|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
November
21, 2006
Minutes
|
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met for a
regular meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Chairman Quentin Coon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commission members present were Jan Cox, Byron Stout, David Martine, Lynn Heath, and Jeff Syrios, Ray Jessen. Others in attendance were City Council Liaison Member Caroline Hale, Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, and Clerk/Administrator
Jeff Bridges. Absent- Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
|
|
Review the minutes of the regular October 17, 2006
Planning Commission meeting.
Jan Cox made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.
Byron seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
Review the minutes of the
regular October 17, 2006 PC mtg.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council
minutes from the October 10, 2006 and October 24, 2006 meetings. The
minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the November
7, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and
filed.
Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications
|
|
|
|
|
SU:2006-06:
Special Use request to establish a Fitness/ Sports performance training
facility in the I-1 Industrial District located at 317 E. Commerce. (ATG
Sports)
Public Hearing: Chairman Coon opened the public
hearing on the application.
Tim Simoneau, the applicant, was the first to speak.
Mr. Simoneau, 1018 Park Road, in Rose Hill Kansas, handed out letters from the adjacent property owners in the industrial park stating
their support for the project. He stated this proposed change of use from
the contractor shop to a performance training center will specialize on
individual training needs. He stated that it would be a private training
facility with a safe and positive environment; it would benefit the local
economy and provide good recognition for the local athletes and national
exposure for Andover.
Chairman Coon asked if there were to be significant
renovations to the building. Mr. Simoneau replied that there would not be.
Chairman Coon asked how this facility is different
than the YMCA.
Mr. Simoneau responded that this facility will be
private and more personalized training will take place.
Chairman Coon asked how many people will be at the
facility at the same time.
Mr. Simoneau responded that most of the training
will be one on one. There will be programs for groups perhaps up to 10.
Jan Cox asked where they are currently located.
Mr. Simoneau stated that they are currently renting
a space at the Countryside Pet Clinic.
Jeff Syrios asked if they had looked at any other
spaces.
Mr. Simoneau stated that they had, but ATG Sports
was willing to sell the building.
Mr. Syrios stated that the Planning Commission has
to keep their eye on the big picture and although they may want your business
in Andover, perhaps that location may not work. The Planning Commission has
to look at broader issues.
Chairman Coon asked if ATG Sports will be vacating
the building. Mr. Simoneau said yes they would be.
Jeff Syrios asked if there
would be outdoor activities. Mr. Simoneau stated that there would not be at
this time.
Jeff Syrios asked if limiting
the use to indoors was a deal breaker. Mr. Simoneau said that it was not.
Elton Parsons of 1830 N. Lakeside Drive, Andover, represented Promote Andover Inc., who controls the industrial park on behalf of
the group. The Promote Andover Inc. board does not support this application
and request that the special use be denied due to its incompatibility with
the industrial uses in the park. PAI guaranteed to the other industrial
users that this would be an industrial park and their neighbors would be industrial
tenants. PAI will work with Mr. Simoneau to find another location in Andover.
Dave Martine asked why the adjacent property owners
signed the letter supporting the application.
Mr. Parsons stated that he did not know. He knew
that when they were dealing with the companies locating in the park, those
users stressed the desire be with other industrial users. That was a
critical factor for some of them.
Ray Jessen asked how long the industrial park has
been there.
Les Mangus stated that this
portion of the park has been there about 10 years.
Dennis Bush of 726 S. 159th Street, Andover stated that when he was Mayor and Sherwin Williams
(Aerospace) came to town, they were very particular about locating in an
industrial area. PAI made a commitment to them and he felt that should be
honored. Mr. Bush stated that he remembered when the Sherwin Williams
facility on 13th wanted to expand. There were numerous people
that spoke out against it.
Paul Driver, 1240 E. Meadow, Wichita, is the owner
of ATG Sports. He stated that there was not a lot of activity in the park
and he wants to sell this building because he wants to build a bigger one.
Gary Hamilton of 750 N. Sagebrush Ct., Wichita, stated that he had been a member of PAI since day one. He stated PAI could have
sold the park numerous times over but they have been trying to preserve the
land for industrial users. He stated that there is not much industrial land
in Andover. Development of the industrial park is a long range goal and the
City should not be short sighted about it.
Council Member Hale asked how many lots are
available.
Mr. Hamilton stated that there is one big 40+ acre
lot and there are 4 platted lots available.
Paul Driver stated that for his business it would
have made more sense to be in St. Louis, there are a lot of restrictions in Andover. Jabbara Airport also has land available that would make more sense. He stated
that the land is unattractive and he would like to see more businesses near
him.
Elton Parson said that what Mr. Driver said was the
exact reason for the preservation of the industrial park – to protect the
integrity of the community. He stated that industrial parks take a long time
to fill up.
Chairman Coon then closed the public hearing.
There was general discussion about the industrial
park. Les Mangus stated that although the use may be desirable to be in the
community, it is not compatible at all with the I-1 zoning.
The Planning Commission then began its
deliberations.
In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the applicant
desires to convert the existing industrial building from office and storage
uses to a fitness/sports performance training facility. All of the zoning
documents suggest against the intermingling of industrial and non-industrial
uses. The intent and purpose of the I-1 Industrial District is to provide for
light industries, with retail and service businesses which provide a
particular service or convenience to industrial uses or employees thereof.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests against the conversion of industrial land to
other uses. The proposed use is not necessarily incompatible with the
existing industries, but could cause some concern for conflicts with future
industrial uses at this location in the middle of an industrial park. Staff recommends
that the application be denied, based on the suggestions of the intent and
purpose of the I-1 Industrial District and the Goals of the Comprehensive
Plan.
|
SU:2006-06:
Special Use request to establish a Fitness/ Sports performance training
facility in the I-1 Industrial District located at 317 E. Commerce. (ATG
Sports)
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 5.
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
SU-2006-06
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
ATG Sports – Paul Driver
Owner / Tim Simoneau
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Fitness Training Facility in
the I-1 Industrial District
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Existing industrial building
currently occupied by ATG Sports. ATG Sports constructs athletic fields
around the country.
|
|
LOCATION:
|
317E. Commerce Street, Andover Industrial Park
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
189’ X 400’, 1.8 acres
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Fitness / sports performance
training facility
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
I-1 Industrial – Vornado Air
Circulation Systems, Inc.
|
|
South:
|
I-1 Industrial – Vacant
|
|
East:
|
I-1 Industrial – Sherwin
Williams Aerospace
|
|
West:
|
I-1 Industrial – Vacant
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
3.
Is the length of time that
the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in
the consideration?
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
5.
Is the request caused by changed
or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what
is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?
|
|
|
X
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A. No land available in exact situation. There is
plenty of other commercially zoned land for this use.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
10.
If the request is for
business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services or
employment opportunities?
|
|
X
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
X
|
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
12.
To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Could affect the desirability of the adjacent industrial
land.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Retail and service uses in the I-1 zone is limited to
those which service the industrial park employees
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Goals for Planning, “Land
use (I) preserve future industrial land from competing uses in favor of long
range development.
|
|
|
X
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Promote Andover Inc, the developers of the industrial
park, do not support the application due to the long range goal of preserving
the industrial park for industrial uses.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The Andover Industrial Park restrictive covenants limit
uses to “manufacturing, processing, storage, wholesale, office, laboratory, professional
research, and development activities.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur, and a recommendation from PAI not to approve.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we
recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2006-06 be disapproved
to change the zoning district classification from the I-1 Industrial District
to the I-1 Industrial District, Special Use for a Fitness Center, based on
the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this
hearing. Those findings being # 13, the request would not be consistent with
the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose
of the zoning regulations, #14, the request is not in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and #15 that PAI the developers of the Industrial Park
request that the application be denied due to the incompatible use and
inconsistency with the covenants of the park. Motion seconded by Jan Cox.
Motion carried 4/3 (Commissioners Martine, Jessen, and Stout in opposition).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion by Dave Martine, seconded by Lynn Heath to recess
the Planning Commission and Convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion
carried 7/0. BZA convened at 8:29 pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2006-08: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 74.95 square
feet from the required 71.93 square foot to permit aggregate total wall
signage of 146.88 square feet on property zoned as B-3 Central Shopping
District and located at 253 N. Andover Road. (O’Reilly’s Auto Parts)
Danny Yoast of 1060 East 167 North, Mulvane Kansas represented the applicant, O’Reilly’s Auto Parts. He stated that the standard
O’Reilly’s sign is larger than what is allowed in the zoning district and
they would like a variance to put up the larger sign. He also stated that
there will be a monument sign that is consistent with the zoning regulations
on the property as well.
There was discussion amongst the members regarding
the visibility of the smaller sign versus the larger sign and the
applicability of the regulations.
In the memo from Les Mangus he stated the applicant
desires to exceed the 5% maximum surface area for wall signage in order to
increase visibility of the new O’Reilly Auto Parts store. The request more
than doubles the wall signage allowed in the B-3 Central Shopping District.
Wall signage is in place on the building, which complies with the 5%
limitation. Staff is of the opinion that no conditions exist that makes this
location unique, or creates a hardship for the applicant.
|
BZA-V-2006-08:
Public Hearing on an application for a variance of 74.95 square feet from the
required 71.93 square foot to permit aggregate total wall signage of 146.88
square feet on property zoned as B-3 Central Shopping District and located at
253 N. Andover Road. (O’Reilly’s Auto Parts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-V-2006-09: Public
Hearing on an application for a variance of 400 square feet from the required
5,000 square foot minimum lot size limitation for the purpose of reducing the
lot size of one of two lots of property zoned as the R-3 Multiple-Family
Residential District and located at 708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.
Gene Rath, of MKEC
Engineering. 411 North Webb Road represented the applicant. He stated that
the lot, on which a duplex sits, cannot mathematically be divided into two
conforming lots. The applicant is asking for the variance to allow the lot
split.
Les Mangus stated that this
has been done before. The geometry of the lot works against a conforming
split/
In the memo from Les Mangus
he stated the applicant desires to split the
existing two-family dwelling to sell ownership of each unit separately. The
proposed split line leave the west unit with 4,607 sq. ft. of lot area, which
is 393 sq. ft. shy of the 5,000 sq. ft. required. Given that the lot is an
unusual cul-de-sac shape yet meets the bulk regulations for lot coverage and
building setbacks, Staff recommends approval as applied for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion by Jan Cox,
seconded by Dave Martine to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and Reconvene
the Planning Commission. Motion carried 7/0. The Planning Commission
reconvened at 8:57 pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LS-2006-01: Review
the proposed lot split located in Autumn Ridge Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1,
708 & 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.
Gene Rath of MKEC
Engineering, 411 N. Webb Road for the applicant.
Les Mangus stated that all
the staff comments have been addressed.
In
the memo from Les Mangus he stated the
proposed lot split divides the existing two-family dwelling for the purpose
of selling the individual units separately. The proposed division meets the
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, except for the variance of the
minimum lot area addressed in the previous BZA case. Staff recommends
approval contingent on the granting of the minimum lot area variance.
Motion by Lynn Heath, seconded by Byron Stout to approve the lot spilt. Motion carried 7/0.
|
LS-2006-01: Review the
proposed lot split located in Autumn Ridge Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1, 708
& 712 W. Autumn Ridge Ct.
|
|
|
|
|
Member items. Les Mangus gave an update of the activities of the Metropolitan Area
Planning Commission and the development on the west side of 159th Street and 21st Street.
Dave Martine wanted to discuss the issue of the lot
grading and drainage standards in the city. After somewhat lengthy
discussion, there was a motion by Byron Stout, seconded by Dave Martine,
to request to the Council that they review and perhaps create a committee to
do so to look at the 1.0 percent grading standards and the costs of changing
them. Motion carried 5/2 with Chairman Coon and Commissioner Cox in
opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Syrios made
a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Byron Stout seconded the motion.
Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully Submitted by
__________________________
Jeffrey
K. Bridges Jr.
City Clerk / Administrator
Approved this 16th day of January 2007 by
the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
