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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

March 19, 2002

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met March 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom, Ron Roberts, David Ledgerwood, and Dave Martine.  John McEachern and Joe Robertson were absent.  Others in attendance were Bickley Foster, City Planning Consultant, and Wilma Stoltz, Administrative Secretary. 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Quentin Coon at 7:02 p.m.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the February 19, 2001 and March 2, 2002 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meetings.  Motion was made to approve the February 19, 2001 and March 2, 2002 minutes of the Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals by Lynn Heath.  Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.  Ron Roberts abstained.

Review the minutes of the February 19, 2001 and March 2, 2002 Andover Planning Commission

 

 

Minutes of the February 26, 2002 and February 12, 2002 City Council meetings were received and filed.

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   Chairman Quentin Coon welcomed David Ledgerwood to the commission.  Mr. Bickley Foster was welcomed in the absence of Les Mangus and Jeff Bridges.

 

John McEachern arrived at 7:12 p.m.

Communications:

 

 

Z-2002-01 Application for change of zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition to the B-1 Office Business District on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Kutter Addition, generally located at 1507 W. Central.   Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.  Bickley Foster stated notification was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on February 21, 2002 and notices were mailed to the applicant and four property owners of record in the area of notification on February 18, 2002.  Quentin Coon asked if any commission members needed to disqualify themselves from this discussion.  No one disqualified himself.  Quentin Coon asked if any commission member had any ex parte communications. No one had ex parte communications.

 

Dr. Ronald Kutter of 14210 Lakeview Dr, Wichita, KS presented information on this property.  Dr. Kutter explained that he came to this council a few years ago to obtain the current zoning on this piece of property because he had anticipated putting his veterinary clinic at that location initially.  Mr. Kutter stated that the plans changed after that and he felt that it would help if we could have access to both Central and 159th Street, so Dr. Kutter recently the conditional use for a veterinary clinic on the corner property.  When Dr. Kutter came to the Commission a few years ago to get the A-1, it was because it was in a failed attempt to appease the neighbors to the east.  He stated that it turned into a big dispute and he fortunately prevailed and was granted the zoning.   Dr. Kutter stated that if knew it would have turned into that big of dispute he would have gone ahead and applied for a B-1 at that time.  Dr. Kutter stated that it would allow for a slightly wider scope of use yet it would be a quiet use of that property.  Dr. Kutter stated that it matches zoning on three of the four adjacent properties that it borders.   Dr. Kutter stated that the property is for sale. 

 

Public Comments.  Bill Hadwiger, 1504 Buttam Rd, Oklahoma City, 73120.  Mr. Hadwiger asked this Commission to consider B-1 when we know what our neighbor (the applicant) wishes to do.  Mr. Hadwiger stated that some of the Commissioners might be aware that it is usual and common practice when a buyer and seller get together and the buyer wants to potentially put in something for which the property is not zoned, to enter into a conditional agreement.   To take that purpose before this sort of Commission and determine whether that purpose is allowable.  Mr. Hadwiger thinks that is the appropriate way for it to be done, whether it be a bank, dental office or whatever it maybe Mr. Hadwiger thinks that is the appropriate way for it to be done.  Mr. Hadwiger stated that as the Kutters have suggested that property is now zoned, for as of 1994, so a veterinary clinic can be placed right next to his property.  The squabble in which the Kutters and he disagreed did not prevail, was this, Mr. Hadwiger stated, prior to the Planning Commissions meeting in 1994, the Kutters were in our living room and said, “look if you protest we will give you a 200’ buffer zone between your west line and anything we might build”.   Mr. Hadwiger did not know whether to take that as a bribe, threat or what. 

 

Mr. Hadwiger showed up in protest at the Planning Commission meeting, and the Commission at that time gave us a 100’ buffer zone.  At that Planning Commission meeting neither Mr. Kaplan, who represented the Kutters, nor the Kutters stood up and said yeah, we will volunteer to give them 200' if you give us what we want.  They forgot their conversation in the living room of the Hadwigers.  Mr. Hadwiger stated that leaves us to the concept that while they presently have a boarding kennel vet clinic approved for their lot west of Mr. Hadwiger down on 159th and Central, if they get B-1 this evening, what is keeping them from taking that same B-1 and saying wait a minute we have decided that because of the low ground in there, we have decided we want to apply for an conditional use you have already granted a B-1.   Mr. Hadwiger stated that with all frankness he must say that failure 8 years ago to go along with what was promised in our living room as to a 200’ buffer zone causes us to oppose this B-1 application.  Mr. Hadwiger asked that this Commission consider denying the application letting them do what is usual and normal and that is if they find a buyer, let that buyer come to the Commission and tell the Commission what they wish to do with the property.  

 

Quentin Coon asked Mr. Hadwiger if he was the owner of the house to the east.  Mr. Hadwiger replied yes.

 

Dr. Kutter responded by saying that he gave Mr. Hadwiger the benefit of just being forgetful.  That conversation he mentioned never ever took place.   The 100’ buffer was something that was brought up at this meeting. There was never any discussion of any kind of buffer until it was brought up at this meeting and agreed to by this Commission.  Their was never any discussion like that in their home.   The reason they were at their home, stated Dr. Kutter, was that Dr. Kutter went to every property owner around there to talk to them and see how they felt about a veterinary clinic being on that piece of property.  Mr. Kutter stated that Mr. Hadwiger never indicated support or negatively during that meeting.   Mr. Kutter stated that when he and his wife and he walked out of the home they did not have any idea if Mr. Hadwiger would support it or be against it.  Dr. Kutter stated they have gone though the Site Plan Review for the corner and the applicant property is for sale because Kutters need the money to fund the other project.  Mr. Kutter stated they already have bank contract financing contract that it would already be attached by the bank when it sells. 

 

John McEachern stated that although it was 8 years ago it was to Mr. McEachern’s recollection that the Planning Commission put the 100’ buffer on it.   It was the idea of the Commission to have some buffer from the kennel because of the noise of the kennel. 

 

Quentin Coon closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.

 

Chairman Coon then stated that the Planning Commission would now review the Rezoning Report. 

Z-2002-01 Application for change of zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural Transition to the B-1 Office Business District on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Kutter Addition, generally located at 1507 W. Central.  

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 5

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2002-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Dr. Ronald L. & Lori R. Kutter

 

REQUEST:

Zoning change from A-1 Agriculture Transition District to B-1 Office Business

 

CASE HISTORY:

Rezoned with Special Use for Animal Hospital with dog and cat boarding facility in 1994

 

LOCATION:

1507 W. Central

SITE SIZE:

375’ x 394.5’

 

PROPOSED USE:

No specific use at this time

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

R-2  Terradyne Golf Course and B-1 Terradyne Office Building

South:

A-1 Stoffle Office Building

East:

R-1 Single Family Residential – Hadwiger home

West:

B-1 Future location of Kutter Pet Care 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 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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

Yes, the current zoning limits the permitted uses to agriculture and a few permitted uses or an animal hospital with boarding facility.

 

 

PLANNING:

Same as above

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

4.   Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

5.   Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

Water and streets exist but sanitary sewer would have to be extended to the property.

x

 

PLANNING:

Utilities and street access 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:

Already platted.

 

x

PLANNING:

Already platted.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Screening would be necessary.

x

 

PLANNING:

Site Plan approval will consider screenings.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

None in the immediate vicinity.

 

x

PLANNING:

None in the immediate vicinity.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes, more services and employment opportunities would be provided.

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes, more services and employment opportunities would be provided

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

11.   Is the subject property suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

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:

No detriment is perceived

 

x

PLANNING:

Same as above

 

 

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:

Business at intersection.

x

 

PLANNING:

Business at intersection.

 

 

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:

Pg. 8-11 provides for neighborhood commercial areas along arterial streets especially at intersections.

x

 

PLANNING:

Same as above.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

None at this time.

x

 

PLANNING:

Input from Mr. Hadwiger, 1504 Buttam Rd, Oklahoma City, 73120 indicating that it would be best to wait on the rezoning until a buyer was obtained and plans for the property would be known.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

STAFF:

No  detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived, however, a considerable loss to the applicant because they are dependent upon the sale of the site to finance their new business to the west

 

 

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-2002-01 application for change of zoning district classification from A-1 Agricultural to the B-1 Office District at 1507 W. Central be approved based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, to support the motion include items 3, 10, 13 and 14.  John McEachern seconded the motion.   Motion carried 7-0

 

 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath, seconded by John McEachern to adjourn the Planning Commission and reconvene the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Joe Robertson joined the committee at 7:50 p.m.

 

 

 

BZA-V-2002-01 Public hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 25 foot side yard setback to 15 feet in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District at 417 W. Central.  

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

Chairman Coon opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.

 

It is 7:39 p.m. and I now call Agenda item # 6 which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-V-2002-01 pursuant to Section 10-107 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a variance of the side yard setback from the required 25’ minimum limitation to 15’.  Chairman Coon welcomed the public to the hearing and laid out some of the ground rules.

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

 

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 the hearing, discussing or voting on this case because they or their spouse’s own property in the area of notification, or have conflicts of interests, or a particular bias in this matter.

 

No one disqualified themselves.

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

According to Bickley Foster, City Planning Advisor. notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on February 21, 2002.  The notices were mailed to the applicant and the real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on February 18, 2002.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I will declare that proper notification has been given.  No one made any comment.

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:

 

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 communication received.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;

 

None.

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:  Doug Allison, 1038 S Ginkgo Lane, Andover, KS, representing Faith Baptist Church, where he is a member of Faith Baptist Church, owner of the property in question.  Faith Baptist youth have been meeting off site on Sunday morning for Sunday School because of lack of classroom space.   In an effort to resolve that problem the Pastor, Jerry Smith, has negotiated a very good deal with the school district for one of their portable buildings.  Mr. Allison stated it would be their desire to relocate that to the property in question and use it for classroom space.  Mr. Allison stated they had been to the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Allison stated that over the last two months we have discussed with the Site Plan Review Committee how Faith Baptist Church would go about locating this portable building on the property.  In the process of talking to Les Mangus regarding what some of the options were, we determined that Faith Baptist Church is in a R-1 District which requires a rear and side yard setback of 25’ each.  Mr. Allison stated that the location along the west property line would be the most reasonable location as far as aesthetics were concerned.   Mr. Allison stated he had gone through the zoning book and found a provision in the zoning   regulations which would allow us do what we want to do without a variance.  That is through the Accessory Use Provision.

 

Joe Robertson stated what he is questioning here is that the Commission has adjourned to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the paper that is in front of us, if there is a different word or different topic that is being discussed by the applicant then Mr. Robertson did not think the board was in the right venue of what was about to be proposed.  Mr. Robertson said if that was the case then perhaps it needs to be postponed for another 30 days unless the applicant has a different notion as a result of his research then whether that needs to abandon this zoning appeals and come back at a later date to discuss.

 

Lynn Heath would like to continue on with the variance and see if the Zoning Appeal’s Board wants to approve it and then if Faith Baptist Church does not need it, its approved.  

 

Bickley Foster stated they should go ahead and hear the zoning case as Mr. Allison has paid his fee, he has advertised, and notice has been given and that the decision should be made. 

 

Mr. Allison stated the reason the Church decided to move it toward the west is to maintain visual control from the parsonage to the main building and there have been some incidences of vandalism and theft in recent months.  Also just from the aesthetic point of view to be able to push the building back there behind the parsonage.  Mr. Allison stated they are requesting to reduce the setback to 15’ on that property line. 

 

Joe Robertson asked Mr. Allison if this portable building being looked at is a permanent fixture or are they planning in the future for a different building.   Mr. Allison said they desire to move it off the property and construct more durable space, but refrained from putting a time table on it.

Quentin Coon asked if this was one or two buildings.  Mr. Allison stated it was one building.

 

Lynn Heath asked how big the portable buildings were.   Mr. Allison stated they were 24 x 70. 

 

Bickley Foster asked what approximately was the distance from 3rd Street up to the edge of the parking lot.  Mr. Allison stated between 150’ - 200’.

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

The Board will now deliberate the request.  First, we need to determine if the request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize us to grant a variance.  For example, it cannot be a “use” variance.  Those permitted are found in Section 10-107C and are listed as follows:  

 

1.         To vary the applicable minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements.

                       

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

 

3.         To vary the dimensional provisions for permitted obstructions in required yards including fences in Section 3-103F.

 

4.         To vary the applicable number of required off-street parking spaces and the amount of off-street loading requirements of Article 5.

 

5.        To vary the applicable dimensional sign provisions of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding district regulations.

 

6.        To vary the applicable requirements in Sections 10-107 C1 through 5 above in conjunction with conditional use applications for nonconforming, nonresidential structures and uses under provisions of Section 8-105.

 

7.      To vary the applicable provisions permitted by the flood plain district.

Based on the application, this request meets the criteria for Section 10-107C pertaining to a variance of the bulk regulations.

            In determining whether the evidence presented supports the conclusions of the five findings required by Section 10-107D1, the Board shall now consider the extent to which the evidence demonstrates that:

 

a.                   The particular physical surroundings, shape 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;

 

b.                  The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property;

 

c.                   The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the  subject property is located; and

 

d.                  The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion on public streets or roads, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

 

Each of the five findings of fact will be read and our collective opinion will now be summarized for the minutes.  When a condition is not found to exist, the wording may be altered by adding or deleting the word “not” as appropriate.

 

a.                   That the variance requested arises from 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 because; the temporary location of the classroom is surrounded on three sides by other Faith Baptist Church buildings, and the location is at the rear property lines of the two neighboring properties to the west. 

 

b.      That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents because; the location is hidden by other buildings on the site, and the neighbor’s buildings require side yard setbacks less than 15 feet and the adjacent duplexes do not adjoin this building directly.

 

c.      That strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application because; other locations on the site would greatly reduce available parking and visibility of the church and parking lot from the parsonage.

 

d.         That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare; because even with the reduction in side yard it is still a larger side yard than the other uses in the area.

 

e.     That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations; because adequate open space is provided around the buildings on the site.

 

DECISION:  

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings, I now call for a motion and, if approved, any conditions that might be attached:

 

Having considered the evidence at 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 10-107 D 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, Charles Malcom, move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance, for Case No. BZA-V-2002-01 with the conditions that the variance be limited to a north south dimension of 100’ along north side of the building and that the variance exist for only the life of the building.   John McEachern seconded the motion.

 

There was no discussion.   Motion passed 8-0.

BZA-V-2002-01 Public hearing on an application for a Variance of the required 25 foot side yard setback to 15 feet in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District at 417 W. Central.

 

 

Motion was made by John McEachern and seconded by Lynn Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission

 

Planning Commission reconvened at 7:50 p.m.

 

 

 

Review the draft revisions to the R-2 Single-Family Residential District Bulk Regulations and authorize a Public Hearing to consider the changes to the Zoning Regulations. Discussion followed as to the minimum lot width being changed to be smaller lots.  Decision was made to carry the review over to the April meeting when Les Mangus will be there at the meeting.

 

Review the Rezoning Report format.   Mr. Bickley Foster suggested to the commission that when answering the 17 questions not to answer the questions with just a no, it needs some words rather than just yes or no.   Mr. Foster suggested that #17 be changed to “By comparison”, rather than “If the request is not approved.  Mr. Foster stated he would like for the committee to think about this change.

 

Chairman Quentin Coon called for a recess at 9:00 p.m.

 

Chairman Quentin Coon called the Planning Commission back to order at 9:05 p.m.

 

Continue the discussion from the Training Workshop on the conduct of the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Mr. Bickley Foster presented information on the Role of the Board of Zoning Appeals.  In Chapter 4 of the Workbook you have appeals and variances and so forth.  Everything that you see there is in your zoning book.  Mr. Foster stated the Planning Commission is also the Board of Zoning Appeals.   Mr. Foster told the Commission that the Board of Zoning Appeals is very important as the Board makes a final determination, you are independent.  Mr. Foster told the Board that they are quasi-judicial, which means that the Board has to make findings.  Mr. Foster stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has to have fair and impartial hearings.  Mr. Foster presented information on guidelines for rules, appeals, variances, conditional uses and decisions appealable to District Court.   Discussion followed on questions from the commission. 

 

David Ledgerwood exited the meeting at 9:20 p.m.

John McEachern seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6-0.   

 

 

 

Member items.

 

David Martine asked about arterial roads.  Mr. Martine stated that the main arterial road, 13th Street from the end of the asphalt to 159th is in very bad condition.  Mr. Martine stated that he thought this year is when they were going to pave 13th then Sedgwick County took it off there agenda, so now we bumped it back.  Part of that road is in Bruno Township.  Mr. Martine stated they are incredibly poorly maintained.  Discussion followed regarding what to do with this poorly maintained road. 

 

John McEachern proposed a motion to the chairman, have the chairman have Les Mangus write a letter to the township and ask for cooperation because of all the citizens complaints to improve the road. 

 

Motion was made by David Martine to request the City Council to draft a letter and send  to the Bruno Township Trustee’s regarding the condition that 13th Street be brought up to the standards of Sedgwick County portion of 13th Street as a main arterial road leading into our City from the west.  

Member items

 

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission.  John McEachern seconded the motion.   Motion carried 6-0.

 

Meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.

Adjourn