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

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.

 

 

 

  1. Indoor use only.
  2. Special Use approval to expire in 1 year.
  3. 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.