  Wording has been added to include a 100’ setback from the residential, per the City’s request. 

2.         The remainder of Parcel 4 is proposed to be R-3 Residential Zoning.  These will probably be twin homes. 

3.         They have added a pool in the Northwest corner of Parcel 4.  This would serve Parcel 4 and 1.  The pool will be put in now. 

4.         There are some street names that are in the process of being changed.

Quentin Coon asked if the entire Parcel #5 was for a hotel.  Kenny Hill stated that the B-2 zoning does not allow for a hotel.  Les Mangus stated that they are asking to add a hotel as a permitted use. 

Quentin Coon asked if the lot sizes in Parcel #4 remained the same.  Kenny Hill stated that they are a bit larger.  Mr. Coon asked if the multiple family would be duplexes.  Mr. Hill stated that there will be mainly duplexes, however 4-plex units are permitted.  The P.U.D. will limit them to 50 dwelling units.

John McEachern stated that the hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  He asked if the hotel would need some type of exemption.   Mr. Hill stated that he did not know.  Mr. McEachern stated that the wording should reflect the hours of operation for a hotel.  Mr. Hill agreed that there is a need for a revision.  Mr. McEachern stated that there is only one house that is affected by this proposal.  It is lot 18 and abuts this property.   That property is also for sale. 

Lynn Heath stated that Parcel #5 originally had no hours of operation listed on the P.U.D.  The Subdivision Committee required 7 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. hours of operation be listed and a 100’ buffer between business and residential.    Mr. Heath sees no problem with a hotel/motel in this area and doesn’t feel it contradicts the spirit of the B-2 Business district.  Quentin Coon is concerned with the lighting in the area.  Ron Roberts is concerned about the traffic.  Lynn Heath stated that the Site Plan Review Committee will monitor the lighting and other issues.  Mr. Heath asked if this amended P.U.D. reflects the change in size of Parcel #5.  Les Mangus stated that it did reflect the change.

Mr. McEachern stated that he is not receptive to a hotel/motel in this area. 

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.  

Mr. Brian Lowrey of 205 W. Waterford Circle, in Andover addressed the Commission.  He stated that he lives near the subject property.  He is not opposed to a convenience store or similar operation, however he is opposed to a hotel/motel.

After no further public discussion, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.

Joe Robertson stated that this zoning allows for a bed and breakfast.  He has mixed emotions about a hotel/motel in this zoning.  He stated that there was no mention of a hotel/motel at the Subdivision Committee meeting. 

Lynn Heath stated that the current P.U.D. has the B-2 zoning but has no hours of operation restrictions.

Les Mangus stated that there is no distinction between a bed and breakfast and a hotel in the definitions.  He stated there is no definition for a motel.   Mr. Mangus added that in his discussions with the owner and his engineer, they stated that they wanted to stay within the character of the B-2 zoning but wanted the ability to have a bank, hotel/motel and convenience store in the area.

There was then general discussion regarding the B-2 and B-3 districts and the proposed changes. 

Chairman McEachern then went through the rezoning report with the Commission as follows:

Z-97-03.  Tuscany - Amendments to Preliminary P.U.D.  

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-97-03

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Mark Cox, applicant.  Kenny Hill, Agent

REQUEST:

Enlarge B-2 Neighborhood Business District and change Parcel #4 to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District.

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant property with current P.U.D.

LOCATION:

Northwest corner of SW 120^th Street and Andover Road

SITE SIZE:

120 Acres.

PROPOSED USE:

B-2 Neighborhood Business District and R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-2 Single-Family Tuscany P.U.D. lots.

South:

Butler County Suburban residential lots and Veterinary Clinic.

East:

Butler County Agricultural land and R-2 Flint Hills P.U.D.

West:

R-2 Single-Family Tuscany P.U.D. lots.

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 page 1

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:

See page 1

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:

No

x

PLANNING:

No

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:

No

x

PLANNING:

No

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:

Water and sewer could be extended.  Paved streets are in place.

x

PLANNING:

Water and sewer could be extended.  Paved streets are in place.

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:

Yes

x

PLANNING:

Yes

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

x

PLANNING:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee, for screening between residential and  business

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:

R-3 or B-2 property is available in the immediate vicinity

x

PLANNING:

Property with same zoning is two to three miles away from here

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

N/A No specific uses are identified

PLANNING:

N/A No specific uses are identified

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?

x

STAFF:

Yes.

x

PLANNING:

No, not 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:

Yes

PLANNING:

Parcel 4, Yes.  Parcel 5, No

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:

Business every mile

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

Suburban residential neighbors oppose urban type residential and commercial development.

PLANNING:

Opposition includes one neighbor opposed to hotel/motel development.

The developers are requesting a motel/hotel zoning

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 with conditions or modifications by the board.

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 greater detriment to the public is perceived than the current

permitted uses.

PLANNING:

No greater detriment to the public is perceived than the current permitted uses, except if a hotel/motel is allowed on 40,000 sq. feet.

COUNCIL:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Joe Robertson, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-97-03 be modified and approved to enlarge the zoning district classification of the B-2 Neighborhood Business District and change Parcel #4 to the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District.  Conditions for Parcel #5 are the hotel be confined to a 300 foot square on the corner of SW 120^th and Andover Road, with unlimited hours of operation.  The unlimited hours of operation are also allowed for a convenience store located within that 300 foot square.  The business hours allowed on the remainder of Parcel #5 are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This is based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 8, 9 and 14.  Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 6-1 with Quentin Coon voting nay.  Motion for amendment by John McEachern to limit hours of operation.

CLOSING REMARKS:

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.

The meeting was recessed at 8:45 p.m.  Meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-03, Lot 4, Block 2 of the Heorman Addition, 1502 N. Andover Road, Andover.   This is request to change from R-2 Residential District to B-1 Office Business District.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notification had been given.  Mr. Mangus stated that it had.  The notice was mailed to landowners on 5/12/00 and the notice was publicized on 5/18/00.

The applicant, Mac Howard was present.  He is located at 8021 N. Mockingbird Lane, Wichita.  He is the trustee of this property for Mary Howard.  He stated that he is asking for a change in zoning to allow his business at this location.  Joe Robertson asked if Mr. Howard would have a lot of customers.  He stated that he would not; as this was not a business open to the public. 

The public hearing opened at 8:56 p.m. 

Mr. Dale Hanson of 216 Willow Road, Andover, Kansas has 120 and 122 Waggoner, which is a duplex to the east of the subject property.  He stated he is not opposed to the zoning change, he just wants to make sure that the parking is on Andover Road and if it is not, then that it is screened well so parking cannot be seen from his adjoining property.

Chairman McEachern asked if this project would go before the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Mangus stated that it would not.   Chairman McEachern asked Mac Howard about screening to the East and the North.  Mr. Howard stated that the property is screened to the north already.   Les Mangus stated that screening would be required between the B-1 Business District and the Residential District.

Public hearing was closed at 8:59 p.m.

COMMENTS:

Lynn Heath agrees with the application and stated that the resale of older single family homes is difficult.  Lori Hays had no comment.  Joe Robertson agrees as long as screening is required, he feels this use fits the ideology of the City of Andover.  Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon and Sheri Geisler stated they believe the use is appropriate.  John McEachern thinks this is inserting business districts into residential areas.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-03, Lot 4, Block 2 of the Heorman Addition, 1502 N. Andover Road, Andover.   This is request to change from R-2 Residential District to B-1 Office Business District.

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 6

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-03

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Mac Howard

REQUEST:

R-2 Residential District to B-1 Office District

CASE HISTORY:

Residence

LOCATION:

1502 N. Andover Road

SITE SIZE:

75’ x 135’.

PROPOSED USE:

Office building

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residences, Heorman Addition

South:

B-1 Office Business - U.S.D. #385 Offices

East:

R-2 Legal non-conforming Two-Family Residence, Heorman Addition

West:

R-3 Multiple-Family Residential- Two family dwelling.

Background Information:

Established residential subdivision east of Andover Road.  Traffic counts exceed 12,000 trips per day on Andover Road.

* 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 page 1

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:

See page 1

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:

No

x

PLANNING:

No

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 along Andover Road makes residential use less desirable.

x

PLANNING:

Agree

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?

STAFF:

Water, sewer and streets are in place.

PLANNING:

Water, sewer and streets are in place.

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 street right-of-way to minimum subdivision standards

x

PLANNING:

Dedication of street right-of-way to minimum subdivision standards

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

Screening to  the North and to the East

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:

None available in the vicinity of the applicant property

x

PLANNING:

None available in the vicinity of the applicant property

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:

Would provide services and employment opportunities

x

PLANNING:

Would provide services and employment opportunities

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?

x

STAFF:

Yes. With adequate screening and parking

x

PLANNING:

Yes. With adequate screening and parking

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:

Page 8-11.  Case by case review along Andover Road

x

PLANNING:

Page 8-11.  Case by case review along Andover Road

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

None

PLANNING:

No opposition, however one property owner wants to make sure that there is adequate screening between the subject property and his property

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

PLANNING:

Approval with conditions or modifications by the board

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 to the public is perceived

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived

COUNCIL:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Lynn Heath moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-03 be approved to enlarge the zoning district classification from the R-2 Single-Family Residential District to the B-1 Office Business District. This is based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 5, 10 and 14.  Motion seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 7-0. 

CLOSING REMARKS:

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-04, Lot 2 Block 1, Andover Village Addition, Andover.   This is request to change from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood Business District.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notification had been given.  Mr. Mangus stated that it had.  The notice was mailed to landowners on 5/22/00 and the notice was publicized on 5/25/00.

Public hearing was opened at 9:08 p.m. 

Bob Kaplan presented information on behalf of the applicants George Howell and Luella Koppitz.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this is property is the residual of the Braum’s sale.  This property is immediately adjacent to and west of Braum’s property.   Mr. Kaplan stated that a segment of Williamsburg Road dead ends at Village Road.  There is a vacation agreed to by Dr. Reid, Mr. Howell and Mrs. Koppitz, which would eliminate the traffic problem. If the council approves the vacation of the right-of-way, half would go to each property affected.  Mr. Kaplan stated that his clients feel this is a good buffer between business and residential access off Village Road.  Joe Robertson asked if there is any specific use known for this property.  Mr. Kaplan stated at the specific use is not known at this time, his clients feel it would makes good economic sense. 

Mr. Emil Schreiber of 216 Village Road, Andover, had some comments for the Commission.  Mr. Schreiber is extremely concerned with the traffic congestion at Andover Road and Village Road.    He feels there is no problem with the B-2 Neighborhood Business District use for that property, he feels that is a good use for that property.   Mr. Schreiber doesn’t want a commercial operation to direct traffic into the neighborhood.  He is also concerned with the access into the property.  He stated there is already a lot of traffic on Village Road and he is worried about the safety of the children in the neighborhood.

Mr. John Cash of 306 Village Road, Andover, agreed with Mr. Schreiber and emphasized his concern for a large increase in traffic on Village Road.

Chairman McEachern asked if this property hadn’t originally been a buffer between Andover Road and the residential neighborhood.  Les Mangus stated that it has not been a buffer.  He stated that the R-3 was R-3 since platting in 1977.  All B-1 was adjacent to Andover Road.  Bob Kaplan stated that this was not a buffer.  This property is a left over piece of the lot not used by Braum’s. 

James Rose of 336 Williamsburg stated he felt the use of the land was okay but the traffic was the issue.  He wants to keep the traffic down.  He would like a business in there that will keep the traffic down. 

Emil Schreiber stated again that he had no problem with the B-2 zoning.  What he objects to is the access to a residential street.  He stated that there should not be access to a residential street.  He wants the applicant to come up with a road that does not empty onto Village Road.  He doesn’t want the traffic from Williamsburg or Braums on Village Road.

The public hearing was closed at 9:33 p.m.

Mr. Kaplan stated that he believes the driveway is shared with Braums and opens to Village Road, and there is only one curb cut.  Les Mangus stated that Braums platted a joint access at the NW corner of the parcel.  Mr. Mangus also stated that the frontage on Village was very small and limited to joint access with Braums.  There are two accesses on Village Road, one at Andover Road and Village Road and another on Village on the west side of the lot.

Lynn Heath asked how many businesses would be in this area.  Les Mangus stated that there would be at least three. 

Sherri Geisler asked if a traffic count had been done in that area.  Les Mangus stated that 22,000 a day on Andover Road.  Jim Orr asked if there has been a traffic count done on Village Road.  Mr. Mangus stated that no traffic count has been done on Village Road.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-04, Lot 2 Block 1, Andover Village Addition, Andover.   This is request to change from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood Business District

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 7

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-04

APPLICANT/AGENT:

George Howell & Luella Koppitz, Robert Kaplan, Agent

REQUEST:

R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

CASE HISTORY:

The east 130’ of this lot was rezoned to B-2 for Braums

LOCATION:

½ block West of Andover Road on the south side of Village Road.

SITE SIZE:

40,650 sq. feet

PROPOSED USE:

No specific use.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-3 Multiple-Family Residence

South:

B-5 Highway Business - Used car lot.

East:

B-2 Neighborhood Business - Braums under construction.

West:

R-3 Multiple-Family Residential

NW

R-2 Single-Family Residential

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:

No

x

PLANNING:

No

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:

No

x

PLANNING:

No

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:

Water, sewer and streets are in place.

x

PLANNING:

Water, sewer and streets are in place.

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:

Access control and vacation can be separate instruments

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?

x

STAFF:

No property zoned B-2 available in the immediate vicinity.

x

PLANNING:

No property zoned B-2 available in the immediate vicinity.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

N/A - no specific use identified

PLANNING:

N/A - no specific use identified

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?

x

STAFF:

Yes

x

PLANNING:

No, there are residential neighborhoods in 3 different directions, there should not be a liquor store allowed.

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:

Not consistent at the intersection, and goes too far into a residential area. Lynn Heath, Lori Hays, vote yes, remainder vote nay.

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:

Increased traffic in a residential neighborhood with a lot of children and some B-2 Business uses not conducive to nearby residential area

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 contingent on vacation of the Williamsburg Street right-of-way.

x

PLANNING:

Approval contingent on vacation of the Williamsburg Street right-of-way.

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 to the public is perceived

PLANNING:

Increased traffic in a residential neighborhood with a lot of children and some B-2 Business uses not conducive to nearby residential area

COUNCIL:

After going through the checklist, Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus if the Commission could change the zoning from B-2 to B-1.  Les Mangus stated that the Commission might approve a more restrictive zone than applied for but not more than applied for.    Chairman McEachern then read the B-1 zoning regulations.  Chairman McEachern re-opened the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. regarding zoning this property B-1. 

Mr. John Cash of 306 Village Road, Andover, stated that traffic is still the main concern. He also stated that there is no guarantee that the applicant does not come back before the Commission and ask for a zoning change to B-2 or B-3 sometime in the future.               

Emil Schreiber of 215 Village Road, Andover, stated that traffic is his concern also.  He thinks that the B-1 or B-2 zoning would be okay.  He feels there needs to be a access for to the south and no access onto Village Road.      

Bob Kaplan rebutted the concerns of the neighbors stating that somewhere in the land use there must be practicality and reason.  He stated that the essence of the zoning change was to take from retail to office business use.  He stated that regarding the traffic there is a shared driveway with Braums and his clients can agree to a right turn only exit out of the area.

Chairman McEachern asked if the Commission could limit the uses in the B-1 Business District.  Les Mangus stated they could not.   

Joe Robertson asked about the access from Braums.  Les stated that there is a joint driveway on the common property line with Braums and there are no connections to this subject property anywhere else.    Les also stated that if the zoning were to remain R-3 the lot would allow up to 10 multiple-family dwelling units, which would generate 60-100 trips a day on Village Road.

Chairman McEachern stated that the driveway is a concern.  He stated that this subject can be continued to a later date if that was desired by the Commission.  Lynn Heath made the following motion:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Lynn Heath moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-04 be modified and approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to the B-1 Office Business District. This is based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 8, 13, 14 and 16. Item 16 makes approval contingent upon vacation of Williamsburg Street right of way.   Motion seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 4-3 with Sheri Geisler, Quentin Coon, Lori Hays and Lynn Heath voting yes.  John McEachern, Ron Roberts and J oe Robertson voted nay.

An amendment to the Motion was made by Joe Robertson stating that access to and from the subject property be only from Andover Road.  No second was made.  The amendment died for lack of a second.

CLOSING REMARKS:

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.  A recess of the meeting was called at 10:22 p.m.  The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-05, Lots 1 and 18 of Block 2, Andover Village Addition, City of Andover.   This proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) is for a change of zoning district from the B-1 Office Business District and the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District and an additional 30 uses from the B-3 Business District which are beyond the allowed uses in the B-2 Business District including an addition of restaurants including those with drive-in and drive-thru facilities and including those providing the retail sale of liquor or cereal malt beverages for consumption on the premises, provided that these alcoholic sales comprise less than 50% of the establishment’s gross revenues.

Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notification had been given.  Mr. Mangus stated that it had.  The notice was mailed to landowners on 5/24/00 and the notice was publicized on 5/25/00.

Robert Kaplan is the agent for Dr. A.J. Reed and Dr. George Howell.  Mr. Russ Avey, a land use architect from Baughman Company was also present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Kaplan stated that the applicant is presenting a Preliminary Planned Unit Development, or P.U.D.  His client believes this is the highest and best use of the land in this proposal.  He stated that they do not believe this is disruptive to anyone’s interest.  Mr. Kaplan presented the following points.

1.                  The owners of the property have taken the 6.2 acres and designed a plan, voluntarily limiting themselves to 50,000 sq. feet in single story structures.  This is an 18.5% building coverage on this property, which is about half of what is allowed.  The balance of the property will be for landscaping and parking.

2.                  The owners of the property have submitted a P.U.D.  The advantage of this is to identify the uses permitted in the zoning.  His client has provided for fast food and drive-thrus. They have also provided for alcohol consumption in a restaurant with the condition that 50% or more of the income is derived in food sales.

3.                  The concept of the project is smaller pods of buildings and smaller coverage areas.  The concept is possibly boutiques, shops, NOT a mall.  Buildings with door side parking and more landscaping.  This allows for reducing number of parking lot sizes also.  Mr. Kaplan also stated Dr. Reed wants to retain as many of the trees as possible.

4.                  The property is currently zoned R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District.  In the R-3 District this property can be developed into a substantial number of multiple-family units.  This property could even be a large apartment complex with this zoning.  Les Mangus stated that up to 108 dwelling units could be on that property.  This is one of the reasons that Mr. Kaplan’s clients wish to discard the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District.  They propose NO motels, NO hotels, and NO multi-story buildings.  This property will have very good, upscale uses. 

Mr. Kaplan asked everyone to accept the fact that this property is going to be developed and that single-family residential will not want to be in that location on Andover Road and that it should be a commercial development.   Mr. Kaplan stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held in December, which had about 15-20 attendees.  His client presented a number of conceptual plans to the people present.  The essence of the neighborhood meeting was that this property would be commercial.  The most frequent comment from the nearby landowners was that they were upset with the drainage in this area, not zoning or usage but drainage and sewer problems.   Mr. Kaplan stated that this can be handled with the City Engineer and his client’s engineer.  Mr. Kaplan again stated that this property’s best use would be commercial and this property contains 1200 linear feet of commercial frontage on Andover Road.

Quentin Coon asked if this layout had a single entrance.  Bob Kaplan stated that this property is almost 4 blocks long, with almost 1200’ of frontage on Andover Road, and one access is not enough.  There is also access on the south edge of the property on Village Road. 

Don Klasing of 254 Village Road, Andover addressed the Commission.  He stated that his second floor bedroom overlooks the trees.  He has lived in this house for 13 years.  He stated that he has had the house on the market for 4 months and feels it has not sold due to the unsure future use of this property.    He feels his property is losing value due to the property on Andover Road.  Mr. Klasing then read the first paragraph of the B-1, B-2, and B-3 Zoning Regulations.  He feels this property’s best fit would be the B-1 Business District.  He also feels his property would have a buyer if the property use behind his house on Andover Road was not in question.

John Cash of 306 Village Road, Andover, addressed the Commission.  He is a neighbor of Don Klasing.  He would ideally like this area as a green belt.  He addressed the issue of traffic.  He feels that traffic coming out of that area will go on Village Road.  Doesn’t like the idea of a drive-thru restaurant or the idea of a restaurant, which would have bad crowds and trash.  He stated that the main sewer goes through his back yard and many times he has had the city truck back on his property pumping sewer.  He also stated that he had to build up his backyard due to problems with water drainage.  He built it up in order to absorb the water.  Mr. Cash stated that Mr. Klasing has had troubles with water also.  He stated there is no crosswalk at Village Road.  The closest one is at Central and there is not one at Kellogg either.  He is concerned with the children that will cross the street and they have no protection there.  Chairman McEachern told Mr. Cash that there was going to be a traffic light at Douglas Avenue in the near future, which would give a place for crossing.

Emil Schreiber of 216 Village Road, Andover read a letter from Jim and Judy Sauer of 210 Village Road in Andover. This letter indicates that the homeowners don’t want lights that will shine in their backyard.  They ask that if the zoning is changed to please put up a six foot brick wall to help buffer the sound. They are against the zoning changing as it stands now.

Mr. Schreiber stated that he feels that another access onto Village Road is unacceptable.  He also feels this type of use of the land will bring the neighborhood downhill.  He doesn’t trust Mr. Kaplan.  He also stated he will fight the whole thing, he will sue, and he will not accept this.  He would like the Commission to think about the checklist they go through.  He feels that if the commissioners lived in the neighborhood it wouldn’t pass but feels it will because none of them live in the neighborhood.   He recapped by saying he was against the proposed use because of traffic, noise, and the principal of the whole thing.

Chairman McEachern noted the Commissioners received, in their packets for the meeting, a copy of a letter from David R. and Cheryl L. Klein of 322 Village Road.   This letter objected, very strongly, to the Planning Commission giving permission for businesses on Andover Road to sell liquor on or off the premises.  Chairman McEachern read the letter which is as follows:

“We want to object, very strongly, to the City Planning Commission giving permission for businesses on Andover Road to sell liquor on or off the premises. 

These businesses will be almost in our backyards.  This is a family oriented area with young children.

Such a business would be a detriment to this area.  We hope the re-zoning is denied.”

With no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 11:05 p.m.

 Mr. Bob Kaplan asked for a chance for rebuttal.   He stated that part of the issue is that there is not a thorough understanding of the P.U.D.  The P.U.D. will provide for items such items as wall, screening, and shielding of lights.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he doesn’t understand why people buy property adjacent to or near commercial property and they get upset when the property is developed.  This property was zoned R-3 Multiple-Family Residential in 1977.  He stated this property could accommodate 108 dwelling units.  His client thought that the neighborhood would appreciate an upscale business area more than R-3 Multiple-Family Residential.  He stated that folks fail to recognize the environment they purchase in.  He stated that people have to realize that this area is going to be commercially developed.  He stated that all criteria and all reasonability supports commercial development of this area.  His clients feel this is a better use than the R-3 Multiple-Family Residential zoning.  He asked what else could be done with this property.  He stated that you can’t move into a town and want to close the door behind you.  Mr. Kaplan stated that there is a lot of need for B-2 Neighborhood Business District in Andover. 

Mr. Don Klasing of 254 Village Road, Andover stated that the owners of the property knew what the zoning was when it was bought.  He sees no reason to change the zoning. 

Chairman McEachern stated that the property was presented for rezoning to B-1 Office Business District in 1994 and denied.  Mr. McEachern stated that there are 13 residences adjacent to or nearly adjoining the subject property.

Chairman McEachern reminded everyone that with a Preliminary P.U.D. we can only talk about generalities, not any specifics in engineering.   Mr. McEachern asked if there was going to be a 6’ concrete wall the whole distance along the rear of the property.  Mr. Russ Avey of the Baughman Company replied that the south termination of the wall is on Village Road and the north termination is along the north property line to Andover Road.  Les Mangus interjected that the fence has to terminate at the building setback line.

Lynn Heath asked if there is screening on Village Road.  Les Mangus stated that it is only required business and residential.  Lynn Heath stated that none along Village Road would be required along the south side of Lot 1.  Les Mangus stated that was correct as the wall is at the end of the building setback.  It is a front yard, not a sideyard.

Joe Robertson would like to see an 8’ wall in the rear.  He asked if the current wooden fences of the property owners would be replaced with concrete.  Mr. Kaplan stated the existing fences will remain and the concrete will come to the inside of them.  Les Mangus stated there would have to be negotiations with the homeowners to replace the cedar fence.  Joe Robertson also would like to see if the service road on the west side of the property can be avoided, he would like to see the service road eliminated.  He was wondering what it was there for.  He doesn’t like the pavement like that.  Should be broken up.  He stated that the homeowners would like to see the Village Road entrance in Lot 1 eliminated.  Mr. Robertson would not want to add traffic to Village Road.  He would prefer people use Andover Road.  He would also like to encourage someone to put up some type of signage “in good taste” at the beginning of the residential area stating “Entering residential area” as a subtle hint to drivers entering the area.  He want to encourage the Site Plan Review Committee to put large, stout trees in the area in the rear to help reduce the visibility at the rooflines for the homeowners. 

John McEachern agrees with the idea of not adding additional traffic onto Village Road.

Lynn Heath agrees with the idea of no access onto Village Road.  He also commented that in the Subdivision Committee meeting regarding this project, the applicant’s attorney stated they will be saving as many trees as possible.  Mr. Heath also stated this is a very pretty area and it would make a nice park.  Mr. Heath thinks an 8’ wall in the rear of the project would good.

Lori Hays agreed with no access onto Village Road.  She stated there should be a service road at the rear of the property. 

John McEachern stated there are no trees in the back part of the parcel.  There should be some type of plantings in the rear between the fence and the service road.

Mr. Kaplan stated it would be acceptable to put plantings in that area.  Les Mangus stated that this is an easement and it is not always wise to plant trees in easements.

Quentin Coon stated that he would like all the buildings to be toward Andover Road and have the strip of land in the front of the buildings be a “green area.”

Ron Roberts would like this area zoned B-2 Neighborhood Business District.  Les Mangus stated that the applicant is asking for B-2 zoning in the P.U.D. zoning.  The 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. hours of business being closed would apply.  No one has asked for any exemption from these hours.

There was general discussion as to the drainage and sewer at this location.  Mr. Mangus stated that this will be addressed by engineers.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is too preliminary to make decisions regarding these issues, however the drainage will probably be sent between lots 1 and 18. 

PUBLIC HEARING on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-05, Lots 1 and 18 of Block 2, Andover Village Addition, City of Andover.

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 8

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-05

APPLICANT/AGENT:

A. J. Reed, Robert Kaplan, Agent

REQUEST:

B-1 Business and R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood Office District w/P.U.D. overlay.

CASE HISTORY:

Undeveloped multi-family tract platted and zoned in 1977.

LOCATION:

West side of Andover Road between Village Road and Lexington.

SITE SIZE:

6.2 acres.

PROPOSED USE:

Retail and office businesses

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

B-1 Office Business

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business

East:

R-1 Single-Family Residential.

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residential.

Background Information:

1994 application for B-1 Office Business District on Lot 18 was denied.

* 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:

x

PLANNING:

More commercial to the   south.

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:

Water, sewer and streets are in place. Drainage improvements are required.

x

PLANNING:

Water, sewer and streets are in place. Drainage improvements are required.

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 drainage easements as necessary

x

PLANNING:

Dedication of drainage easements as necessary

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?

x

STAFF:

No B-2 or B-3 property is available in the immediate vicinity.

x

PLANNING:

No B-2 or B-3 property is available in the immediate vicinity.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

N/A - no specific use identified

PLANNING:

N/A - no specific use identified

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?

x

STAFF:

Yes

x

PLANNING:

No, there are residential neighborhoods very close

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:

Business uses on a case by case review on Andover Road

x

PLANNING:

Business uses on a case by case review on Andover Road

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

STAFF:

Business uses adjacent to single-family homes

PLANNING:

Devaluation of adjoining property, business uses next to residential areas, some not conducive to residential , and increased traffic

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 with dedication of drainage easement.

PLANNING:

Approval as applied for with dedication of drainage easement.

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 greater detriment to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently permitted.

PLANNING:

No greater detriment to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently permitted.

COUNCIL:

After going through the checklist, Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus if the Commission could change the zoning from B-2 to B-1.  Les Mangus stated that the Commission could approve a zoning less than applied for but not more than applied for.  Les Mangus stated that we can negotiate same or lesser uses with the applicant.

Les Mangus was asked how to continue a public hearing.  Les Mangus stated that once a public hearing is open it can be set off to another time.  Jim Orr stated he feels the Commission has an obligation to complete the application in a timely manner.   Lynn Heath stated that this is not a decision that should be rushed.  He hates to put applicants in a bad place but feels we should take our time with this decision.

Lynn Heath moved that the committee continue the hearing on Case No. Z-2000-05 until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.   Motion was seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion passed 7-0.

CLOSING REMARKS:                                                         

John McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing. 

Review of the Final Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.

Bob Kaplan represents the applicant and asked that, due to the lateness of the hour, this case be continued at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.  He did make the comment that his client wants to provide access control onto U.S. Highway 54 with the understanding that the driveway not be closed until the actual construction begins in front of the subject property on U. S. Highway 54.   Les Mangus stated that this should be approved contingent on platting.  Per the U.S. 54 Corridor Management Agreement, all projects along the corridor must be reviewed and approved by the City and KDOT, and the agreement further requires that all direct access to the Highway be eliminated.  Access to this property could be accommodated off of McCandless Road. Mr. Mangus stated that there is frontage across the Schmidt property and dedications west of Brown of 250’ of frontage R-O-W, so it established the precedence for frontage roads.  The residential access goes either now or when the construction begins.  The Commission’s consensus was that KDOT make the decision on the access.

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to continue this review at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.  Motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review of the Final Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.

Continue the public hearing on the amendments to the Site Plan Review Committee procedure.

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to continue this hearing at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.  Motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0.

Continue the public hearing on the amendments to the SPRC procedure.

Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7.  Signs. Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 12:15 a.m.  

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to continue this hearing at the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.  The motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0.

Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7.  Signs.

Additional agenda item set public hearing for July 18, 2000, to expand the Subdivision Regulations Jurisdiction to match the extraterritorial area in the Comprehensive Plan, pending approval by the County Commissioners. 

Motion was made by John McEachern to set a public hearing for July 18, 2000, to expand the Subdivision Regulations Jurisdiction to match the extraterritorial area in the Comprehensive Plan, pending approval by the County Commissioners.  The motion was seconded by Joe Robertson.  Motion carried 7-0.

Expand the Subdivision Regulations Jurisdiction to match the extraterritorial area in the Comprehensive Plan

Member items.  None

Member Items

Adjournment.   Motion was made by Lori Hays to adjourn this meeting.  The motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0.  Meeting was adjourned at 12:16 a.m.

Adjourn