ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

November 21, 2000

Minutes

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom, and Sheri Geisler.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, Administrative Assistant. 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:00 p.m.

Call to order

Review of the minutes of the October 17, 2000 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Charles Malcom, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the October 17, 2000

Minutes of the November 14, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

Minutes of the November 7, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

Minutes of the November 1, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

Minutes

Committee and Staff Reports.   Jim Orr, City Council Liaison, commented on the action of the City Council regarding the Caywood Preliminary P.U.D.   
The City Council felt that the changes did not effect the overall spirit of the P.U.D.

Mr. Orr expressed thanks to the Planning Commission and Site Plan Review Committee for all their hard work.  He wanted to say their work makes the City Council’s job easier and it was appreciated.

John McEachern asked a question on the Site Plan Review Committee minutes regarding Wholesale Fireworks and where the property in discussion was.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Krehbiel bought 130’ east of the building, which was already paved.  Mr. Mangus stated that the issues in front of the Site Plan Review Committee were lighting and fencing.

Lynn Heath asked if there was something pending on the Goodwill plan.  Mr. Mangus stated that the only issue remaining was drainage.

Committee and Staff Reports

Z-97-05  Public hearing on an amendment to the Cloud City Preliminary Planned Unit Development.   The public hearing was opened by Chairman McEachern at 7:08 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice was given.  Mr. Mangus stated that it was.  Mr. McEachern asked if any members of the Committee had received ex parte communications.  No one stated that they did.  Mr. McEachern asked if any member needed to excuse themselves from this hearing for any reason.  No one did.  Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates stated that this is a refiling of the Preliminary P.U.D. based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations to plat the commercial and residential parcels together.  This P.U.D. has two owners. The proposed amendment to the P.U.D. presented last month left fragments of parcels, approximately a 40-50’ strip of land unusable as zoned on the residential side. This amendment corrects this.  This amendment also shows the reduction from 17 parcels to 5 parcels.  The business parcels are zoned B-2, B-3 and B-4.  Mr. Hill stated there is no change in parcel 4.  Mr. Hill stated that the revised residential undeveloped land is in parcel 5.

Leo Gosland of 125 N. Longford, Wichita is working with the development company and wanted to stress that the important thing for this P.U.D. is to maintain flexibility.  There are many large users possible for these parcels and the developer wants to have flexibility in place.    Mr. Gosland stated that the request for sidewalks on Cloud Street from the Subdivision Committee is of concern to him.  He is not sure of the advantage or practicality of a sidewalk in the commercial district.  He understands the request for a traffic way between the commercial and residential districts.

Lori Hays arrived at 7:15 p.m.

Charles Malcom asked if water will be a problem between the properties.  Lynn Heath stated that it is not.  Mr. Heath stated that some of the property previously commercial will be rezoned to residential, a small bit between the commercial and residential. 

Mr. McEachern asked about General Provision 7, which ties Yorktown and Minneha to sidewalks.  He asked why there were no sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs.  Les Mangus stated that the Minneha sidewalk is a continuation of the 1^st Phase already in place.  Mr. McEachern asked why the sidewalks are 5’ and not 8’.  Mr. Mangus stated that the current sidewalks are 5’ and it just made sense to continue at the same width.  Quentin Coon asked if the Subdivision Committee did not want a sidewalk on Frisco.  Mr. Lynn Heath stated that was correct.  Mr. Gosland asked what was the practicality of a sidewalk on Cloud Street.  Ron Roberts stated that the Committee is just trying to look down the road and interconnect areas and interlink with bike paths.  Leo Gosland stated that he doesn’t follow that reasoning with the large commercial areas.  Les Mangus stated the city is retrofitting areas in Andover to have an 8’ or wider bike/pedestrian path in order to walk or ride a bike from one side of the town to the other side of town.  Mr. Gosland asked if the sidewalks were the expense of the developer or the City.  Les Mangus stated that he was not sure. He doesn’t particularly want any added costs to the project.  Les Mangus stated the goal was to make it friendlier to walk or bike anywhere in town.  Lynn Heath commented on the lack of sidewalk on Frisco Street and stated that we do not want to encourage bike or pedestrian traffic on Frisco as it goes on to Highway 54.   Les Mangus stated that in the future there will be a “right in, right out” ramp from Frisco onto Highway 54.

Lynn Heath wanted to address the issue of a pedestrian way in Reserve E, perhaps from Minneha Street up toward Cloud Street to enable people to walk or bike between the residential and commercial tracts.  Joe Robertson asked who would bear the cost for the sidewalk on Cloud Street.  Les Mangus stated the City is responsible for sidewalks on arterial streets only.  Joe Robertson stated we need to let him know he is responsible for the costs of the sidewalk.  Lynn Heath suggested we wait until the final P.U.D. for a definitive discussion on the pedestrian walkway in Reserve E and G.

John McEachern stated he is always is concerned about playground areas and picnic areas and this is in General Provision 10.  He doesn’t want to wait for a homeowners association to be established to get playground and picnic areas.  Kenny Hill stated that the residential developers have no immediate plan for the future for this type of area. 

He stated they just brought the owners of the residential property into this P.U.D. to get the parcels corrected.  Kenny Hill stated that there is an area around the pond on the north that will be a playground/picnic area however nothing is specified yet.  Mr. McEachern stated he wanted to look to the future of the community.  Kenny Hill asked if they could put into the text of the General Provisions that the playground and other equipment are to be determined at the Final P.U.D.?  Les Mangus stated it could be added to General Provision 12 and stated that locations for these areas are to be determined at Final P.U.D.  Kenny Hill suggested they add to General Provision 12 that all required improvements “at the time of final P.U.D.” within the reserves shall be installed.  John McEachern asked Les Mangus and Kenny Hill to work out the correct wording.  Les Mangus commented that the wording will make it more mandatory than permissive and he will work with Kenny Hill on this.

There was no public comment.  The public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m.  

Chairman McEachern noted that the telephone company asked for no additional easements.  He noted that KGE asked for additional easements.  Les Mangus stated that these easements can be met. 

Lynn Heath wanted to comment that there are driveways opening onto a collector street.  He also commented that the location of Minneha is restricted due to an existing sewer line.

Chairman McEachern asked that the Commission go over the checklist.

Z-97-05  Public hearing on an amendment to the Cloud City Preliminary Planned Unit Development

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

Z-97-05

APPLICANT/AGENT:

Four A Investments, L.L.C and Wolkestadt Development Group, L.L.C. /            Kenny Hill, Poe & Associates     

REQUEST:

Amendment to the existing Cloud City Preliminary Planned Unit Development

CASE HISTORY:

Amendment to existing Preliminary P.U.D. presented within the past few months with only one party.  The agent was asked to bring both applicants to the Commission

LOCATION:

At the Southeast corner of Andover Road and Kellogg/US Hwy 54.

SITE SIZE:

+/- 155 acres.

PROPOSED USE:

As allowed in the Cloud City P.U.D.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

B-3 & B-5 Andover Crossing development, Dillons and Applebee’s

South:

R-1 Single Family Residential

East:

Butler County - Highway Business, Suburban Residential, and Agricultural

West:

B-3 McCoy proposed shopping center

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:

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:

Change in ownership, change in general neighborhood, change to be regional shopping instead of local shopping area.

x

PLANNING:

Change in ownership, change in general neighborhood, change to be regional shopping instead of local shopping area.

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 public facilities can be provided.

x

PLANNING:

All public facilities can be provided.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

9.   Is suitable vacant land or buildings available or not available for development that currently has the same zoning as is requested?

x

STAFF:

Nothing of this scale is available in this area

x

PLANNING:

Nothing of this scale is available in this area

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:

Yes, when businesses develop

x

PLANNING:

Yes, when businesses develop

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:

x

PLANNING:

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:

Yes, one of the suggested changes in the upgrading of the Comprehensive Plan is the corner of Andover Road and U.S. Hwy 54 become regional shopping

x

PLANNING:

Yes, one of the suggested changes in the upgrading of the Comprehensive Plan is the corner of Andover Road and U.S. Hwy 54 become regional shopping

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

NONE.

x

PLANNING:

NONE.

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 with conditions imposed by Subdivision Committee being

x

PLANNING:

Approval with conditions imposed by Subdivision Committee being

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 factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-97-05 Amendments to the Preliminary Planned Unit Development of Cloud City be modified and approved with the following conditions:

1.         8’ sidewalks on the west side of Yorktown and an 8’ sidewalk on Cloud Street, the side of the street being optional. Minneha Street as it is shown is to remain the same.  There is to be no sidewalk on Frisco. 

2.         A pedestrian walkway location in Reserve E and G is to be determined at Final P.U.D.

3.         Benches, picnic tables, playground equipment locations will be added into Provision 12 and is to be determined the time of the final P.U.D.

Based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing to support the motion include items 10, 12, and 14.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.   Motion carried 8-0.

CLOSING REMARKS:                                                                     

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.

Z-SU-2000-04:  Public Hearing on application for Special Use to establish a 195’ Wireless Communication Facility in the A-1 Agricultural Transition District on land which is used for Public Recreation purposes.   Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice had been given.  Mr. Mangus replied yes, public notice had been published in the October 26, 2000 Andover Journal Advocate.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Notice to Landowners of Zoning hearing was mailed on October 23, 2000.  Notices were sent to landowners within 1000’ as this is outside the city limits. 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was any ex parte communication.  No one had any. Mr. McEachern asked if any members needed to excuse themselves from this hearing for any reason.  No one did. 

Con Beets with VoiceStream Wireless, out of Oklahoma City, presented information on behalf of the applicant.  He showed the Commission a map, which indicated current wireless communication coverage and another map which showed the proposed coverage with the new wireless communication facility in place.  Mr. Beets stated the new facility will allow coverage nearly to the Augusta city limits.  Quentin Coon asked if the range of the tower was only 5 miles.  Mr. Beets stated that a digital signal will only cover between 3-5 miles.  Jeff Bridges asked if Mr. Beets was familiar with the tower design and asked him what the maximum load this tower could carry.  Mr. Beets stated that this tower drawing shows 4 carriers but this tower can have 5 to 6 carriers.  Joe Robertson asked if this carrier was at the top of this tower.  Mr. Beets said yes.  Jeff Bridges told the Commissioners that the City Council has signed a lease agreement with VoiceStream and that the city will receive the co-location revenue.  Les Mangus stated that the City felt this promoted the plan put into place a few months ago, which preferred co-locations rather than more individual towers.  Mr. Beets stated the tower can accommodate 5-6 carriers on 150’.  He restated that this facility could accommodate up to 6 carriers.  Quentin Coon asked if the tower would be higher.  Mr. Beets stated that with monopole towers the maximum height is between 190-195’, after this height the tower would have to be lattice type three-pier tower.  He also stated that there are more FAA requirements with towers over 199’.  There were no other comments or questions.

The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m.

Lynn Heath asked if he was correct in remembering that the elevation of this location being at 1306’ and if this was a good spot to get.  Les Mangus stated that the elevation is +/- 1306’.  He also stated that VoiceStream originally wanted in the NE corner of the new Park property, however, the City Council thought the SE corner, which is near the maintenance area would be separate from the park and more concealed.  Jeff Bridges stated that VoiceStream originally wanted a 150’ wireless communication facility but traded to the other location for a higher facility. 

Quentin Coon asked if the access to the facility would be the same as to the maintenance facility.  Les Mangus stated that the public road right-of-way on Prairie Creek will be the access road to the site.  Ron Roberts asked who would gravel Prairie Creek Road.  Jeff Bridges stated the City would gravel and make the access.  John McEachern asked if the internal park roads would be for access.  Les Mangus stated that Prairie Creek Road has problems closer to Highway 54 but to the access is fine.  Mr. Mangus also stated that Bruno Township approved using the right of way on Prairie Creek.  

Ron Roberts stated that the height of the tower bothers him.  He stated that the Commission has turned down 195’ towers several times.  He stated that policy has been developed to keep tower heights to 150’.  He stated we have allowed no other towers over 150’ and no other towers have co-locates on them.  He stated we should not look at this and just accept it because it is a City project and will benefit the City financially.

Les Mangus pointed out that there are three carriers on the tower in the industrial park and the existing park tower on 13^th Street has co-locates on it and the police and city communications on it also.  Mr. Mangus stated that Southwestern Bell put up the tower in the park.

Mr. Beets stated that the leases are usually for 5 years with 5 5-year options.  Most places the company is dealing with are restricting the number of towers and encouraging co-locations so our site will be in demand in the future.

John McEachern stated that he prefers to co-locate in the park and away from residential areas. 

Ron Roberts said if there are more co-locates there will be more wires.  Mr. Beets stated that the monopoles are designed for co-locations and have the wiring running inside the pole.  The lattice type tower has the wires on the outside.  Les Mangus stated the diameter of the tower might grow a foot to accommodate multiple co-locates.  Mr. Mangus also stated that the base in a monopole is approximately 6’. 

Z-SU-2000-04:  Public Hearing on application for Special Use to establish a 195’ Wireless Communication Facility in the A-1 Agricultural Transition District on land which is used for Public Recreation purposes

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 6

REZONING REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

ZSU-2000-04

APPLICANT/AGENT:

VoiceStream Wireless/City of Andover

REQUEST:

195’ wireless communication facility in the new City park.

CASE HISTORY:

None

LOCATION:

+/- 3/8 mile south of Central Avenue on the west side of Prairie Creek Road.

SITE SIZE:

100’ x 100’ in an 80 acre tract

PROPOSED USE:

Multiple carrier wireless communication facility.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

Butler County Agriculture - City Park

South:

Butler County Agriculture - City Park

East:

Butler County Agriculture - City Park

West:

Butler County Agriculture - City Park

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:

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:

The need for wireless communication coverage in the area is rapidly growing.

x

PLANNING:

The need for wireless communication coverage in the area is rapidly growing.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

6.   Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the subject property?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

Platting required

x

PLANNING:

Platting required

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 facilities are available within the desired location site._

x

PLANNING:

No facilities are available within the desired location site._

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:

Increased wireless communication service

x

PLANNING:

Increased wireless communication service

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:

x

PLANNING:

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:

WCF regulations encourage multiple carrier facilities located in public recreation areas._

x

PLANNING:

WCF regulations encourage multiple carrier facilities located in public recreation areas._

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?

x

STAFF:

Approval as applied for

x

PLANNING:

Approval as applied for

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

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

x

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived at this location

x

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived at this location

COUNCIL:

Charles Malcom commented that this higher tower sets a precedent.  Les Mangus stated that with the new wireless communication facility regulations anything over 150’ has to come in before the Planning Commission.  Les Mangus stated that there are no neighbors in close proximity.  He stated that prior cases, which were refused, had close neighbors.  There was general discussion.  Jeff Bridges stated that this case sets no precedent as these wireless communication facilities over 150’ are reviewed on a case by case basis.   Charles Malcom stated he is not against the tower.  Lynn Heath stated that the other cases had several towers that were proposed in neighborhoods where people did not want towers.  Jeff Bridges stated that the ordinance is crafted to provide locations away from residential areas.  The ordinance is working as designed in this case.  Les Mangus stated that the coverage area is the key now.  

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. ZSU-2000-04 be approved to allow the special use to establish a 195’ tall Communication Tower to be located in the A-1 Agricultural District used for Public Recreation purposes .  This is based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically item 5, 9, 10, and 15.  Motion seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 6-2 with Ron Roberts and Joe Robertson voting no.

Review the C. Smith Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plats.  Ron Smith presented information on behalf of the landowner.  This is to split one lot into three lots.  Les Mangus stated all staff review comments have been satisfied.  Mr. Mangus stated that a water easement was just discovered and will be put on the drawing.  Lynn Heath asked if this is an active water line.  Les Mangus stated it is believed to be the service line to the existing house.  There were no further questions.

Having considered the evidence to evaluate the application, I Quentin Coon, move that the Committee approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of the C. Smith Subdivision.  Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 8-0.

Review the C. Smith Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plats.

Chairman McEachern called for a 5-minute recess at 8:33 p.m.  Meeting reconvened at 8:38 p.m.

Recess

Motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals was made by Joe Robertson and seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 8-0.

The Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 8:49 p.m.

Continuation of the Public Hearing of BZA-A-2000-01, Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Terry Presta, of Presto Oil, at 2035 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas.  Bill King, 3663 SW Prairie Creek Road, Andover, who is the owner of the property in this case, presented information on behalf of Terry Presta, the applicant.  He stated he had a proposal to present to the Board.  The four issues are as follows:

1.         Construct a 6-foot cedar fence trash dumpster screening area at the southeast corner of the building with protective bollards at the corners of the concrete slab on property zoned as the B-3 Central Shopping District.

2.         Construct a blue metal fascia on the West side of the building to match the existing north and east sides of the building.

3.         Place six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the south edge of the parking and gas pump area, and six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the west edge of the site.

4.         Construct hard surface paving of the areas south and west of the building used for truck traffic circulation, or close the access to those areas if left unpaved.

Mr. King presented Mr. Presta’s proposal for each issue as follows:

1.         Mr. Presta asked if this could be a concrete block screen rather than cedar fence.  They would like to have options for concrete block and cedar fence.

2.         Would like to not do the blue metal fascia.  He stated that was not part of the original plan, it was added the second time or so before the committee.

3.         It is Mr. Presta’s belief that these trees are to block traffic and these trees are outside of Mr. Presta’s leased land.

4.         Mr. Presta has worked out financing for a hard surface.  It is a very expensive part of the proposal.  The paving will be completed on the south and west sides of the building.

Lynn Heath asked if the paving will take care of the north entrance on the west side of the building.  Mr. King stated that he would ask the Planning Commission to allow his property to the south of the Presta be a rock parking lot for a certain number of months, 36 months or so, like Butler County Community College was recently allowed.  Mr. King’s intent is to solve the carrying of the dirt on to the street. 

Mr. King stated Mr. Presta is seeking relief from the metal fascia.  Lynn Heath asked if there is fascia on all other sides.  Les Mangus stated there is no fascia on the west or south sides of the building.  Bill King stated the south wall is a parapet wall and the west wall is the back of the building. 

Les Mangus reminded the Board that they are to consider the reasonableness of the Site Plan Review Committee requirements, the Board is not in session to negotiate, just consider the reasonableness of the requirements.

Mr. King stated Mr. Presta feels the trees in item #3 were to prevent traffic from the street onto the property and feels it is not necessary if the area is being paved.  Trees are a non-issue as they are inexpensive. 

Sheri Geisler asked for clarification.  She asked if in 1999 the Site Plan Review Committee made recommendations that were agreed to by the applicant.  Les Mangus stated that the four issues being appealed are four of several conditions prior to the plan as a whole being approved.  The applicant was supposed to do that.  John McEachern stated that extensive landscaping was done.  Sheri Geisler asked that if it was recommended and part of the plan originally how can it be said it can’t be done now?  Mr. King stated that he believes the cedar trees were to prevent traffic.  General discussion followed. 

Chairman McEachern stated he recalls the trees are to soften the appeal of the building, not prohibit traffic.  Chairman McEachern asked if there couldn’t be a strip of trees between the paving and the building.  Mr. King stated there is some area on the south and west sides of the building for trees.  Joe Robertson stated there is room for trees next to the building. 

Mr. King stated that the biggest problem is carrying mud to the city streets.  He stated there will be $35,000 - $40,000 worth of paving to correct this problem.

Les Mangus reminded the Board that they are to address if the conditions are reasonable, nothing else.  Mr. Mangus suggested the Board address each item.  General discussion followed.

Item 1:              Make concrete block screening acceptable, as well as cedar fence.  Voted 8-0.  This is reasonable.

Item 2:              Fascia.  General discussion. 

Voted 3-5.  3 voted reasonable, Joe Robertson, Sheri Geisler, and John McEachern.  5 voted unreasonable, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom, and Lori Hays. 

Item 3:              General discussion.  Lynn Heath believes this is non-applicable as there will be paving where the trees were supposed to go.  Decision was made to work on item 4 then come back to Item 3. 

Item 4:              Voted 8-0.  Hard surface paving on the south and west sides of the building.  This is reasonable.

Back to Item 3: After general discussion vote was taken.  Voted 3-4.  3 voted reasonable, Ron Roberts, Joe Robertson and John McEachern.  4 voted unreasonable, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom and Lori Hays.  Sheri Geisler abstained.

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2000-01 and determined the findings of fact as stated for the record, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution stating that the Board of Zoning Appeals found Items #2 and #3 unreasonable and Items #1 and #4 are wholly affirmed. Lori Hays seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-1 with John McEachern voting no.

Continuation of the Public Hearing of BZA-A-2000-01, Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Terry Presta, of Presto Oil, at 2035 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

BZA-CU-2000-02:  A public hearing on an application for a conditional use to allow off-site truck parking in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1539 N. Andover Road. Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.  Chairman McEachern then read the following:

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON

A CONDITIONAL USE

PURPOSE:

This checklist is to assist:      (1) the Chairperson in conducting the hearing; (2) the Secretary in an orderly process of minute taking; (3) the applicant in presenting their request; and (4) any property owners or the persons who have questions or concerns or wish to know their rights in the matter. Although the order of the outline should be followed, the material will need to be modified to relate to the nature and extent of the particular case and the number of persons to be heard.  The Chairperson will find it helpful to mark up a checklist on each case prior to the hearing so that important procedural points are not inadvertently missed.

CALL TO ORDER:

It is 9:52 p.m. and I now call Agenda item #9, which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-CU-2000-02 pursuant to Section 10-108 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a conditional use to allow off-site truck parking in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1539 N. Andover Road.  We would like to welcome everyone interested in this hearing and lay out a few ground rules:

1.   It is important that you present any facts or views that you have as evidence at this hearing so that findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.

2.  This Board is authorized by state statutes to make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing Body.

3.   After our Zoning Administrator provides us with some background informa­tion,  I will call upon the applicant and then we will hear from other interested parties. After all have been heard, each party will have an oppor­tunity for final comments.  The Board will close the hearing to further public comments and they will then consider their decision during which time they may direct questions to the applicant, the public, the staff or our consultant.

4.   In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board could require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of fencing and/or landscaping may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions upon the premises and/or the applicant benefited by the conditional use as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-108C which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such conditional use upon other property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as are provided for In Section 10-108D.  Failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to a zoning permit for a conditional use shall constitute a violation of the regulations.

5.   You should also be fully aware that if the applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans, the City can only enforce those provisions, which are covered in zoning and other City codes.  For example, If the applicant proposes to build a brick building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building with asphalt shingles, it's not something that the City can enforce.

6.   Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address.  Please use the podium and speak clearly so that your comments may be picked up by the tape recorder and summarized for the minutes by our Secretary.

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND OUORUN DETERMINED:

Before we proceed with the hearing, I'll ask the Board members if any of them intend to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing and voting on this case because they or their spouses own property in the area of notification or have conflicts of interests or a particular bias on this matter.  Please let the minutes show that no one has disqualified himself or herself.  According to our Bylaws, those members who only abstain from voting are still part of the quorum.  I now declare that we have a quorum of 8 present for the hearing.

NOTIFICATION:

According to the Secretary, a notice for this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on October 19, 2000 and notices were mailed to the applicant and real property owners of record in the area of notification, 200', on October 16, 2000.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I'll declare that proper notification has been given.

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

I will now ask the Board members If any of them have received any ex parte verbal or written communications prior to this hearing which they would like to share with all the members at this time.  As you know, it is not necessary to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  No ex parte communication was received prior to the meeting.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:

I now call on our Zoning Administrator, Les Mangus, to provide us with a brief factual background report on the case.

Mr. Mangus stated that J & H Transportation, Inc. has been using the land for truck parking for the past few months.  This property is not zoned for this use but the Zoning Regulations provide that this can be a conditional use and that is what the applicant is applying for.

APPLICANT'S REQUEST:

Chairman McEachern called upon the applicant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the request and any response to the Zoning Administrator's report.

John Blickenstaff of 1106 Mulberry and Bud Cooper of 21 Sandpiper and the co-owners of J& H Transportation, Inc. and presented information to the Board.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that their business is located at 1534 N. Main in the old fire station.  The lot in question is just used for parking between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.  He stated there is occasional overnight parking and no refrigerator units run overnight.  He stated that in the past they have had two complaints, one from the eastside across from the lot, a refrigerated unit ran all night and the neighbor couldn’t sleep.  The unit was moved immediately in the morning.  Another complaint was from a homeowner on Main who didn’t have enough room near her driveway.  Trucks were moved to allow her to move.   Mr. Blickenstaff stated that the subject land is useful to them.  He stated that land is leased.  He stated they need to be close enough to see the equipment, and the truck parking will not take away from the beauty of the neighborhood and noted there is an old empty boarded up house to the south of this property.  Joe Robertson asked what was parked there.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that tractors and trailers were parked there.  Usually they are just in and out.  Joe Robertson asked for a daily average of arrivals and departures.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that more days than not there are none.  He stated that on Friday, Saturday and Tuesday have 2 or 3 a day.  Occasionally there are 8-10 parked off and on during the day.

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

Chairman McEachern asked if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this case.

Neal Rakestraw of 1536 N. Andover Road brought a letter written by his mother, Shirley Rakestraw of 1540 N. Andover Road, which reads as follows:

November 21, 2000

To Whom It May Concern:

I have rented the house at 1540 N. Andover Road from my sons for over four years.  I am opposed to any zoning changes that would allow continued truck parking across the street. 

During cold months these trucks may run all night and their lights sometimes shine in my bedroom window.

Thank you,

Shirley Rakestraw

1540 N. Andover Road

Andover, KS 

Her son Neal commented that she is 80 years old.  Neal Rakestraw stated that there is noise in the evening and lots of traffic on Andover Road.  He stated that more often than not trucks are leaving at 5:00 a.m.  The truck lights shine in his mother’s bedroom. 

Mr. Gene Kellogg of 1532 N. Andover Road stated he has no big problem except when they run and run and run at night or occasionally ½ day.  If the wind and humidity is right a person can hardly breathe. 

Jim Orr stated that when the Bus Barn was addressed the questions were asked if any repairs made on site or fueling done on site and perhaps that should be addressed at this location.  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that the only hazardous items they carry is paint from Sherwin Williams.  Normally they just pick up the trailers at Sherwin Williams and take the trailers from there.  They follow the haz-mat rules.  He stated there is no maintenance done there.  There is no fueling done at this location either.  There are only inspections done there.   

Ron Roberts commented that fueling and parking was a concern when the building was sold to the applicant.  The Commission was told at that time this would be a dispatch site only and there would be no trucks there.  He feels that trucks are there frequently but this is not an adequate use for the neighborhood.  He stated there are a number of people working there and lots of parking.  Mr. McEachern stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this property was zoned B-2.  He remembers asking if there was to be trucks on the site or parked there and the Commission was told no.  They were told sometimes someone will stop and deliver bills but no overnight parking.  This would be a telephone operation only.  Les Mangus stated that he remembers the same.  Les Mangus stated that the business has changed and this is now a full-fledged trucking business per the owners.    Quentin Coon stated he does not feel this is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, having semi-tractors on Andover Road. 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Chairman John McEachern asked if the applicant wished to respond to the public comments. .  Mr. Blickenstaff stated that the lights shining into the home is unfortunate and he feels they could do something about that.  He wanted to remind the Board that the property is zoned B-2 Business.

FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Chairman John McEachern asked if anyone from the public wished to respond to the applicant or make any final comments.  Mr. Gene Kellogg commented that the parking is a bit of an eyesore.  He is concerned about the trucks running all day.  If this is allowed, please stipulate how long the trucks can run.  Mr. Kellogg stated when the trucks ran before, he talked to the company and they solved the problem.

CLOSE THE HEARING:

Hearing no further public comments, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 10:18  p.m.  There would be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

The Board will now deliberate the request.  First, we need to determine if the request is one of the uses under which the Zoning Regulations specifically authorize us to grant a conditional use as an exception. 

In determining whether the evidence presented supports the conclusions required by Section 10-108C, the Board considered appropriate findings of fact:

1.         The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable regulations, including lot size requirements, bulk regulations, use limitations and performance standards; unless a concurrent application is in process for a variance.  The consensus of the Board is yes.

2.         The proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.  The consensus of the Board is yes, this will cause substantial injury.    

3.         The location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the conditional use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to:

a.         The location, nature, size and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences on the site; and after discussion the Board stated this was not applicable.

b.         The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site.  After discussion the Board stated this was not applicable.

4.        Off-street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 5 of these regulations.  Such areas will be screened from adjoining residential uses and located so as to protect such residential uses from injurious effects.  After discussion the Board stated this is not safe to screen and it would be difficult to screen.

5.        Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.  The Board stated that drainage is the only issue.

6.        Adequate access roads, entrance and exit drives and/or access control is available or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees and shall be so designed to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and roads.  After discussion the Board voted no.

DECISION:

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings, Chairman McEachern called for a motion and any conditions that might be attached:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact do not support the conclusions set out in Section 10-108C of the Zoning Regulations which are necessary for granting of a conditional use, I, Ron Roberts move that the conditional use application as requested for Case No. BZA-CU-2000-02 not be approved.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.

CLOSING REMARKS:

Chairman McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing.

At 10:38 p.m. a motion was made by Lynn Heath for adjournment of the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvenes the Planning Commission. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

BZA-CU-2000-02:  A public hearing on an application for a conditional use to allow off-site truck parking in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District at 1539 N. Andover Road.

Member items:  Jim Orr wanted to pass along to the Planning Commission wishes for a nice, happy Thanksgiving and safe holiday from the City Council.

Charles Malcom wanted to thank the newspaper reporter for his time and effort.

Sheri Geisler wanted to congratulate Ron Roberts on winning the election and becoming the new County Clerk and stated we expect great things from him.  The Commission heartily agreed.

Joe Robertson has a concern with the condition of the street on Daisy Lane .   He stated he is wondering about large deep ruts between the Liquor Store and Angelo’s on the frontage road and Daisy Lane.  He stated this is very muddy and has large ruts.  He would like to see this corrected.  Chairman McEachern asked what the City’s rights were.  Mr. Mangus stated if this area was being used as a driveway must be up to City code.  Chairman McEachern asked Mr. Mangus to write the property owners and the Liquor Store and Angelo’s a letter to let them know this. 

Ron Roberts asked about the school remodel on north Andover Road.  He stated that the sidewalks are torn up and when will this be fixed.  Mr. Mangus stated there is discussion as to how much the contractor is responsible for and a timetable for repair. 

Ron Roberts asked when Allison would be repaired.  Jeff Bridges stated it is due to be rehabilitated.  Mr. Mangus stated the City is working on interim repair with the City Engineer. 

John McEachern stated that the building on Andover Road that is being built by his house has windows in the rear of the building but none were shown on the plans for the building.  He asked Mr. Mangus to check this out.

Motion to adjourn made by Charles Malcom.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0. 

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Adjourn