View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version



March 20, 2001



The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, and Charles Malcom. John McEachern, Lori Hays and Sheri Geisler were absent. 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 Vice-Chairman Joe Robertson at 7:02 p.m.

Call to order



Review of the minutes of the February 20, 2001 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Charles Malcom, seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 5 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the February 20, 2001 Andover Planning Commission



Minutes of the February 13, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.


Minutes of the February 6, 2001 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.


Minutes of the February 27, 2001 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.




Committee and Staff Reports.   There were none

Staff Reports



ZA-2001-01 Public Hearing on an application for Amendment to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. SIGNS 102 General Standards to allow Off Premises Real Estate Signs as a Conditional Use in any zoning district.  The applicant, Plaza New Homes, seeks to change the current zoning regulations to allow temporary development signs off premises in order to help customers find developments not visible from the main streets.  The agent, Linda Mason, presented information on behalf of the applicant.



Les Mangus stated that approximately one year ago the new sign regulations put into place eliminated all advertising signage.  Mr. Mangus stated that this application is to make an exception to the regulations and allow as a Conditional Use off premises real estate signs.  Mr. Mangus stated that by making this a Conditional Use it will allow the Board to look at each case and put any conditions on the approval as desired.  Mr. Mangus also stated he worked with Plaza New Homes in drafting the verbiage of the amendment.


Vice-Chairman Robertson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 


Linda Mason of Plaza Real Estate gave a brief history of their previous sign application.  Plaza Real Estate applied for a sign permit 1-25-2000, this application was denied.  Plaza then applied for an appeal to the Board of Zoning appeals.  On October 17, 2000 the Board reaffirmed the denial.  Ms. Mason then passed out an area map for Cedar Park and explained that this amendment has come about due to the need to advertise for this development.  Ms. Mason stated they are asking to amend the text of the zoning regulations passed in August of 2000 to include the following:  Article 7, Section 102.  P.  Off Premises Real Estate Signs.  Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7-102 N. and, to temporarily provide additional visibility for new real estate developments within the City but not located along major traffic routes, the Board of Zoning Appeals may consider an application for a conditional use to allow off premises real estate signs in any zoning district.  If approved, such real estate signs shall otherwise comply with the provisions for real estate signs of the district in which it is located.  Ms. Mason stated that they would like to give the power to the Planning Commission to make individual decisions regarding signage.  


Vice-Chairman Robertson asked if this was new wording.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is.  There were no questions from the Planning Commission for the applicant.  Vice-Chairman Robertson asked if there were any exparte communications.  There were none. Vice-Chairman Robertson asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to the issue.  No one did.


Vice-Chairman Robertson closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.


Vice-Chairman Robertson asked Mr. Mangus if he had any idea of how many off premise signs there are.  Mr. Mangus could recall four developments off the top of his head.  Ron Roberts asked if there had been any other requests for off premise signage.  Mr. Mangus stated there has not been.  Quentin Coon asked if this verbiage has been run through the city.  Mr. Mangus stated that he and Bickley Foster worked on the verbiage together. 


Jim Orr commented that perhaps there needed to be a definition of major traffic route.  He also was concerned that this provides a case by case basis of examination and asked if individual homeowners could use this also and thought maybe this is pointing toward new homes only but perhaps this should be reworded.  He also asked what was considered a real estate development.


Lynn Heath stated that he thought the amendment in the sign regulations were to have way to allow for exceptions in the regulations but it did not.  He would like to see this option available but not just for real estate development signs.  Ron Roberts feels that if you open the door for real estate signs you should open the door to all businesses.  Charles Malcom stated he has empathy for the realtors because he’s been in their shoes.  Mr. Roberts feels the conditional use should be open to more cases.


Quentin Coon asked Mr. Mangus to define “temporary.”  Mr. Mangus stated that the Conditional Use would allow the Planning Commission to put whatever conditions they would like on the sign usage including the length of time signage would be allowed, location and size.  Mr. Coon also asked what size is currently allowed for a real estate sign.  Mr. Mangus stated that 100 square feet is allowed in the R-2 District for development signs, however the sign shall be removed when 75% of the lots in the subdivision have been sold. 


Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the amendment to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. SIGNS 102 General Standards to allow Off Premises Real Estate Signs as a Conditional Use in any zoning district as presented.


Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 4-1 with Ron Roberts opposed. 


At 7:20 p.m., motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.


ZA-2001-01 Public Hearing on an application for Amendment to the Zoning Regulations



PUBLIC HEARING on BZA-ZA-2001-01:  Application by Darrin Lyon, 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover, for reduction of the rear yard setback of 20’ to 15’ in the B-3 Central Shopping District.





Vice Chairman Robertson opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.


Vice Chairman Robertson welcomed the public to the hearing and laid out some of the ground rules. 


1.  “It is important that you present any fact or views that you have as evidence in this hearing so that the findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.  In order to grant a variance five specific written findings of facts must all be met according to the state statutes and the City Zoning Regulations.


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


3.  After the Zoning Administrator provides us with some background information we 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 then will 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 can 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 landscape may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions on the premise benefited by the variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-107D which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance 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 the zoning permit for a variance 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. 


So at this time we would like to proceed with the hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing or voting on this case because of their spouse owning property in the area of notification, or conflict of interest, or a particular bias in this matter.”




No one disqualified himself or herself.




Notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal on February 22, 2001.  The notice was mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on February 20, 2001 unless there

is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I will declare that proper notification has been given.  No one made any comment.




Have any of the Board members received any ex parte verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  No one had any comments. 




Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief background on the case.  




Bob Kaplan, the representative of the applicant, Darrin Lyon, stated that he has asked for a 5’ reduction in the rear yard building setback, however he applied for the wrong thing and actually wants a 10’ reduction.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he knows the Board can only act on the 5’ reduction that was requested, as that was what was applied for.  Mr. Kaplan explained that Mr. Lyon’s lot is 180’ deep, with the corridor management front yard and rear setbacks, the workable space for Mr. Lyon is reduced to 75’.  Mr. Kaplan stated that Mr. Lyon originally wanted a 100’ building on his property but that is not possible.  Mr. Lyon is asking for the reduction in the rear yard building setback in order to have an 80’ building.  Mr. Kaplan also asked if the Board would give him an informal answer to whether they would look favorably upon a request for an additional 5’ rear yard setback reduction.  If the Board would look favorably upon this he will reapply for the additional reduction.  Mr. Kaplan stated he has been working with KDOT, specifically Chris Huffman regarding the highway access.  KDOT has permitted the use of the highway access for 36 months.  Then Mr. Lyon will have to change the entrance into his shop. 




There were no public comments.




There were no written communications.




The public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m.  There will be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.



Quentin Coon asked what size building Mr. Lyon was going to build.  Mr. Lyon stated he wanted a 100’ building originally but now wants an 85’ building, which would allow for 6 bays.  There was general discussion regarding the condition of the property to the north of Mr. Lyon.  Mr. Mangus stated that the title search did not show any easements on the property.   Vice-Chairman Robertson asked where Mr. Lyon would exit the building.  Mr. Lyon stated that currently they use U.S. Hwy 54.  After 36 months he stated they will exit out the west side of the building and drive to McCandless then to the highway.  Quentin Coon asked Mr. Mangus how KDOT addressed compensation for the increased setback to property owners.  Mr. Mangus stated that is a regulatory setback and the compensation for this will come when the property is actually acquired for improvements.

The Board of Zoning Appeals then went through the checklist as follows:

                                                February 22, 2001

                                                                                                Publication date


Board of Zoning Appeal Action                                                March 21, 2001

            Variance                                                                       Hearing Date


BZA-V-2001-01         B-3 Central Shopping

                                                                                                Zoning District




A.        Variances from the provisions of the zoning regulations shall be granted by the Board only in accordance with the standards in Section 10-107(d), and only in the following instances and NO others:  (A through G).


1.         To vary the applicable lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements, subject to the following limitations:


a.         The minimum lot width and lot depth requirements shall not be reduced more than 25%.


b.         The minimum lot area for a single or two-family dwelling shall not be reduced more than 20%.


c.         The minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements for multiple-family dwellings shall not be reduced more than 10%.


Dimension of lot 164’ X 301’  Variance requested: Reduction of required 20’ rear yard to 15’.     



B.         To vary the applicable bulk regulations, including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements:


            1.         The bulk regulations for this district are:


                        20’ rear yard.  


            2.         Variance would change bulk regulations as follows:


                        15’ rear yard.  


C.        To vary the applicable off-street parking and off-street loading requirements.  (Must establish time schedule for compliance…See Article 5




D.        To vary the sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding nonresidential district regulations:




E.         To vary certain provisions of the FP Flood Plain District as provided for in Section 4-114(L):




F.         The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall,                     True/                False/

in each case, make specific written findings of                 Yes                   No       

fact directly based upon the particular evidence

presented to it which support all the conclusions

as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:


            1.         That the variance requested arises from                           XX

such condition which is unique to the property in

question and which is not ordinarily found in the

same zoning district, and is not created by an action

or actions of the property owner or the applicant.


2.         That granting of the variance will not adversely     XX

affect the rights of adjacent property owners or



3.         That strict application of the provisions of                        XX

these regulations from which a variance is

requested will constitute unnecessary hardship

upon the property owner represented in the



4.         That the variance desired will not adversely                   XX

affect the public health, safety, morals, order,

convenience, prosperity or general welfare; and


5.         That granting the variance desired will not                       XX

be opposed to the general spirit and intent of

these regulations.                                 


G.        In determining whether the evidence supports the                       True/                False/

            conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the                      Yes                  No

            Board shall consider the extent to which the      

evidence demonstrates that:


1.         The particular physical surroundings, shape,                   XX

                        or topographical condition of the specific

                        property involved would result in a practical

                        difficulty or unnecessary  hardship upon or

                        for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as

                        distinguished from a mere inconvenience,

                        if the provision of these regulations were

                        literally enforced.


            2.         The request for a variance is not based              XX     

                        exclusively upon a desire of the owner,             

                        lessee, occupant or applicant to make more

                        money out of the property.                                                                   


            3.         The granting of the variance will not be               XX

materially detrimental or injurious to

other property or improvements in the

neighborhood in which the subject

property is located, and


            4.         The proposed variance will not impair an                        XX

                        adequate supply of light or air to adjacent

                        property, substantially increase the

                        congestion in the public streets, increase

                        the danger of fire, endanger the public

                        safety, or substantially diminish or impair

                        property values within the neighborhood.


H.        Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals

            As per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:



1.         Platting.


Motion made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Ron Roberts as follows: Having considered the evidence of the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D.1. of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance, subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Platting.   


There was no discussion.  Motion passed 5-0. 



Planning Commission reconvened at 8:05 p.m.




Member Items.  Ron Roberts asked Les Mangus the status of the mini storage on 21st Street.  Mr. Mangus stated this still has an open building permit and they need to do the required landscaping.  Ron Roberts asked about a fence around the junk yard.  Mr. Mangus stated that a fence around the storage area was not part of his application.


Joe Robertson asked about the date of the retreat.  Jeff Bridges stated the City Council will meet on 3/26/01 and suggest a date, probably late May or June.


Lynn Heath stated that he has had phone calls regarding Shay Street and people driving from dead end streets over the berms over to the school.   Les Mangus stated that this is scheduled to be landscaped this fall.  He feels the berms and the landscaping will then keep traffic off the berms.


Charles Malcom asked the new reporter from Andover Journal Advocate to introduce himself.  His name is Matt Clark and he will be covering the Planning Commission meetings. 

Member Items. 



Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0. 


Meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.