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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

March 21, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were Joe Robertson, Jim Orr, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Lynn Heath and Quentin Coon.  Others in attendance were Tim McFadden, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant. Planning Commission Chairman John McEachern was absent.

 

Roll Call.

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Joe Robertson at 7:03 p.m.

 

Call to order.

 

 

Planning Commission member Lori Hays arrived at 7:07 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Review of the minutes of the February 15, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Charles Malcom, seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 6 to 0.

 

Minutes of March 7, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee minutes were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the February 29, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

 

Review of the minutes of the February 15, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 

 

 

In regard to the committee and staff reports, Les Mangus told the Commission the City Council placed a moratorium on taking telecommunication tower application for 6 months.  The Mayor is going to appoint a committee to study and recommend changes to the current zoning regulations.  Joe Robertson asked what impact this had on the current meeting.  Les Mangus stated there is none.  Les Mangus then stated there is a tremendous amount of information regarding the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that this act has cleared the way for providers.  In reading information regarding the Telecommunications Act Les Mangus had determined that local jurisdictions have control over the site location and the construction of the tower only for telecommunication providers.  Les Mangus stated that he had included a lot of information regarding telecommunication towers in this packet.

 

Les Mangus also stated that he gave the Commission members a copy of the Butler County Zoning Regulations, Section 7, concerning Conditional Uses.  Quentin Coon asked what this material was for.  Mr. Mangus stated that this would be reference material for the Butler County Conditional Use, which is on today’s agenda for a Planning Commission recommendation to Butler County Planning Commission.

 

At 7:12 a motion was made by Lynn Heath and seconded by Jim Orr to recess from the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Motion carried 7-0.

Committee Reports.

 

 

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

 

BZA-CU-2000-01  A public hearing on an application for a conditional use to exceed the 60 foot maximum height communication structure limitation to allow construction of a 199 foot self-support communication tower in the B-5 Highway Business District at 1403 W. Ledgerwood Drive.  Joe Robertson then read the following:

 

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

 

CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON

A CONDITIONAL USE

PURPOSE:

 

This checklist is to assist:      (1) the Chairperson in conducting the hearing; (2) the Secretary in an orderly process of minute taking; (3) the applicant in presenting their request; and (4) any property owners or the persons who have questions or concerns or wish to know their rights in the matter. Although the order of the outline should be followed, the material will need to be modified to relate to the nature and extent of the particular case and the number of persons to be heard.  The Chairperson will find it helpful to mark up a checklist on each case prior to the hearing so that important procedural points are not inadvertently missed.

 

CALL TO ORDER:

 

It is 7:13 p.m. and I now call Agenda item #5, which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-CU-2000-01 pursuant to Section 10-108 of the City Zoning Regulations requesting a conditional use as an exception to permit the establishment of use to exceed the 60 foot maximum height communication structure limitation to allow construction of a 199 foot self-support communication tower at 1403 W. Ledgerwood Drive, Andover, Kansas on property zoned as the B-5 Highway Business District.  We would like to welcome everyone interested in this hearing and lay out a few ground rules:

 

1.   It is important that you present any facts or views that you have as evidence at this hearing so that findings can be made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board.

 

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

 

3.   After our Zoning Administrator provides us with some background informa­tion, I will call upon the applicant and then we will hear from other interested parties. After all have been heard, each party will have an oppor­tunity for final comments.  The Board will close the hearing to further public comments and they will then consider their decision during which time they may direct questions to the applicant, the public, the staff or our consultant.

 

4.   In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board could require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of fencing and/or landscaping may be required.  Furthermore, the Board may impose such conditions upon the premises and/or the applicant benefited by the conditional use as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-108C which would reduce or minimize any potentially injurious effect of such conditional use upon other property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as are provided for In Section 10-108D.  Failure to comply with any of the conditions attached to a zoning permit for a conditional use shall constitute a violation of the regulations.

 

5.   You should also be fully aware that if the applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans, the City can only enforce those provisions, which are covered in zoning and other City codes.  For example, If the applicant proposes to build a brick building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building with asphalt shingles, it's not something that the City can enforce.

 

6.                  Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address.  (Because of the number of people here tonight, please use the podium and speak clearly so that your comments may be picked up by the tape recorder and summarized for the minutes by our Secretary.)

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND OUORUN DETERMINED:

 

Before we proceed with the hearing, I'll ask the Board members if any of them intend to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing and voting on this case because they or their spouses own property in the area of notification or have conflicts of interests or a particular bias on this matter.  Please let the minute’s show that no one has disqualified themselves.  According to our Bylaws, those members who only abstain from voting are still part of the quorum.  I now declare that we have a quorum of 7 present for the hearing.

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

According to the Secretary, a notice for this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on February 24, 2000 and notices were mailed to the applicant and real property owners of record in the area of notifi­cation on February 24, 2000.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I'll declare that proper notification has been given.

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

 

I will now ask the Board members If any of them have received any ex parte verbal or written communications prior to this hearing which they would like to share with all the members at this time.  As you know, it is not necessary to disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information.  No ex parte communication was received prior to the meeting.  A document was on the table for members when the meeting began, submitted by Dennis Bush. 726 S. County Line Road.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:

 

I now call on our Zoning Administrator, Les Mangus, to provide us with a brief factual background report on the case.

 

Mr. Mangus stated that at the February Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting the same group applied for a variance of the zoning at the same site for the same proposal.  The Planning Consultant for the City of Andover, Bickley Foster, pointed out to Les Mangus that this proposal needs to be considered as a Conditional Use not as a variance, as a variance must include proof of hardship, but not for a conditional use.  Les Mangus stated that the members should refer to the zoning regulations regarding the specific questions that must be considered in a Conditional Use.

 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST:

 

Joe Robertson called upon the applicant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the request and any response to the Zoning Administrator's report.

 

Tim Austin, of Austin Miller, P.A., 254 S. Laura, Suite 210, Wichita, Kansas, is representing the applicant, Andover Storage, L.L.C., of 149 S. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas.

 

Mr. Austin asked for a copy of the item that the members received from Mr. Bush and was given a copy.  He then asked how many people had cellular phones.  There were several.  He stated there are currently 86.5 million cellular phone users there are in the United States and the industry is growing at a rate of 1.1 million users per month.  There are 150,000 users in Wichita with growth of 5,000 users per month.  He stated that the City of Andover Comprehensive Plan, pages 12 and 13 states that the city is to provide services for its citizens.  Mr. Austin stated that the need for cellular towers is clear, based on the growth and development of the area.  His firm looks for heavy travel corridors and heavy population areas as this is where the towers need to be.  His firm is proposing a 199’ self-support tower for multiple carriers.  Other towers are also proposed in the area.  He stated that the FAA has approved this height for a tower at this location.  Mr. Austin stated that in order to find a site his firm must consider the following:

 

1.  Willing landowners.

2.  Good land with correct zoning.

3.  Current and past land use of proposed site.

 4.  Availability to phone and electricity to site, and the economics of getting such to the considered property.

5.  Flood plains and proximity to flood plains.

 

There is very limited zoning for towers in the City of Andover.  He feels this is appropriate for the City.  He stated that they feel this is the highest and best use for this property.  It is already zoned B-5.  The current property owner had talked of putting self-storage units in this area however it is not possible.  The owner then discussed putting open storage there.  Mr. Austin stated that this lease will give the landowners 4 times the income compared to open storage income.  Mr. Austin stated that the B-5 zoning recognizes the towers by right.  This is not an issue as to if it can be in the area, this use is allowed.  The issue is the height of the tower. 

 

Mr. Austin stated that the fear of impact on property values of adjourning properties is more of a perception than a reality.  He stated there is mostly no impact on property values.  He referred to the information in the packet that was sent to the members prior to the meeting, which included information from several sources in North Carolina and Wichita, stating the lack of impact of adjourning land values.  Mr. Austin stated that the facts do not support the perception that towers reduce property values. 

 

Mr. Austin then recapped information, which included supplemental tower information, conditions required by K.S.A. 12-759(e), studies of communication towers impacts on property valuations, various photographs, analysis of properties adjacent to proposed tower site, floodplain and tower structure information, which were submitted for Planning Commission members for this meeting.  He also stated that there are no co-location opportunities at this time in this area.

 

The floor was then opened for questions from the committee members or staff.  Quentin Coon asked if there was a drawing of the structure.  Mr. Austin stated he had a photographic stimulation, which he shared with the committee members. 

 

Jim Orr asked why there were no transmitter platforms on the simulation.  Tim Austin stated that this structure will need 10’ separation between platforms.  The tower they are proposing is designed for 5 carriers.  Jim Orr asked if the higher the tower, the longer the range.  Mr. Austin stated this was true and also depends on the carrier, the capacity and other criteria.  Quentin Coon asked if the photograph shows a 199’ tower.  Mr. Austin stated it did and the tower is located on South Broadway, 5 blocks south of Kellogg.  Joe Robertson confirmed this was not a monopole.  Mr. Austin stated it is not a monopole; however, there is a monopole tower in Carriage Parkway, in East Wichita.

 

Les Mangus asked about the size of a lattice pole. Mr. Austin stated that lattice pole construction is 26’ x 26’ triangle at the ground level with 65’ footings and the top of this lattice pole is 8’ x 8’.  Les Mangus asked about a monopole base.  Mr. Austin stated that a similar monopole tower has apx. a 6’ diameter base, but he hasn’t measured one.

 

Jim Orr asked if there were guy wires on the proposed tower.  Mr. Austin stated no.

 

Les Mangus asked for conformation that the manufacturer states in their information that this tower if it falls, will fall within the site.  Mr. Austin stated that that is indeed what the manufacturer stated.   Mr. Austin stated that it should fall in the lease area; however it would depend on the wind and other factors.

 

Tim McFadden asked if there was any property in the area that had been platted for residential use that has not been developed at this time.  Les Mangus stated yes, that Cottonwood Point has been platted but not improved.  Mr. McFadden asked if Cottonwood Point has been approved by the City Council.  Mr. Mangus stated that it had been approved.  Mr. McFadden asked what about the developer’s rights in this case.  Mr. Mangus stated that the developer was present for this meeting. 

 

There was then general discussion regarding the property value study that had been done for Austin Miller, P.A. 

 

Jeff Bridges asked if the applicant was a provider or aggregator of services.  Mr. Austin stated that the applicant does not provide cellular service, they build towers.  Mr. Bridges asked if we were provided with a map of existing towers.  Mr. Austin said no, there was no map provided.  Tim Austin stated that AT & T and Voice Stream are looking for towers.  He stated that he thinks these companies would not be looking for other locations if co-locates were available and he also stated this information is not required to be provided. 

 

Quentin Coon asked why 199’ height.  Tim Austin stated that the height would allow you to reduce the number of towers necessary and provide opportunities for co-location.  Les Mangus asked if he remembered correctly in that the company had stated this tower would be for up to 8 users.  Mr. Austin stated that was correct for PCS and phone providers.  The number of users would depend upon how many antennas would be needed. 

 

Tim McFadden asked if the home appraisals provided were rentals or owned.  Mr. Austin stated the Sedgwick County Appraisers Office provided the information and it included both rental and owners.  Mr. Austin stated that the Sedgwick County Appraiser’s office is the best position to give the most correct information.  Tim McFadden stated that he finds it hard to believe that towers do not impact the property value.  He stated he finds it strange that Mr. Austin’s client stated this doesn’t impact the area but no developers put towers in their developments.  Mr. Austin stated that we should be careful of our biases and put them away concerning this issue.  He stated that that is one reason they use information from Sedgwick County Appraisers office. 

 

Les Mangus asked about the equipment buildings for 5 to 8 users.  He stated there is nothing about the number of equipment buildings to be built.  Les Mangus also stated that not all carriers use building, AT&T uses utility boxes.  Mr. Austin stated that there would probably only be three buildings, which are sheds.  His clients have provided buildings at other sites.  Mr. Austin stated if this was a condition for the conditional use his client could do this.  Quentin Coon asked how big of buildings were on the other sites.  Mr. Austin stated they are 7 ½’ tall and between a 12’ x 26’ building up to a 60’ x 60’ building.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Joe Robertson asked if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on this case. 

 

Dennis Bush, 726 S. County Line Road, who lives adjacent to the proposed tower site asked to address the subject.  He stated that the majority of the study appears to be in South Carolina.  He stated we do not live in South Carolina.  The rest of the study is in Wichita.  Mr. Bush stated that we are not Wichita, we are in Andover and the types of houses in the survey are not the type being built in Andover.  He also pointed out that a lot of the houses shown in Austin Miller’s information were duplexes and condos.  He stated that he feels the information was presented not to analyze the information but to deceive.  He stated there were no changes in values on many of the properties presented in the Sedgwick County Appraiser’s information.  Mr. Bush stated that he is appealing a good many of his appraisals in Sedgwick County and believes the information from that office is, in many cases, not correct.  Mr. Bush stated that his independent appraiser has told him there will be a devaluation of his property of between 10 and 20 % due to a cellular tower being in the immediate area.  Mr. Bush stated that the people from Austin Miller provided information on older homes, not new developments.  Mr. Bush also stated that there is a tower that has been approved by Sedgwick County across the street approximately ½ mile away and asked why we would need another.  He also stated that this type of tower is not aesthetically appealing.  Mr. Bush stated that this is a main entryway into our community and asked if this is what we want people to see the first thing when they come into Andover.  He stated that he understands we need to have the towers; however they just need to be in the right place.  He feels this is the wrong place.  He feels a tower at this location could place public health and safety at risk.  He thinks children would climb the fence and try to climb the tower.  He stated a tower at this location would be the first and last thing a person driving to and from his development would see.  He does not feel a tower should be next to a residential area.  He stated this area is going to be developed for $130,000 homes and this will affect the value of the development.  He asked that the committee look at emergency access also.  He stated that in an emergency the emergency vehicles will have to get access through the Boat Shop property and that is a serious concern after regular business hours.  He asked that the city not allow this eyesore on this property.   He stated that as an adjacent landowner this will affect the value of his property and Andover.   Quentin Coon asked if the proposed leased area would abut the Northeast corner of Mr. Bush’s property.  Mr. Bush answered yes.

 

Bob Kaplan of 430 N. Market, Wichita, Kansas, spoke on behalf of the development, Cottonwood Point.  He stated that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is totally irrelevant to this application, notwithstanding all the information the members had received.  The Telecommunication Act of 1996 regulates wireless communication providers not tower builders.  The application before the committee, from Brad Murray, L.L.C. is for a “spec” tower.  This company cannot demonstrate existing use as they have no client and no use.  He wants to build the tower in the hopes someone will lease his space.  The essence of City Zoning Regulations for towers enables you to take action and impose conditions, which avoid proliferation of towers.  Ask how to avoid proliferation of towers.  He asked that the commission take action to minimize the number of towers.  Mr. Kaplan asked if there is evidence of need for a tower at this time.  He stated there is not.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the Wichita Planning Commission approved a cellular tower for AT&T immediately west, across 159th Street from the proposed location of this tower.  Wichita is requiring additional platforms for additional users.  There must be a minimum of three platforms on the tower; therefore, if someone else comes along, they can use the AT&T tower.    Mr. Kaplan wanted to know if the tower being proposed was necessary if there is a tower going up within ½ mile from the proposed tower.  Mr. Kaplan stated that the committee is not required to zone speculatively.  He stated there is no reason to approve a “spec” tower.  He stated that Mr. Austin states this is the highest and best use of this property.   Mr. Kaplan states that what should be considered is the overall injury to the community and adjoining residential area, not the profitability to the applicant.  Mr. Kaplan asked that the committee require the applicant to come back with a signed user agreement and come back with good and valuable reasons as to why their clients cannot go on the AT&T tower being built in May.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

 

Vice Chairman Joe Robertson asked if there are any written communications or petitions from the public.  There was only the communication from Mr. Bush that was given to the members before the hearing was opened.

 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Vice Chairman Joe Robertson asked if the applicant wished to respond to the public comments.  Mr. Tim Austin did wish to respond to the public comments.  He stated that Mr. Kaplan is not entirely accurate.  The AT&T location site was approved and relocated per the request of the City of Wichita, however, protest petitions have been submitted and AT&T may have to refile their case.  Mr. Bush stated that there could be 8 buildings on the site.  No tower in town has 8 buildings on site.  Mr. Austin stated that the letter in the file from the Sedgwick County Appraiser supported his firm’s position.  Mr. Austin again stated that this is a perceptual issue.  This is not a Telecommunication Act issue.  The only thing at issue here is the Conditional Use with regards to the height of the tower.  He stated that this is indeed a speculative tower.  He stated he is not an expert on cellular towers; he is a consultant on land use.  He feels his firm has demonstrated a need for the land use.  He asked that the committee focus on the rules of the City of Andover.

 

FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Vice Chairman Joe Robertson asked if anyone from the public wished to respond to the applicant or make any final comments.  Mr. Kaplan stated that he was familiar with the AT&T tower approved by Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.  This decision is being appealed by Mr. Austin’s client.  AT&T representatives, Mr. Kaplan, and Mr. Austin’s people have met and AT&T representatives stated they would move the tower to the west as they do not want to negatively impact the development in the area.

 

CLOSE THE HEARING:

 

Hearing no further public comments, Joe Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.  There would be no further public comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.

 

APPEALS BOARD DELIBERATIONS:

 

The Board will now deliberate the request.  First, we need to determine if the request is one of the uses under which the Zoning Regulations specifically authorize us to grant a conditional use as an exception.  Les Mangus stated that if you go to the definition of maximum height, if you wish to exceed the maximum height of 60’ communication tower in a B-5 Zoning a conditional use must be applied for.   This request is to allow construction of a 199 foot self-support communication tower at 1403 W. Ledgerwood Drive, Andover, Kansas on property zoned as the B-5 Highway Business District.

 

In determining whether the evidence presented supports the conclusions required by Section 10-108C, the Board considered appropriate findings of fact:

 

1.    The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable regulations, including lot size requirements, bulk regulations, use limitations and performance standards; unless a concurrent application is in process for a variance.  The consensus of the Commission is no.

 

2.    The proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.  The Commission, after discussion, voted no, vote was as follows:  3 for yes, 4 for no.    

 

3.    The location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the conditional use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to:

 

a.     The location, nature, size and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences on the site; and after discussion the Commission voted no

 

b.    The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on the site.  After discussion the Commission voted no.

 

4.    Off-street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 5 of these regulations.  Such areas will be screened from adjoining residential uses and located so as to protect such residential uses from injurious effects.  After discussion the Commission voted yes.

 

5.    Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.  After discussion the Commission voted yes/true.

 

6.  Adequate access roads, entrance and exit drives and/or access control is available or will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees and shall be so designed to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets and roads.  After discussion the Commission voted no.  The applicant will have to go through private property of a business, across the storage yard, to another set of gates, to access the property.  There is no written evidence of access.  The vote was 4 no, 3 yes.

DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings, Joe Robertson called for a motion and any conditions that might be attached:

 

I, Ron Roberts move to deny the conditional use application to exceed the 60’ height limitation, as requested for Case No. BZA-CU-2000-01 for the following reasons:

 

1.  Lack of written evidence supporting a need for the additional height in this area.

2.  Lack of conclusive evidence presented to indicate the effect on property development and values in the area. 

3.  Lack of access through public roads and no presentation of a written evidence of a grant of easement through private property adjacent to this property.

 

           Lynn Heath seconded the motion.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

 There was discussion of the motion.  Joe Robertson asked if this could be a simple yes or no vote.  Jim Orr asked for staff recommendations on having reasons.  Les Mangus stated that Norman Manley, the City Attorney and Bickley Foster, the City Planning Consultant request that reasons used by the Commission to base their decision be repeated for the motion. 

 

The motion passed by a unanimous vote of 7-0 to deny the conditional use.

 

Joe Robertson thanked all of the participants in this hearing and stated that everyone was welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Vice-Chairman Robertson called for a five-minute recess at 9:35.  After the recess, at 9:40 p.m. a motion was made by Lori Hays for adjournment of the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvenes the Planning Commission.  Motion was seconded by Quentin Coon.  Motion carried 7-0.  

 

The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:41 p.m. 

BZA-CU-2000-01: 1403 W. Ledgerwood Drive 

 

 

ZSU-2000-01  Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385. 

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:

Joe Robertson asked if we have a quorum.  There was a quorum present. 

 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS:

Joe Robertson asked Board Members if there has been any ex parte communication.  There was none concerning this case. 

 

Mr. Robertson asked if anyone needed to step down for any reason.  No Board member needed to step down. 

 

APPLICANT'S REQUEST:

 

The applicant is U.S.D. #385, James Nightingale of Howard & Helmer represented U.S.D. #385.  Mr. Nightingale stated that U.S.D. #385 wants to relocate the current transportation center.  He passed out aerial photographs of the area.  He stated that the existing facility on the west side on Andover Road, south of the Intermediate School, needs to be relocated to free up the area for parking and also to enable the center to be in a more secure area.   This is due to remodeling and growth of needs of the current space.  Mr. Nightingale then passed out a representative site plan and drawing of a maintenance facility.  He stated this center would have a gated access off of Andover Road; there would be a driveway around the building.  The facility would have a masonry fence around it with plants for screening.  Mr. Nightingale also stated there would be a possibility of a fuel island at this location.  He stated that the right side of the site plan, the corner section, is in the flood plain and will be built up to remove it from the flood plain area. 

 

Jim Orr asked what the hours of operation would be and the numbers of vehicles U.S.D. #385 will have at the new location.  Mr. Nightingale stated that the buses start around 6:00 a.m. and filter in between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m.  However, buses would come in later due to away games and other traveling functions.  Jim Orr asked if maintenance would be performed there.  Debbie Johnson, from U.S.D. #385 stated there would be no additional staff.  Mr. Nightingale stated there would be light maintenance done there, such as oil changes and general maintenance. 

 

Ron Roberts asked if the driveway was gravel.  Mr. Nightingale stated that it will be changed to blacktop if need be. 

 

Jim Orr asked if this is the correct zoning for a fuel station and oil changes and light maintenance.  Les Mangus stated that this would not necessarily be a zoning issue, but it would involve containment systems around the fuel tanks.  Joe Robertson asked if the tanks would be underground.  Mr. Nightingale said yes, underground. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if this was a rezoning case.  Joe Robertson stated that this was a special use case in the current zoning. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Public comment was then invited to speak.

 

Dr. Connie Andrews, 1926 N. Andover Road, has a dental practice in front of the proposed location.  She brought pictures showing the entrance into the site, which showed water standing in the corner of the lot.  She wanted to voice her concerns as far as the drainage.  She stated that there is a waterway on the property and there is always water standing as indicated in the photograph.  This water comes from 21st Street and Andover Road.  Any development of 21st Street and Andover Road will need to have the drainage issue addressed.  Dr. Andrews also stated that the property between the church and her building is not adequate for parking.  She also wanted to know what would happen to the Southwestern Bell box on that property.  Dr. Andrews stated that her treatment rooms faced the rear of the property so her patients could see the scenery and she doesn’t want them to have to see a Transportation Center.  She also stated that this location would be highly visible from 21st Street, which is another gateway into the city.  Dr. Andrews stated that this is not what we would like people coming into the city to see.

 

Dr. Andrews asked if U.S.D. #385 had considered alternative sites.  She feels other sites would be safer and out of sight.  She feels the property being considered now should be considered in the B1 district as her business is.  Her final comment was asking where the water would go if the property was built up.  She stated there is nowhere for it to go now.

 

Mike Stegen, 226 Pine View Drive, Andover, stated he lives just west of the proposed location.  Mr. Stegen is concerned about the increase in traffic in an already congested area.  He is also concerned with the water runoff in this area.  He stated that his neighborhood is “upstream” from the proposed Transportation Center and feels the changing of the elevation of the property to accommodate this center will cause the water to back up upstream.  He stated that last year his neighbor’s basement flooded from the rain and is concerned this will happen again if the terrain is changed.  He stated that several ponds in nearby subdivisions have not stopped the flow of the water in the area and that we should not perpetuate the problem.  Mr. Stegen read in the Comprehensive Plan that the committee needs the application of hindsight to correct the mistakes of the past.  He repeated his concerns regarding the water and drainage in this area and asked that the committee not grant the special use.

 

Dr. Kevin Cederberg, of Countryside Pet Clinic, 1936 N. Andover Road, Andover, stated that he had several concerns also regarding the Transportation Center site.  He stated that there have been no 100-year floods since 1993 but during the current rains, there was water standing within 75’ of his building. 

 

He stated that security will be an issue and feels there will be more vandalism opportunities at the center, which would be close to his building.  Dr. Cederberg stated that he wanted to know about the lighting on the property, how much and what type it would be. 

 

Dr. Cederberg also asked about the 8’ fence height compared to the height of the buses.  He believes the buses will show over the top of the fence and that will not be attractive. 

 

Dr. Cederberg stated that he is concerned about all the traffic that will be generated on an already congested street.  He stated that this area of Andover Road by the schools is very busy now. 

 

Dr. Cederberg then commented on the aesthetics of the building.  He does not like the idea of a metal building.  He stated that when he built his building he did what the city wanted and didn’t put up a metal building.  He thinks the Center should not be metal if it is built.

 

He then addressed his concern regarding draining in that area and added he did not think this is an appropriate area for fuel storage due to drainage problems and possible runoff of fuel into the surrounding area.  He does not like the idea of fuel storage in this neighborhood.

 

Sherry Wier, 132 Anita, Haysville, Kansas added her comments on the Transportation Center.  She has 11 years experience as a bus driver and has driven for USD #385 for 2 years.  She also has been on the Planning Commission in Haysville for 2 years. 

She is very concerned with the drainage in that area.  She said she has driven different streets in Andover and the intersection of Central and Andover Road is prone to a lot of water when it rains. 

 

She is concerned with the new transportation center site.  She thinks 3’ - 4’ of dirt will have to be brought in and that will cause problems. 

 

She does not like the idea of fuel being in a flood plain area and asked how this site would comply with EPA regulations.

 

Ms. Wier stated that buses are over 11’ tall and weigh over 26,000 lbs. empty.  She stated that the asphalt in the transportation center will need to be 8”-11” so it can handle that weight.  She stated that the normal streets can’t handle the weight of the buses and that is why there is so much damage. 

 

Tim McFadden asked if she was appearing to oppose the transportation center.  Ms. Wier stated no, she just wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of her concerns.

 

Jerry Stanyer, 114 Pineview, Andover, Kansas.  He stated that he was on the school board for 8 years and is aware of the needs.  He is concerned about the following items:

 

1.  Flood plain.  Doesn’t feel this building should be in a flood plain.

2.  Is concerned about mechanical repairs should be done on the premises.

3.  Traffic flow and density of traffic in that area.  He feels this will not be a good place to add this many large vehicles to that area of Andover Road.

4.  He feels this would be like putting a 40-50 station truck stop in a residential area.  He feels the noises and lights on the buses are not appropriate in a residential area.

5.  He is also concerned with the drainage in the area.

6.  He is wondering about the fuel, gas and oil runoff.  He stated this would flow into City water drainage systems and doesn’t feel that should be done.

7.  He asked the question as to why U.S.D. #385 is not looking at using the land at the new school location.  He stated that alternative locations exist and the School Board should investigate these.  Perhaps the Industrial Park. 

 

He stated no amount of screening could be able to make a difference.  There will be too much noise and traffic congestion in that area.   He also asked that the Commission hold the Transportation Center to the same standards as the Dentist’s office and the Veterinarian Clinic.

 

The representative of the applicant, U.S.D. #385, James Nightingale of Howard & Helmer, was asked by Vice-Chairman Robertson for comments.  Mr. Nightingale stated that there are indeed drainage problems at this location.  As of this time he stated there has not been a complete hydrology study done.  The applicant wanted to see if the Special Use would be approved prior to the study being done.  Mr. Nightingale stated that there were some problems on the back side of the High School and Middle School with drainage and they have put in borrow pits to help hold the water and thought this may be something that could be done for the Transportation Center.   

 

Mr. Nightingale stated that the buses are currently in sight from Andover Road and U.S.D. #385 wants to move them back 200’ off of Andover Road with screening and get it off the main corridor. 

 

Mr. Nightingale stated that there is no existing fencing on the current facility or security and the new facility would be fenced and lit for security.

 

Mr. Nightingale stated that currently the buses go to 21st and Andover Road for fueling.  The new facility would get the buses off of Andover Road and 21st Street.

 

Mr. Nightingale stated they have been looking at other locations but they all have residential areas adjacent to them also. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if the lots would be lit for 24 hours.  Mr. Nightingale stated that the back side and center isle would be lit, however it would be quite a distance from the adjacent property.

 

Ron Robert asked for details on the structure.  Mr. Nightingale stated that they are proposing a 65’ x 105’ metal building.  It would be 15’ at the peak and 12’ at the eaves.  It would be farther back from Andover Road from the existing center and smaller than the current building.  He stated it would have a 12’ drive through work bay for oil changes and such.

 

Quentin Coon asked if the driveway would only allow one bus out at a time.  Mr. Nightingale stated that was correct and there would be a staggered pickup time in order to accommodate that.  Ron Roberts asked the width of the access off of Andover Road.  Mr. Nightingale stated that it is 24’ driveway.

 

Jerry Stanyer, of 114 Pineview, Andover, Kansas asked additional questions as follows:

 

Will there be a place to wash the buses at the Transportation Center.  Mr. Nightingale stated there would be a stall indoors for that.  Mr. Stanyer stated there are currently 35 - 38 vehicles and asked how many will be planned on for this new facility.  Mr. Nightingale stated that there would be 43-45 vehicles.  Mr. Stanyer asked if U.S.D. #385 had considered Andover Industrial Park.  Mr. Nightingale stated they had not.

 

Marsha Stanyer of 114 Pineview, Andover, Kansas asked to address the Commission.  She stated that she has lived in this area for over 50 years.  She feels that the Transportation Center at this location would cause too much traffic.  She does not feel this is a suitable area for the Transportation Center.  She does not feel that there should be something in the flood plain, as there have been and will be water problems in this area.  She stated that the school district should take the City’s needs into consideration and also they should get off of Andover Road.  She stated they should consider going elsewhere.

 

CLOSE THE HEARING:

 

Public hearing was closed at 10:31 p.m. 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS:

 

Lynn Heath stated that whether this area is suitable for this Special Use has not been decided.  He stated that the water testing has not been done and this should be done prior to consideration of a Special Use. 

 

Les Mangus stated that the flood plain issue would have to go to FEMA for consideration, not the City of Andover.  He stated that the issue in front of the Planning Commission was to look at the use of the land.  Jeff Bridges stated that as a condition of the Special Use the Commission could require the site to go before the Site Plan Review Committee.  Les Mangus then stated that prior to issuance of a building permit KDHE would have to approve fuel storage on the site.

 

Ron Roberts asked when the traffic issue would be addressed.  Les Mangus stated this would be the time to address the traffic issue.  Les Mangus stated that there were no peak time traffic reports attached to the information he received, however, there would not be a big traffic problem with this location.  Mr. Mangus stated the Transportation Center needs to be centrally located and on an arterial street for easy access.  He stated there is always conflict at the peak traffic times and this would be no more than it currently is.

ZSU-2000-01:  Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385. 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-SU-2000-01

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Public School Transportation Center for U.S.D. #385, represented by James Nightingale of Howard and Helmer, Architects.

 

REQUEST:

Public School Transportation Center in R-2 Single Family Residential.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant property between Andover High School and BCCC, 21st Street Campus.

 

LOCATION:

1900 block of North Andover Road, east side.

 

SITE SIZE:

± 2.7 Acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

 

U.S.D. #385 Transportation Center.

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

Vacant R-2 used for agriculture.

South:

R-2 Andover High School and church.

East:

Vacant R-2 used for agriculture.

West:

B-1 Dentist Office, Veterinary Clinic and R-2 Andover Heights across Andover Road.

 

Background Information:

The majority of the land in and around this application to the east is in the 100 year flood plain, based on the new Flood Insurance Rate Map.

 

* 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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Due to drainage in the area

x

 

PLANNING:

Due to drainage in the area.  Also, the school district not having other plans for the property until this time.   

 

 

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:

The school has outgrown its existing center and traffic in the area has greatly increased.

x

 

PLANNING:

The school has outgrown its existing center and traffic in the area has greatly increased.

 

 

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:

All facilities and streets are in place

x

 

PLANNING:

All facilities and streets are in place, other than street access, which will be provided after approval.

 

 

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:

No

x

 

PLANNING:

Utility and drainage easements would have to be dedicated

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee

x

 

PLANNING:

Review by Site Plan Review Committee as a condition imposed by the Special Use.

 

 

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 Special Use

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A Special Use

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

With considerable fill to elevate the land above flood elevation

x

 

PLANNING:

With considerable fill to elevate the land above flood elevation

 

 

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:

Yes

 

X

PLANNING:

No, Jim Orr and Lynn Heath voting yes.  Quentin Coon, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom and Lori Hays voting no.

 

 

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:

Yes.___Special Use

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes.___Special Use

 

 

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:

Expansion of school facilities on existing land

 

x

PLANNING:

Lynn Heath voted yes, Quentin Coon, Ron Roberts, Charles Malcom, Joe Robertson, and Lori Hays voted no, Jim Orr abstained.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

None at this time.

 

 

PLANNING:

The support from the school district as they need the space, approval by community as to better than current location.  Community opposition includes drainage issues, traffic, security, aesthetics, and environmental issues.

 

 

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:

Heard from the School District, looked at maps, saw staff recommendations and heard opinions of the community. 

 

 

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:

The drainage problem is perceived as a detriment by the public, as are traffic, security, aesthetics, and environmental issues

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the Special Use zoning application, Charles Malcom, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2000-01 be denied to allow a Special Use in the zoning district classification in the R-2 Residential District, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically items 3, 6, 11, 12 and 14.  Motion seconded by Lori Hays.  Motion carried 6-1 with Jim Orr voting nay.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Joe Robertson thanked all of the participants in this hearing and stated that everyone is welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. 

 

 

 

Public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Regulations to revise the Site Plan Review Procedure and Criteria. 

 

Joe Robertson opened the public hearing at 11:10 p.m.

 

Sherry Hagemeister, 803 N. Andover Road, Andover, commented that she is concerned and disappointed about people who come before the Site Plan Review committee being addressed condescendingly.  She would like the commission to help get the Site Plan Review Committee back on track and talk appropriately with applicants.  Mrs. Hagemeister stated that an existing building project with a valuation of $10,000 or less is not regulated.  She feels this should be regulated and there should be a standard for this also. She is concerned that too many personal preferences and agendas are being followed by the Committee   She asked that the Planning Commission make a level playing field for all parties.  She is also concerned of who is responsible, when a building changes ownership, which is responsible to let the new owners know they need to follow city guidelines. 

 

Mr. Dennis Bush appeared as the Mayor of Andover and asked that the Site Plan Review Committee review every new permanent sign no matter what the cost.  He is also concerned with minimums in landscaping, particularly trees, coming in front of the Review Committee and asked that we look at that carefully.

 

Public hearing was closed at 11:18 p.m.

 

Quentin Coon asked what the objective of the Commission was in this issue.  Jeff Bridges stated this is a revision to the Site Plan Review Procedure and Criteria and the Commission is to change the revision as desired.  Les Mangus stated that the Commission can recommend lesser changes but not greater changes.  Lynn Heath asked for an explanation of item 2C.  Jim Orr explained that item 2c’s intention was to get another review of a project if there is an extreme color change, not a touch up paint job.  Jeff Bridges stated it will enable the buildings to stay consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood.  There was general discussion regarding the Site Plan Review Procedure and Criteria.  Quentin Coon asked if current signs would be grandfathered in.  Les Mangus stated that everything legally in place as of the date of approval of revised Criteria would stay approved.  Anything new would go to the Site Plan Review Committee.  Jim Orr stated that the changes will make items easier for the general public and also fees would be lower.  Mr. Orr stated that as to Mrs. Hagemeister’s comments regarding addressing the applicant’s condescendingly, he asked that she go to staff with specifics and addresses this issue, as this is not in the scope of this discussion now.

 

Mrs. Hagemeister stated that the way everything is written now, whatever is done for the committee is not enough.  Never enough.  She asked that the committee make sure that what is acceptable is clarified and consistent. 

 

There was general discussion regarding items 1c.  This was changed as follows:

 

A.  Applicability.  The following shall be required to obtain an approval by the Site Plan Review Committee:

 

1.         General:

 

a.         All nonresidential projects, including remodeling of existing nonresidential properties;

 

b.         All multiple-family projects arranged in a courtyard or grouped setting;

 

c.         All screening and landscaping adjacent to an arterial street, except those that are accessory to a single-family residential property;

c.         All screening and landscaping adjacent to an arterial street with an estimated value of over $5,000, except those that are accessory to a single family residential property.

 

 

 

There was general discussion regarding items 2d.  This was changed as follows:

 

d.         A full application with site plans and other required drawings will not be required for projects with an estimated value under $10,000.  At the minimum, a color rendering drawing or photograph with color samples of the proposed changes and material boards, if applicable, shall be submitted;

 

Item 2f was added as follows:

 

f.          Landscaping projects under $10,000 value except those that are accessory to a single family residence will go to City Staff for review and approval as long as it is consistent with Streetscape Guidelines and the Preferred Tree Species for South Central Kansas. 

 

Motion was made by Joe Robertson to continue this discussion to the next monthly meeting of this committee.  The motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0.

Public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Regulations to revise the Site Plan Review Procedure and Criteria. 

 

 

 

Review of the Final Plat of Wider Acres.    Roger Cutsinger with Goedecke Engineering in El Dorado presented information for the owner, David VanWinkle.  Joe Robertson asked if all conditions were met by the applicant at this time.  Les Mangus stated that they have been cured.  Joe Robertson stated that the subdivision committee has looked this over and recommended approval of the Final Plat. 

 

Motion was made by Ron Roberts to approve the Final Plat of Wilder Acres.  The motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review of the Final Plat of Wider Acres.   

 

 

Review of the Final PUD for Flint Hills National Additions Phase 2 and Phase 3.  Greg Allison with Mid Kansas Engineering Consultants presented the information to the Commission.  He stated they have completed requirements from staff.  He stated that Les Mangus faxed him a list of minor items and these items will also be done.  Some items are technical items, one involves wording adjustments to add to the notes on the PUD and Mr. Allison stated they would be completed.

 

Motion was made by Jim Orr to approve the Final PUD for Flint Hills National Addition Phase 2, subject to all items being cured to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.  Motion was seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to approve the Final PUD for Flint Hills National Addition Phase 3, subject to all items being cured to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.  Motion was seconded by Jim Orr.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review of the Final PUD for Flint Hills National Additions Phase 2 and Phase 3. 

 

 

Recommendation on Butler County Case CU-00-04, an application for conditional use to allow construction of a 195’ monopole telecommunication tower +/- ¼ mile south of US 54 and west of Allen Street.  George Wyrick from Voice Stream Wireless in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma presented information regarding the proposed tower.  Mr. Wyrick stated that they are proposing a 195’ monopole that will have a co-location for 3 carriers. 

 

Ron Roberts asked if the have considered co-locating with the tower in the Industrial Park.  Mr. Wyrick said no, they are looking for a taller tower.  He stated that they do co-locate on other towers prior to considering building towers.  Many towers are not suitable, such as the AT&T pole going in at 159th Street and U.S. Hwy 54.  Their engineers tell them this tower will not work for Voice Stream use.  Mr. Wyrick stated that site will do what they need to service Andover.   They can get 3 additional carriers on this tower also.  This will be a sleek monopole design. 

 

Lynn Heath asked how far this tower was from the nearest home.  Mr. Wyrick stated this tower is 250; from the nearest house’s property then 120’ to the house.  He stated it is also near a salvage yard and agricultural property. 

 

Mr. Paul Woodruff who is the local representative for Voice Stream stated that it is cheaper for them to go on another tower but the available AT&T tower won’t give them the coverage their firm requires. 

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend approval to the Butler County Commissioners of the tower as shown, however it should not be relocated.  Motion was seconded by Lori Hays. 

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to amend the motion to limit the height to 130’.  Motion died for lack of second. 

 

Motion was denied by vote of 4-3.  Lori Hays, Charles Malcom, Jim Orr voted yes.  Quentin Coon, Joe Robertson, Lynn Heath and Ron Roberts voted no.  Motion recommends that Butler County Commissioners deny the subject tower.

Recommendation on Butler County Case CU-00-04

 

 

Discussion on revisions to the Zoning Regulations regarding communication towers.

Les Mangus stated that the City Council has asked for a subcommittee to study the communication tower issue.  Ron Roberts, Jim Orr and John McEachern volunteered and were assigned to this subcommittee.

 

Discussion on revisions to the Zoning Regulations regarding communication towers.

 

 

Discussion on revisions to the Zoning Regulations regarding advertising signs.

Les Mangus stated that the City Council has asked for a subcommittee to study the advertising sign issue.  Lynn Heath, Lori Hays and Quentin Coon volunteered and were assigned to this subcommittee.

 

Les Mangus stated that the City Council will appoint members to these subcommittees and then set meeting times and contact members of the subcommittee.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission.  Motion was seconded by Lori Hays.  Motion carried 7-0.  Meeting was adjourned at 12:43 a.m.

Discussion on revisions to the Zoning Regulations regarding advertising signs.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

 

 

______________________________

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this______day of ___________20______by the City

Council, City of Andover.

 

______________________________

City Clerk