ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
June
20, 2006
Minutes
|
The Andover City Planning Commission met for a
regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 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, Lynn Heath, and Jeff Syrios. Others in attendance were Director of Public Works and Community Development Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and
City Council Liaison Caroline Hale. Commission Members David Martine and Ron
Roberts were absent.
|
Call to order
|
|
|
Review the minutes of the May 16, 2006 and May 23,
2006 Planning Commission meetings.
Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes of
both meetings as presented. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried
4/0/1 with Jeff Syrios abstaining.
|
Review the minutes of the
May 16, 2006 & May 23, 2006 Plan. Comm. mtgs.
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council
minutes from the May 9, 2006 and May 30, 2006 meetings. Chairman Coon
stated Lynn Heath, Jan Cox and Jeff Syrios were reappointed to the Planning
Commission. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the June
6, 2006 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and
filed.
Review the minutes of the June
13, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and
filed.
Review the Potential
Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications
|
|
|
SU-2006-02: Special
use requested to establish a place of assembly for periodic conduct of social
and business functions such as, but not limited to; business offices,
auctions, seminars, exhibits, reunions, special occasion receptions, garage
sales, flea markets, farm and art markets in the B-5 Highway Business
District located at 125-127 W. US Hwy. 54.
From
Les Mangus Memo: This application is intended to provide for the former Red
Mesa Grill building at 125-127 W. US-54 to operate in a similar fashion to
the Wholesale Fireworks building only on a much smaller scale. The proposed
uses raise no real concerns except for the lessons that we have learned with
the Wholesale Fireworks outdoor uses and adequate on-site paved parking.
Les
explained the front half of this building is Flint Hills Wine and Spirits and
the back half is now vacant restaurant space. There was general discussion
about the possibilities of outdoor and indoor activities this building could
be rented out for.
Dave
Dvorak representing the partners of Blue Valley Wine & Spirits said they
just want to generate income from the 3,800 square feet of vacant space until
a permanent tenant can be found. He read from the list of possible uses he
provided to the Commissioners.
Jeff
Syrios asked if this request is granted, would the vacant space be remodeled.
Dave Dvorak said they plan to leave the space as restaurant style until a
tenant is found who may request some interior changes. Dave further stated he
has applied to the Site Plan Review Committee for approval to reface the
entire building to blend in more with the River project.
There
was discussion about the boundary lines of this property and about the
location of the paving. Les read from the Zoning Regulations the permitted
uses in the B-5 zone.
There
was general discussion about the parking area between the subject property
and the River project.
Les
explained the B-5 zone is not all accumulated like the B-4 which accumulates
everything in B-1, 2, & 3.
Byron
Stout asked if any other properties around this have special uses. Les said
the closest is Wholesale Fireworks building at 159th and Kellogg.
Les said we have learned that the outdoor uses are the ones that create
problems with the neighborhood, when the crowd outgrows the on-site parking,
and when the activities last until midnight. Discussion continued.
Quentin
Coon asked if anyone else from the audience wished to speak on this matter.
Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Discussion
continued about approving this request for indoor uses only. Les said they
could hold uses that were permitted with no further approval.
Jan
Cox asked who would control the amount of crowd / parking that would attend
any one of the events. Les said the parking is the function of the square
footage of the building, which can easily be controlled. There was general
discussion about the possible parking areas around this property. The area to
the south is unpaved. The Zoning Regulations require all of the required
parking to be paved. There was discussion about enforcement of any decisions
made tonight.
Jan
Cox asked if a condition for approval could be to pave all parking areas. Les
said any conditions can be set. The unpaved area is approximately 10,000
square feet. Les said the paved parking area today meets the minimum
requirement for the existing permitted uses. The parking ratio will change as
the assembly type special uses change.
Les
explained the building code uses 1 occupant per 100 square feet for an
office, for assembly use without seating it uses 1 occupant per 7 square feet
which would be 13 times more parking.
Jeff
Syrios asked Dave Dvorak if he still
wanted the special use if he would be required to pave the additional parking
area. Dave Dvorak said this special use would be unfeasible if he were
required to pave the additional parking area. Les explained restaurant use
requires 1 parking space per 2 ½ seats. Dave Dvorak said the occupancy limit
in the restaurant per the previous fire chief was 180- 213 if the patio was used.
He did admit patrons were parking on the dirt when the restaurant was at full
capacity.
Jan
Cox asked if there could be an agreement with the River Addition to share
parking space.
Caroline
Hale asked if this could be approved
on a temporary basis that would not require the additional paving. Dave
Dvorak said he would agree to a temporary approval. Les said the time limit
restriction should not be a problem.
Dave
Dvorak said he does have an inside wedding reception planned for sometime in
August if he can get this use permit.
Les
said the only way to circumvent the paving is with a conditional use permit
like was used with Butler Community College.
Les
was concerned about the Planning Commission taking exception to their own
regulations by special use, only by variance or conditional use. Les said
time limits could be set on the conditional or variance.
General
discussion continued. Les said variances to the off street parking are
specifically mentioned as a variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals. This
will require another notice and hearing. Discussion continued about
enforcement of any use granted. Les said the parking requirement could spread
between 13 to 60 stalls depending on the event.
Dave
Dvorak agreed to limit the list of approved uses to avoid additional paving.
Les said high traffic trigger uses would be: auctions, reunions, receptions,
seminars. The other retail type uses would be fine as long as they are kept
indoors. General discussion continued. Les said the parking requirements
cannot be met for 180 people.
Lynn
Heath asked how many parking stalls
exist today. Dave Dvorak said 40- 45 some of which are on the River property
to the west of this building. The front business only uses 5-6 parking stalls
at the most. Les said the liquor store requires 13 spaces.
Discussion continued about
specific uses and their problems. Then there was discussion about methods to
limit the head count to indoor events. Les explained the previous disconnect
between the fire department and the City of Andover. Today there is personnel
at the fire department who are trained at the administration of the fire
code. Les and the Fire Chief could agree to a current occupancy load for the
building that is more reasonable. Les thinks the number would be 100 then
apply all the multipliers for parking spaces.
Quentin Coon began the
review of the Rezoning Report.
|
SU-2006-02:
Special use requested to establish a place of assembly located at 125-127 W. US Hwy. 54
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 5
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
SU-2006-02
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Dave Dvorak & Mike
Carney
|
REQUEST:
|
Special Use for a place of
assembly in the B-5 Highway Business District.
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Flint Hills Wine &
Spirits, and former Red Mesa Grill
|
LOCATION:
|
125- 127 W. US Hwy. 54
|
SITE SIZE:
|
0.94 acres
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
Place of assembly for rent.
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
North:
|
B-5 Highway Business
District- Kwik Shop and Lubbers.
|
South:
|
B-5 Highway Business District- vacant land.
|
East:
|
B-5 Highway Business
District- Valero Convenience Store.
|
West:
|
B-5 Highway Business District- vacant land.
|
|
Background Information:
|
Several
restaurants have failed at this location.
|
|
* 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:
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Potential concentrated traffic activity.
|
|
|
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:
|
|
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:
|
|
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?
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval as applied for with adequate paved parking.
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
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. SU-2006-02 be modified &
approved to change the zoning district classification from B-5 to B-5 Special
Use based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the
summary of this hearing. The findings are numbers 3, 6, 10, and 13 (and that the
following conditions are attached to this recommendation. Motion seconded by
Byron Stout. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
- Indoor
use only.
- Special
Use approval to expire in 1 year.
- To be
a revised fire code occupancy evaluation.
|
|
|
|
VA-2006-06: Vacation of a
portion of the Utility Easement North 17’ of the 25’ wide front yard building
setback and utility easement of Lot 10, Block 3, Crescent Lakes Phase 3 Addition located at 534 Stonetree Place.
From
Les Mangus Memo: This petition for vacation of a portion of the front yard
utility easement at 534 Stonetree Place arises from the location of water
well in the front yard. No conflicts have been identified by utility
providers, but concerns have been voiced by neighbors about the need for some
landscaping around the well head.
Terri
Wilgus representing Gearhart Homes and Treescapes Inc. for David Martine who could not be here. Treescapes was contracted to install sprinkler, well and
landscaping on this property. Access to the back yard was denied by the
neighbor to the south to get the well in the back yard so they installed it
in the front yard. A valid utility locate was established. Later they found
out the utility easement on this property was in the front yard, but that
there were no utility lines run in it other than the sewer line from the
house which has ample clearance from the well. All other utilities are
located across the street. They request a vacation of the utility easement
for this property.
Lynn
Heath asked what would be showing
above ground. Terri said only the well cap will be above ground which will be
landscaped with a rock and some plants. Les said that State law requires the
head of the well be 18” above ground and the landscape rock is there to hide
it. Byron Stout said the property to the north has a fire hydrant in the
front yard which is no different than this.
Les
said notices have been sent to the utility providers, none have any
objections to the vacation of the easement.
Quentin
Coon asked if anyone else from the audience wished to speak on this case.
Steve
Barfknecht owner of 534 N. Stonetree Place said shrubbery will be planted
around the well head to hide it.
Chairman
Coon closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to recommend approval for VA-2006-06 as requested to the Governing
Body. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
VA-2006-06:
Vacation of a portion of the Utility Easement North 17’ of the 25’ wide front
yard building setback and utility easement of Lot 10, Block 3, Crescent Lakes
Phase 3 Addition located at 534 Stonetree Place.
|
|
|
VA-2006-07: Vacation of
the Lakeside Drive frontage of Lot 17, Block 2, Cedar Park Addition Phase 2
located at 1420 N. Fountain Court.
From
Les Mangus Memo: This petition for vacation of access control on Lakeside Dr.
for a garage at 1420 N. Fountain Ct. became an issue when the builder changed
the access to the garage from Fountain Ct. to Lakeside Dr. The General
Provisions of the Cedar Park PUD prohibit direct access onto Lakeside Dr. This case alone is probably not a major concern, but the precedence set by
vacating access control to a collector street could start undesirable similar
requests, which would limit the traffic capacity and impede traffic safety on
collector streets.
Les said he is concerned
about access onto collector streets. Les said this is unique because it is a
corner lot which was required to have access off the cul-de-sac.
Kenny Hill with Poe and
Associates said he is representing the builder in this case. He said there
was concern about being able to park 2 cars in the driveway with the 15’
setback on one side of the lot. The way the house is built with a “L” shape
garage, you can get 2 cars in the driveway without encroaching on the
sidewalk. Kenny said he does not know what caused the error from the General
Provisions. He said the forms are set and ready to pour the driveway if this
vacation is approved. Kenny said this garage face is 35 ½ feet back from the
side yard setback.
There was general discussion
about safety and traffic issues along collector streets. Lynn Heath was very concerned about the builder not observing the General Provisions as recorded
in the PUD.
Caroline Hale asked if this
is denied, will the homeowner have a driveway they cannot use. Les said there
is an existing driveway approach on the cul-de-sac which would make the subject
drive a turn around area. Caroline asked if this house is occupied. Les said temporary
certificates of occupancy could be issued pending the approval of the driveway
approaches.
There was discussion about
the builder and developers having access to the PUD and the General
Provisions contained therein. Les said the PUD document is not a part of the
title work, but it would mention there is a PUD.
There was discussion about
how this problem was discovered. Les said the building inspector went out to inspect
the driveway approach and Lloyd said Lakeside Drive is access controlled
which put the driveway permit on hold.
Kenny Hill explained the
original developer sold the entire development to Randy Dean. The builder is
Randy’s cousin out of El Dorado. Eddie Dean is the petitioner of this
vacation. Eddie Dean has sold this house which is now occupied.
Byron Stout asked how long
this approach has been cutout and waiting for concrete. Les said 6 months or
more. Discussion continued about the layout of this property.
Byron Stout made a
motion at 8:40 p.m. to recommend denial for VA-2006-07 to the Governing Body
because Lakeside Drive is access controlled and because the garage is
functional as it exists today. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
VA-2006-07:
Vacation of the Lakeside Drive frontage of Lot 17, Block 2, Cedar Park
Addition Phase 2 located at 1420 N. Fountain Court.
|
|
|
VA-2006-08: West 15 feet
of the North drainage and utility easement on Lot 15, Block 4, Reflection Lake at Cloud City Phase 2 located at 520 E. Hedgewood Court.
From
Les Mangus Memo: This petition for vacation of a drainage and utility
easement at 520 E. Hedgewood Ct. is the result of the placement of water
well. No conflicts have been identified by the utility providers, and the
drainage is currently directed to the adjacent reserve, which contains a
retention/detention pond.
Les
said after he drove out to this site, he found the owners have also built a
masonry retaining wall around a play area that encroaches into this easement.
Notices have been sent to all the utilities and they have sent letters of no
objection to this because all their facilities are in the front yard
easement. The property backs up to a reserve, so all the drainage is focused
towards the reserve.
Chairman
Coon asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak on this case. Hearing
none, he asked for a motion.
Lynn Heath made a
motion at 8:45 p.m. to recommend approval for VA-2006-06 to the Governing
Body. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
VA-2006-08:
West 15 feet of the North drainage and utility easement on Lot 15, Block
4, Reflection Lake at Cloud City Phase 2 located at 520 E. Hedgewood Court.
|
|
|
Review the Preliminary
and Final Plats for Stiles Addition located at 2120 S. 159th
Street East.
From
Les Mangus Memo: The proposed plat is the result of a split of a 13 acre
parcel of form a 200 acre parcel for the purpose of building a single family
home. The proposed lot has a rather long frontage on 159th St.
East, of which a good portion is bisected by a floodplain. The existing
structure on the property is already served by a public waterline. Staff
supports the plat as drawn with the addition of a minimum building pad
elevation 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation, and a statement or petition
on the future paving of 159th Street and extension of public
sewer.
Mark
Stiles owner of 2120 S. 159th Street East presented the plats. He
said his plans for a future house will be built way above the flood area.
Les
said this property is inside the city limits and is zoned residential. He
said only the minimum pad elevation needs to be documented on the plats and
to work out a statement with Jeff Bridges for the future paving of 159th Street and the extension of public sewer. Water is already serving the
existing structure.
Jan
Cox asked about the final plat statement of improvements. Jeff Bridges said
those are issues that must be worked out before it goes to City Council with
a guarantee with a Developers Agreement that they will participate in the
cost of those improvements if they are undertaken by the City of Andover. Sedgwick County has paved north of there already, and generally speaking south of
Kellogg is Sedgwick County responsibility or Minneha Township north of Kellogg
is Andover responsibility.
Jan
Cox was concerned when the future house is built with the drainage and lot
grading. Les said there is an on site water way, and the current drainage
pattern for virtually the entire property is towards that drainage way. Staff
does not anticipate any change to the drainage pattern.
Lynn Heath made a
motion at 8:53 p.m. to approve the Preliminary and Final Plats for the Stiles
Addition as presented with the condition all staff comments are satisfied. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Review
the Preliminary and Final Plats for Stiles Addition located at 2120 S. 159th Street East.
|
|
|
Annexation of the Prairie Creek Addition, Paul
Kelsey, President
From
Les Mangus Memo: This petition for annexation of the property encompassed by
the proposed Prairie Creek Addition allows the Preliminary Planned Unit
Development to be heard by the Planning Commission at the July meeting. As
discussed with the sketch plats of the Prairie Creek Addition, this property
is within reasonable extension of public water, sewer, and streets, which
makes it a logical candidate for annexation.
Les
explained this property is at the corner of 13th Street and Prairie Creek Road. He said the next case is an interstitial space between the Prairie Creek
Addition and the existing city park which makes the Prairie Creek annexation
contiguous in lieu of an island which would require approval of the County Commissioners. Lynn Heath asked what order these need to be approved in. Les said when
they get to the City Council; the CNJ property is annexed prior to Prairie
Creek Addition so it is a contiguous annexation. Les said the owner of the
tract in-between heard about public utilities and streets to his property and
he wanted to be included in the improvements.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to recommend approval to the Governing Body for the annexation of
Prairie Creek Addition as presented. Byron Stout seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5/0.
|
Annexation
of the Prairie Creek Addition, Paul Kelsey, President
|
|
|
Annexation of 1304 E. 13th Street, CNJ
Properties LLC, Tim Neff, Manager
From
Les Mangus Memo: This petition for annexation is the result of the petition
for annexation for the Prairie Creek Addition. The owner desires to be a part
of the water & sewer benefit districts, which requires being within the
City Limits. The side effect of the annexation of this property being annexed
is the elimination of the need for Butler County approval for the annexation
of the Prairie Creek Addition as an island.
Lynn Heath made a
motion to recommend approval of the annexation of the CNJ Properties as
presented. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Annexation
of 1304 E. 13th Street, CNJ Properties LLC, Tim Neff, Manager
|
|
|
Annual Review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.
From
Les Mangus Memo: Prior to the Planning Commission Meeting the subcommittee
charged with making recommendations on the update of the Comp. Plan will be
held. A summary of the meeting accomplishments will be given by the
subcommittee.
2
members of the Sub Committee chosen to discuss the Comp Plan met at 5:30
prior to this Planning Commission meeting. Byron Stout, Jeff Syrios, Les Mangus, and Deborah Carroll were present for the meeting. David Martine was absent.
Jeff Syrios gave a brief
report of the meeting. He said the chapter summary provided by Les was
discussed. The focus was on ways to create a central focal area for the city
with a “main street feel”.
Chairman Coon asked how to distinguish between a
designated park area and still make it an area for a public library and city
hall. Jeff Bridges said Central Park has always been designed with the future
plan to allocate the front 5 acres for municipal area and designated the rear
75 acres to be open space with the gazebo and the future amphitheatre to the
southwest of it. Les said the effect of this will draw development that
direction.
Byron Stout said he had a
concern about more focus and money being spent on the Central Park vs. the 13th Street Sports Park. Les explained to him about the 1.3 million dollars
recently spent on 13th for the concession stand, play toys, and
parking areas.
Les discussed the Corridor Management Plan for
everything developing along Highway 54 and the importance for road connections,
building setbacks and etc. Les said a final summary of the subcommittee
meeting will be submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting.
|
Annual
Review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.
|
|
|
Member Items:
David Martine- absent
Lynn Heath- none
Jan Cox-
Asked why the minutes need to be approved with a motion and a second. Jeff
Bridges explained by approving the minutes, the board that took the action
contained in the minutes agree that it is the official record of those
meetings. If there were any challenges, subsequent actions would be based
upon the official minutes. Whether the minutes are included in a consent
agenda or approved alone, they need to have an affirmative vote which should
include a motion and a second. Les said that record is very important in
zoning cases because that is what the City Council is basing their decision
on.
Ron Roberts- absent
Byron Stout- none
Quentin Coon-
none
Jeff Syrios- none
Caroline Hale- none
|
Member Items
|
|
|
Jeff Syrios made
a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:09 p.m. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5/0.
|
Adjournment
|
|
|
Respectfully Submitted by
__________________________
Deborah
Carroll
Administrative Secretary
Approved this 18th
day of July 2006 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|