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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

July 18, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Lori Hays, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom and Sheri Geisler.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Darrow, Administrative Assistant.  Quentin Coon was absent.

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:01 p.m.

Call to order

 

 

Review of the minutes of the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Ron Roberts, seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 6 to 0, with Charles Malcom abstained as he was not at the subject meeting.

 

Minutes of the July 5, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received.

 

Minutes of the July 11, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received.

 

Minutes of the June 27, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received.

Review of the minutes of the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   None

 

 

 

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING from June 20, 2000, on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-05 Village Crossing P.U.D., Lots 1 and 18 of Block 2, Andover Village Addition, City of Andover.

 

Chairman McEachern gave an overview of information from the June 20, 2000 meeting.  It included that the owners of the property have taken the 6.2 acres and designed a plan, limiting themselves to 50,000 sq. feet in single story structures.  This is an 18.5% building coverage on this property, which is about half of what is allowed.  This will be a good upscale use.  The balance of the property will be for landscaping and parking.  The owner is going to retain as many trees as possible.  There is 1200 linear feet of frontage on Andover Road.

 

Mr. Kaplan, is the agent for Dr. A.J. Reed and Dr. George Howell.  Mr. Russ Avey, a land use architect from Baughman Company was also present on behalf of the applicant, as was the real estate broker, Grant Tiedeman of J. P. Wiegand.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that as a direct result of the meeting in June, the owners of the property have made several revisions in the Preliminary P.U.D.   They include:

 

1.      Converted the P.U.D. to 2 parcels.                                                                                             Converted the P.U.D. to 2 parcels.

 

2.      Changed the south 2/3 of the property to Parcel 1, to have B-2 Neighborhood Business Zoning along with several other uses from the B-3 and the north 1/3 of the property is Parcel 2, which they are asking to zone as B-1 Office Business District.

 

3.      Noted that no special or conditional uses would be allowed in Parcel 2.

 

4.      The concern with traffic in the rear or west side of the property has resulted in an interrupted service road.  The road has no continuous flow of traffic from the south to the north.

 

5.      The traffic will flow in the front, or east side of the property.

 

6.      Alcohol has been taken out of the requested uses.  They have permitted for restaurants that meet the Kansas statutes for alcohol service.

 

7.      The buffering wall between the residential neighborhood and the development has been increased to an 8’ wall.

 

8.      The parking has all been put to the front or sides of the buildings.                                                                              

 

Mr. Kaplan stated this is a heavily landscaped area and the owner is keeping as many good trees as possible.  He also stated that due to the minimal building coverage there will be plenty of room for drainage.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated that Andover Road has lost it’s residential flavor a long time ago.  It is just a hard fact that it is a commercial arterial road now.  Mr. Kaplan stated that it appears the biggest source of contention is Village Road.  He stated he cannot see giving up access on Village Road, he stated the access is very necessary.  He also believes the access should line up across from Braum’s access.   Mr. Kaplan asked the Commission to remember that this is a preliminary P.U.D.  Mr. Kaplan was asked to read the permitted uses that are requested for these parcels, which he did.  Parcel 1 included all uses in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District and the following:  antique shops, apparel stores, automobile accessory and new or reconditioned parts stores, banks and financial institutions, book and office supply stores, business and professional offices, blueprinting and photostating establishments, camera and photographic supply stores, carpet and rug stores, china and glassware stores, dry goods stores, furniture stores, furrier shops (including the incidental storage and conditioning of furs), garden shops (with 20 percent outdoor storage), hobby shops and sales of electronic, entertainment and communication equipment, interior decorating shops (including reupholstering, marking of draperies, slipcovers and other similar articles which are conducted as a part of, and secondary to, a retail occupation), jewelry shops, leather goods and luggage stores, music stores (including musical instrument sales and repair), newspaper, publishing and printing firms, optical sales and services, paint and wallpaper stores, pet stores and grooming shops, physical culture and health services such as a private gymnasium and reducing salons, restaurants (including those with drive-in and drive-thru facilities), schools (music, dance, or business, trade or college classes), sewing machine sales and services, sporting goods stores, and child care centers and preschools.

 

Parcel 2 is B-1 Office Business District, except those uses listed as Special Uses and Conditional Uses.

 

Chairman McEachern re-opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.

 

Mrs. Terry Hardman of 233 Village Road addressed the Commission.  She stated that her husband asked her to ask the Commission why, if families buy homes with certain zoning next to them why should the zoning change?  Why should Village Road be the buffer?  Why should the speculators make profit?  Mrs. Hardman asked when there would be a traffic light at Village Road and Douglas.  She stated that people from the proposed development will use Village Road as access to other areas and it will create a lot of traffic on Village Road.

 

Jo Schreiber of 216 Village Road addressed the Commission.  She stated that the B-2 uses included drive-thru and drive-in restaurants.  She doesn’t feel this should be allowed.  She stated Village Road is already crowded and will be worse with the additional entrances on Village Road.  Her concern is with the additional traffic.  It is a very busy intersection and it is not feasible to an access there.  She is also concerned with the noise that will be generated.

 

John Cash of 306 Village Road (lot 7) addressed the Commission.  He stated his concerns were as follows:

1. Traffic.

2. B-1 zoning is more suitable for buffer, not B-2 zoning.

3. Noise

4. Would like to see Village Road entrance off of Andover Road closed if the traffic increases.  Feels it will be safer for the kids.

 

Mr. Kaplan stated he doesn’t understand why the people feel the traffic will go toward Village Road.  A lot of it will go to Andover Road.  He feels the access on Village Road is very important for the flow of traffic onto the property.    He also stated there must be the ability to change zoning.  Change must be able to happen.

 

There was a question by Joe Schreiber regarding the hours of operation in these zoning districts.  Les Mangus stated there are no restrictions of hours of operation in the B-1 Office Business District.  The B-2 Neighborhood Business District hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Mrs. Schreiber asked why there was no restriction on hours of operation on Parcel 2.  Mr. McEachern stated that B-1 is Office Business District and generally there are not late hours for this type of use. 

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING from June 20, 2000, on a change in zoning district classification, Case Z-2000-05 Village Crossing P.U.D., Lots 1 and 18 of Block 2, Andover Village Addition, City of Andover.

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-05

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

A. J. Reed, Robert Kaplan, Agent.

 

REQUEST:

B-1 Business and R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to B-2 Neighborhood Office District w/P.U.D. overlay.

CASE HISTORY:

Undeveloped multi-family tract platted and zoned in 1977.

LOCATION:

West side of Andover Road between Village Road and Lexington.

SITE SIZE:

6.2 acres.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Retail and office businesses.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-1 Office Business.

South:

B-2 Neighborhood Business.

East:

R-1 Single-Family Residential

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residential.

 

Background Information:

1994 application for B-1 Office Business District on Lot 18 was denied.

 

* Note:    This report is to assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning Regulations.  The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning Administrator.

 

(As per Article 11, Section 100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

 

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

1.   What is the character of the subject property and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their condition?

 

 

 

STAFF:

See above

 

 

PLANNING:

See above

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

2.   What is the current zoning of the subject property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the requested zoning change?

 

 

 

STAFF:

See above

 

 

PLANNING:

See above

 

 

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:

No

 

x

PLANNING:

No

 

 

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:

 

x

 

PLANNING:

More commercial being developed in all directions.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

x

 

STAFF:

Water, sewer and streets are in place._Drainage improvements are required.

x

 

PLANNING:

Water, sewer and streets are in place._Drainage improvements are required.

 

 

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:

Dedication of drainage easements as necessary

 

x

PLANNING:

Dedication of drainage easements as necessary

 

 

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?

 

 

x

STAFF:

No B-2 or B-3 property is available in the immediate vicinity

 

x

PLANNING:

No B-2 or B-3 property is available in the immediate vicinity. One piece of B-1 near Braum’s, and one piece of the applicant’s property is B-1.

 

 

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 - no specific use identified

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A - no specific use identified, just general uses in the P.U.D.

 

 

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?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes, with limitations.

 

 

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:

Business uses on a case by case review on Andover Road

x

 

PLANNING:

Comprehensive Plan states business should be at major intersections and on a case by case basis in the rest of the area

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

Business uses adjacent to single-family homes

 

 

PLANNING:

Devaluation of adjoining property, compatibility of business uses near residential area, increased traffic, noise, lighting and drainage.

 

 

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 dedication of drainage easement

 

 

PLANNING:

Approval as applied for with dedication of drainage easement and modifications of available uses in the B-2 and B-2 districts

 

 

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 greater detriment to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently permitted.

 

 

PLANNING:

No greater detriment to the public is perceived than the R-3 Multiple-Family zoning uses currently permitted

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

After discussion among the Commission members it was agreed that on Parcel 1 the following B-2 Neighborhood Business District uses would not be allowed on this property:

 

7.         Dry Cleaning is allowed but no cleaning or processing will be allowed on the premises

15.       Restaurants but no drive-in or drive-thru restaurants

16.       No service stations

20.       No bed and breakfast facilities.

 

After discussion among the Commission members it was agreed that on Parcel 2 the following B-1 Office Business District hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Many of the Commission members were concerned because these uses have no buffer between them and the residential neighborhood.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Lynn Heath moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2000-05 be modified and approved to change B-1 Office Business District and R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to two Parcels in a P.U.D. overlay. 

 

Parcel 1 is to be B-2 Neighborhood Office District with the following conditions:

 

1.         Dry cleaning facility is allowed but no cleaning or processing will be allowed on the premises

2.         Restaurants, but no drive-in or drive-thru restaurants

3.         No service stations

4.         No bed and breakfast facilities.

5.         Pet stores will have indoor kennels only.

6.         No outside speakers.

7.         Between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. there will be no businesses open for business.

 

Parcel 2 is to be zoned B-1 Office Business District with the following conditions:

 

1.         Hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 

2.         No drive-in or drive-thru restaurants will be allowed.

3.         Automatic Teller Machines accessory to financial institutions shall be located on the east side of the principal structure.

 

Motion was seconded by Charles Malcom.

 

The discussion of the motion included discussion of denial of the Village Road access..  It was decided that there will be an access on Village Road allowed.

 

Discussion followed regarding the outside speaker issue on Parcel 2.  Joe Robertson stated that he was not interested in allowing the noise that outside speakers cause.  It is not desired.  The neighbors should not have to hear that noise. 

 

There was a motion to amend the original motion to change “3.No outside speakers” to “3. No outdoor speakers except for financial institutions,” by John McEachern.  There was no second to this motion. It died for lack of second.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to amend the amended motion to prohibit all outdoor speakers and bells.  The motion was seconded by John McEachern.   Motion carried 4-3 with Lori Hays, Charles Malcom and Lynn Heath voting nay. 

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to amend the original motion to allow speakers with a reasonable audio, not obtrusive to the adjoining neighborhood.  Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 5-2 with John McEachern and Ron Roberts voting nay.

 

Voting on the original motion, the motion carried 5-2 with John McEachern and Ron Roberts voting nay.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:                                                         

 

Chairman McEachern thanked all of the participants in this hearing. 

 

Chairman McEachern called for a recess of the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 

 

Meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m.

 

 

 

Review of the Revised Final Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.

 

This case is continued from the June 20, 2000 meeting.  Bob Kaplan represents the applicant and stated that the plat had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and he and his client have concurred with the recommendations of the Committee.

 

Lynn Heath is on the Subdivision Committee and recapped the findings of the Committee as follows:

 

1.         Comments from City Staff regarding the review of the final plat must be adhered to.

2.         A 50’ frontage road dedication must be given.

3.         The frontage road will be installed upon the request of the City of Andover and KDOT.

4.         Should KDOT force the closure of access to U.S. Hwy 54, property owner can utilize the 50’ frontage for access.

5.         One access to be allowed on McCandless Road.

 

Joe Robertson asked if the comments by the Zoning Administration had been taken care of.   Les Mangus stated that we are waiting for a plat binder and drainage plan.

 

Lynn Heath moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Governing Body that the Final Plat of Heather’s Acres be approved with the following conditions:

 

1.         Plat binder must be provided.

2.         Drainage plan be provided.

3.         Approval of existing highway driveway by KDOT.

 

Motion was seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review of the Revised Final Plat of Heather’s Acres at 1304 E. U.S. Hwy 54, Andover.

 

 

Review the Final Plat of the Talc Creek Addition located at Central Avenue and Lakeside Drive.  Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates represented the applicant, Tony Durano.  Mr. Hill stated that this project was shown to the Subdivision Committee on July 8, 2000.  Poe and Associates have changed the plat to include all recommendations by the Committee and City Staff.  All the utilities on site are available.  Mr. Hill stated that Mr. Durano will open a State Farm office on that location.  John McEachern asked where the drainage will be.  Kenny Hill stated the drainage will go to the west and south side of the property as shown on the drainage plan. 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the final plat of the Talc Creek Addition. The applicant is to supply a plat binder or title insurance.   The motion was seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review the Final Plat of the Talc Creek Addition located at Central Avenue and Lakeside Drive. 

 

 

LS-2000-01 Review the proposed Lot Split of Lot 9, Block 1 Autumn Ridge Subdivision.  James Shimp of Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants represented the owners of the property.  This is the same type of lot split as those that have been previously approved in Lot 10 and 11. 

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to approve the lot split.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

LS-2000-01 Review the proposed Lot Split of Lot 9, Block 1 Autumn Ridge Subdivision.

 

 

Continuation of the Public Hearing for the amendments to the Site Plan Review Committee Procedure.  Chairman John McEachern opened the public hearing at 9:33 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated that it had.   Chairman McEachern asked if anyone from the public was here to address the issue.  Corey Hagemeister of 803 N. Andover Road addressed the Commission regarding the issue.  He asked where the change in this amendment was compared to before.  The changes have to do with the dollar amount of a project and the extent of work required on a single-family residential project, which is as follows:

 

1c.       All screening and landscaping adjacent to an arterial street, except those that are accessory to a single-family residential property with an estimated total project value of under $5000.00 and all landscaping with an estimated total project value under $10,000 will be submitted to city staff for review and approval as long as the project coincides with the Streetscape Guidelines and Preferred Tree Species for Central Kansas.

 

Corey Hagemeister asked if there is a list of requirements for this new submittal.   Mr. Hagemeister does not feel there is any direction in the criteria.   Jim Orr stated that the intention of this is to close loop holes in total project values, so no one would have 3 $9,999 projects.  Les Mangus stated there is not a list of exact requirements, other than the criteria.    Mr. Hagemeister wants exact minimums listed for direction.  Mr. Mangus stated if there are questions it is a great idea to come before the Site Plan Review Committee for a consultation.  Mr. McEachern stated it is a good idea to utilize the Site Plan Review Committee consultation.    Lynn Heath stated if someone is doing a $5,000 project the Site Plan Review Committee doesn’t want someone to have to spend a lot on drawings. 

 

Lynn Heath asked what the relationship of the Site Plan Review Committee was to the Planning Commission.  Les Mangus stated the Site Plan Review Committee is autonomous to the Planning Commission.  The only time the Planning Commission would review a case would be for an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Mr. Mangus stated that every decision he makes as Zoning Administrator can be appealed.

 

Corey Hagemeister asked that the Planning Commission does not approve the criteria until it is clearer.  He asked that the criteria be more palatable for all involved.  There are several issues that need resolved.

 

Joe Robertson feels that where it states “value” it should state “estimated total project value”.  

 

The public hearing was closed at 10:05 p.m.

 

Joe Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the site plan approval criteria with the following amendment:

 

1.         Change where it states “value” the criteria should state “estimated total project value”.  

 

The motion was seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 6-1 with Charles Malcom opposed.

 

 

Les Mangus stated he will recommend to the Site Plan Review Committee that they come up with another checklist for existing structures.

Continuation of the Public Hearing for the amendments to the Site Plan Review Committee Procedure

 

 

Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. Signs.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 10:16 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if anyone wanted to address the Commission. 

 

Mr. Dave Riley, 427 E. Woods, asked to address the Commission.  He is concerned with restricting the size of the wall signs to 5% of the wall area.  He recommends the size to be 20% of the wall area. 

 

Les Mangus stated that a person is able to have more than one type of sign in each district.  There was general discussion.  Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.

 

Joe Robertson felt that the wall sign size should remain 5%.  He feels the Commission should see how it goes and if any problems arise adjust the size at that time. 

 

Charles Malcom made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. Signs, as presented.  Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0.

Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Article 7. Signs. 

 

 

Review the sketch of the proposed PUD of the Decker/Kiser properties, located north of 21st Street between Andover Road and 153rd.   Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants represented the developer, Mr. Laham.  He stated this is approximately 500 acres.  This proposed PUD is showing 320 acres of Single-family residential, 33.6 acres of duplexes, 26 acres with apartments, 56 acres of commercial, 15 acres of office and 10 acres for school.  He stated all the neighborhoods would tie together with collector streets.  The collector streets are open face corridors.  The proposal is to create small residential neighborhoods throughout the project.  The existing hedgerows will be kept.  Mr. Hartman stated the developer will follow the natural southeast drainage and use water features to control run-off.  He stated there will be buffering land use between neighborhoods.  The proposed PUD has several parks along collector streets.  Each neighborhood will have it’s own park.  The parks will be connected with jogging trails.  Mr. Hartman stated the commercial area is envisioned as upper end retail use with perhaps a grocery store.    At this point the proposed PUD has about 1,300 units.  The residential density is approximately 3 ½ dwelling units per acre, including the apartments, multiple-family residential and single-family residential.    Mr. Hartman stated it will be approximately 15 or so years before this property is completed.  His client wanted to give the City an initial look to make sure they are doing what the City wants done. 

 

General discussion of the Commission followed. 

Review the sketch of the proposed PUD of the Decker/Kiser properties, located north of 21st Street between Andover Road and 153rd.

 

 

Set public hearing for Zoning Regulations concerning Review Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities. 

 

John McEachern made a motion to set a public hearing on August 15, 2000 concerning the Review of Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities.  Motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Set public hearing for Zoning Regulations concerning Review Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities

 

 

Member items.  Sheri Geisler asked where the public hearing was regarding expansion of the Subdivision Regulations Jurisdiction.  Les Mangus stated that the timing was off to have proper public notice prior to the July meeting.  The public hearing is set for August 15, 2000. 

 

Lori Hays would like the list of names and addresses of the Council, Planning Commission and Site Plan Review Committee and would also like the phone numbers.  Pam Darrow will mail lists out with phone numbers on 7/19/00.

 

Member Items.

 

 

Motion to adjourn was made by Charles Malcom and seconded by John McEachern.  Motion carried 7-0. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

Adjourn