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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

August 15, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 15, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, 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.   Lori Hays was absent.

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman John McEachern at 7:00 p.m.

Call to order.

 

 

Review of the minutes of the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

 

 Motion to approve minutes as presented by Charles Malcom, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the July 18, 2000 Plan. Comm. meeting. 

 

 

Minutes of the August 1, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received.

 

Minutes of the August 8, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received.

 

Minutes of the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received.

Minutes

 

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   None.

 

 

 

Public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to add a subsection pertaining to review criteria for wireless communication facilities.  The public hearing was opened at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman McEachern.    Joe Robertson had several items he wanted to address.  These included adding the definition of search radius, Comprehensive Development Plan and applicant’s bond.  Mr. Robertson also stated that item 15, at the end of page 14 should have “plus 1 year beyond the removal of the wireless communication facility” at the end of the item.  Les Mangus suggested the word existence instead. 

 

Regarding item 19, Registration, Mr. Robertson was concerned about the registration being updated if ownership changed.  On item 2a, Co-location requirements, he wondered why the words “search radius” was in the paragraph.  Les Mangus stated that this would require the carrier/applicant to prove there are no other opportunities for co-location on existing towers.  It would also prove this is not a redundant service.

 

Mr. Robertson asked if monopole towers were the only ones allowed.  Mr. Mangus said yes.

 

Joe Robertson asked if parks in subdivisions revert to city ownership will towers be allowed on this property.  Mr. Mangus stated that might but towers generally require more land that private parks have.

 

Joe Robertson stated that he feels the words “Above ground level” needs additional definition with measurements being above ground level.   Les Mangus stated that in the definitions of above ground level perhaps we could add “at the base of the structure” prior to “to the highest part of the mount”. 

 

Ron Roberts asked that if on item 2a, Co-location requirements, the height could be between 60’ and 120’ to clarify the statement.  Mr. Roberts also feels that the Special Use applications are too broad and stated that someone can apply for a special use instead of following the guideline usage.  He feels that too many applicants will want to go over 150’.  Les Mangus stated that we must leave an opportunity for people who can’t comply with regulations.  Mr. Roberts wants the guidelines more restrictive.  Les Mangus stated there might be a condition that requires special consideration or that may allow a relief to a situation.  Lynn Heath stated this provides some type of due process.  Sheri Geisler asked if these criteria could be amended later if need be.  Chairman McEachern stated it could be. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked for an explanation for item 17b, Existing Antennas and wireless communication facilities.  Les Mangus stated that this has to do with provisions for legal non-conforming use.

 

Quentin Coon asked that regarding item 18, “and antennas” be removed from the heading of the paragraph.

 

Joe Robertson stated there was no mention of construction in flood plains.  Les Mangus stated that all construction in the flood plain would be required to be built above flood plain and have testing and hydrology done.

 

Comments from the public were opened at 7:36 p.m.

 

Greg Ferris, a representative of AT & T Wireless spoke.  He resides at 144 S. Bay County in Wichita, Kansas.  He stated the criteria are very thorough.  He feels it is the most onerous ordinance he has ever seen.   He had several items he felt should be commented on as follows:

 

Page 7a. - Co-location requirements.  We have written this should be documented by a licensed radio frequency engineer.  Radio frequency engineers are not licensed.

 

Page 7b. - height - He would like heights to be different.

 

Page 9 - 4a - Wireless communication facility shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color.  Blue and white towers look worse than gray or silver ones.  Painting these towers also causes a lot of maintenance issues.  Galvanized towers have the least profile and he asked that the Commission consider this.    

 

Page 9 - 5e -No minimum setbacks for whip (omni-directional) antennas.  He asked why you don’t want to use these poles.  Most carriers don’t use whip antenna.   Page 10, last paragraph, same as the prior sentence.  Greg Ferris stated that we specifically list omni-directional and it is not listed in the definitions and asked that it be added.

 

Page 12, item 12- Interference with Public Safety Communications is onerous and should be stricken. 

 

Page 12, item 13(3) capacity of wireless communication facility, he feels it should be the number of allowed co-locations allowed.

 

Page 13, item 14 - He asked if this meant that if the wireless communication facility was destroyed would they have to reapply.  Les Mangus stated that it would; there would be no change in zoning just the use of the wireless communication facility would come back.

 

Page 14, item 15 - Bond - Mr. Ferris stated this is the first time he has ever seen a bond required.  He feels it is unnecessary.  In a lease the owners are responsible to take down a wireless communication facility.  If there if a problem you can assess the property owner for the cost of taking down a wireless communication facility.

 

Page 15, item 19 - Registration - Mr. Ferris stated that they pay taxes on the structure every year and if it is not used it would be cheaper to take down the wireless communication facility than pay

taxes on an unused structure.    He suggested the city use the tax roles to register the structures.  There is no need for the city do to a registration.  AT&T does not want to register.  Mr. Ferris stated that the registration fee is a tax not a fee and the city has no authorization to tax something again, as they are already paying property tax. 

 

Les Mangus replied to Mr. Ferris’s statements as follows:

 

Page 7a. - Co-location requirements.  We have written this “should be documented by a licensed radio frequency engineer.”  Engineers will be licensed.

 

Page 9 - 4a - Wireless communication facility shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color.  The City wants the facility to blend in, the color could be gray.

 

Page 9 - 5e -No minimum setbacks for whip (omni-directional) antennas. The City doesn’t want any large panels on the structure.

 

Page 14, item 15 - Bond - Les Mangus knows of instances where the owners of the towers go bankrupt and leave no assets to tap to remove a wireless communication facility.

 

Page 15, item 19 - Registration - Registration is intended to cover the costs to the city for overseeing the process.

 

Mr. Ferris stated that in his mind this is a tax.  There is no legislation to allow this tax.  There must be a specific law to levee a fee or tax or surcharge.  He stated that AT&T won’t build a wireless communication facility under this ordinance.

 

George Wyrick with Voice Stream in Oklahoma City agrees with the comments by Mr. Ferris.  He addressed the following additional item - page 10, item 6 height limitations.  We propose:                                                He proposed:

60’                   B-3                              75’

75’                   B-5                              100’

100’                 A-1                              150’

 

John McEachern asked if when these were being written if we invited the wireless communication industry to any meetings.  Les Mangus stated that we did not however we did send a draft version to many wireless communication companies. 

 

Quentin Coon asked what was the action the committee needed to take at this time. Jeff Bridges stated that the action of the committee is to go through the proposed criteria and make a recommendation to the City Council in regards to the criteria.

 

Quentin Coon asked if this shouldn’t go back to the sub-committee for some revision.  Jeff Bridges stated the City Council needs to hear the issue on August 29, 2000. 

 

There were no further comments from the public.  Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. 

 

Jim Orr stated that we should ponder what has been discussed, have a sub-committee meeting to address the issue and move on to other agenda items. 

 

Joe Robertson asked if the Commission could recommend to the City County a 30 day extension to the moratorium and suspend the public hearing until the next meeting in September.  Les Mangus stated that if the City Council didn’t extend the moratorium the regulations would revert to the current vague regulations.  Jeff Bridges recommended against that.  The problem with extending the moratorium is the moratoriums tend to be challenged.  He recommended that there be an additional sub-committee meeting, a recess from this meeting, and hold a special Planning Commission meeting and get this all accomplished prior to the City Council meeting of August 29.  Members of the Commission agreed to a sub-committee meeting on Monday, August 21, 2000 and a Planning Commission meeting on August 23, 2000. 

 

A motion was made by Joe Robertson to return the criteria to the sub-committee along with the information gathered tonight, and recess the Planning Commission tonight to reconvene August 23, 2000 at 6:00 to go over the information from the sub-committee.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion passed 7-0.

Public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to add a subsection pertaining to review criteria for wireless communication facilities. 

 

 

Public hearing on vacation of Williamsburg Road between Lot 4, Block 1, and Lot 1 and 2, Block 5 of Andover Village Addition.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated that it had.  The public hearing was opened by Chairman McEachern at 8:30 p.m.  Les Mangus told the committee that this is a condition the Planning Commission place on a zoning case requiring the vacation for a Right of Way.  Notices were sent to all utilities.  There were several responses.  KGE, Wichita Water, and Southwestern Bell have facilities.  Les Mangus recommends that the right of way be vacated to a utility easement. 

 

No one from the public came forward to address the issue.  The public hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to vacate the right of way and continue as a utility easement. Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  The motion was approved 7-0.

Public hearing on vacation of Williamsburg Road between Lot 4, Block 1, and Lot 1 and 2, Block 5 of Andover Village Addition. 

 

 

Public hearing regarding the expansion of the City of Andover Extraterritorial Subdivision Jurisdiction to include the area south of Dry Creek in Sections 31, 32, and 33 Township 26 South Range 3 East. Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated that it had.  The public hearing was opened at 8:33 p.m.  Les Mangus explained to the Committee that the City of Benton had asked for an extension of their Extraterritorial Subdivision Jurisdiction to Dry Creek.  This would leave a ½ mile strip under the County Subdivision Regulations.  Mr. Mangus stated that it makes good sense to have the two cities jurisdiction meet.  Mr. Mangus stated that this is located approximately 1 ½ miles north of 21st Street.

 

No one from the public came forward to address the issue.  The public hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to expand the City of Andover’s current Extraterritorial Subdivision Jurisdiction as described as follows:

 

All of the following Sections, except the City of Andover in Township 26S, Range 3E:  South of the center of Dry Creek in Sections 31, 32 and 33.  In Township 27S, Range 3E: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34.  In Township 28S, Range 3E:  All of Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the N½ of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10; per the notice and this is contingent upon approval by Butler County Commissioners.   John McEachern seconded the motion.  The motion was approved 7-0.

Public hearing regarding the expansion of the City of Andover Extraterritorial Subdivision Jurisdiction to include the area south of Dry Creek in Sections 31, 32, and 33 Township 26 South Range 3 East.

 

 

Public hearing on case ZSU-2000-03, application for change of the conditions of the Special Use conditions for a car wash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District to allow a rear exit onto Lee Street.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated that it had.  The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.  Frank Shaw, 2007 Northridge, Andover, is the new owner.  The company, called Mach I, wants to add a rear exit onto Lee Street and eliminate the congestion onto Andover Road in the front of the property.  They have repaired the machinery and cleaned up the property. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked if there was a driveway there now.  Mr. Shaw stated the temporary curb cuts are in. 

 

Joe Robertson said that, as a side note, he would like to see more landscaping.  Mr. Shaw stated that the previous owner just put in 6 pine trees on the west side of the property, prior to the finalization of the sale. 

 

The public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m.

Public hearing on case ZSU-2000-03, application for change of the conditions of the Special Use conditions for a car wash in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District to allow a rear exit onto Lee Street. 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 8

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

ZSU-2000-03

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Mach I Enterprises

 

REQUEST:

Modify special use conditions to allow an exit onto Lee Street.

CASE HISTORY:

Special use for car was in B-2 Neighborhood Business District, limited no access to Lee Street as a gravel road.

LOCATION:

527 N. Andover Road.

 

SITE SIZE:

110’ x 194’.

 

PROPOSED USE:

Car wash.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-2 Neighborhood Business District - Clothing Store.

South:

B-3 Central Shopping District - Andover State Bank.

East:

B-4 Central Business District - Plaza Shopping Center.

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residential - Single Family residence.

 

Background Information:

 

 

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

 

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

 

H.

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

 

FACTORS AND FINDINGS:

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

See page 1.

 

 

PLANNING:

See page 1.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

STAFF:

See page 1.

 

 

PLANNING:

See page 1.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

3.   Is the length of time that the subject property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the consideration?

 

x

 

STAFF:

Limited access to gravel Lee Street.

x

 

PLANNING:

Same.

 

 

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:

Lee Street is now paved.

x

 

PLANNING:

Lee Street is now paved.

 

 

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 are in place.

x

 

PLANNING:

All are in place.

 

 

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:

No.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

Screening is in place.

 

 

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.

 

 

PLANNING:

N.A.

 

 

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:

Access limitation restricts traffic circulation on the side

 

x

PLANNING:

Agree with staff.

 

 

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:

N/A.

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A.

 

 

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

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

14.   Is the request in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation of the Plan?

 

 

 

STAFF:

N/A.

 

 

PLANNING:

N/A.

 

 

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

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval as applied for

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

17.   If the request was not approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

 

 

 

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, Charles Malcom, moved that the committee recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. ZSU-2000-03 be approved to allow the special use of a rear exit on Lee Street.  This is based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the above summary of this hearing, specifically item 5.  Motion seconded by Ron Roberts.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

 

 

Recommendation to the Governing Body on the Annexation of the remainder of the Mecca Acres Subdivision and the Duncan Subdivision.  Chairman McEachern asked what the responsibility of the Planning Commission regarding this issue was.  Jeff Bridges stated that the public hearing will be in front of the City Council on September 12, 2000.   Les Mangus stated that K.S.A. 12-530 requires the Planning Commission to review the proposed annexation to determine its compatibility with any current land use or Comprehensive Plans that are applicable to the area to be annexed and the annexing municipality.   Mr. Mangus stated that the subject property is serviced by waste water service and water is extended into the property.  Jeff Bridges stated that the City doesn’t plan to initiate a paving project for 5 years.   Chairman McEachern asked if the residents would initiate a paving project.  Jeff Bridges said they could request a paving project.  He also stated that the City will immediately start a water project.  Chairman McEachern asked if anyone from the public wished to speak to the issue, reminding them that the public hearing would be September 12, 2000.  No one from the public responded.

 

Joe Robertson stated that this meets with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Andover, as this is already a residential development.  He is agreeable that it goes forward to the City Council. 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend approval of the annexation of the remainder of the Mecca Acres Subdivision and the Duncan Subdivision to the City Council.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

Recommendation to the Governing Body on the Annexation of the remainder of the Mecca Acres Subdivision and the Duncan Subdivision. 

 

 

Review the Plans of the Second Phase of the Cedar Park P.U.D.  Kenny Hill with Poe and Associates presented on behalf of the developers.  Mr. Hill stated that the preliminary P.U.D. has already been approved, this is the second phase.  This phase will be 47 lots on 17.6 acres.  Mr. Hill stated that he has met with the Subdivision Committee.  The changes recommended by the Subdivision Committee have been made.  Chairman McEachern if this size property would necessitate a playground area.  Les Mangus stated that Reserve C shall be improved and shall allow for recreation facilities.  There was general discussion as to a park or playground area and where it should go.  Les Mangus stated that the Preliminary P.U.D. stated “and shall allow” however, there was nothing specific on the final for this project.  Mr. Mangus stated that there is no authority to require recreation facility or playground area at this point.  Ron Roberts stated that this is a substantial change.  Les Mangus stated that this is just a changing of the parcel boundaries and is not a substantial change.  Changing conditions on the Preliminary P.U.D. cannot be done, it is too late.

 

Joe Robertson made a motion to approve the Final P.U.D. plan for the Second Phase of the Cedar Park P.U.D.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion was approved 7-0.

Review the Plans of the Second Phase of the Cedar Park P.U.D.

 

 

Review the sketch of the proposed commercial development of the McCoy property and the amendment of the Cloud City P.U.D.  Kenny Hill presented information regarding Cloud City.  The northern area of the project is primarily zoned B-3 with some R-4.  Most of the pond is built.  The parcels boundaries and uses are to be changed.  There is a plan to leave an open reserve for landscaping and berm, which would be a buffer between residential and commercial.  This area is proposed to be B-3 zoning.  The developer is proposing an east-west collector street from Andover Road to Yorktown.  There will be a contingent dedication for the collector street (Yorktown).  This street will line up to the McCoy property, which is to the west of Cloud City, across the street.  The access on Kellogg will be right turn in and right turn out only.  Lynn Heath asked if there would be a traffic signal at Andover Road and Yorktown.  Kenny Hill stated that there would be one someday, but no date has been set. 

 

Ron Spagenberg of Spangenberg Phillips Architecture also came to speak to the issue.  They feel this will be a gateway to the metro area of Wichita.  In Cloud City they want to integrate the landscaping and natural condition of the site, they want to turn this into a special feature of the project.  This is a large parcel of approximately 60 acres.  Phase 1 will be approximately 1/3 and Phase 2 will be 2/3 of the acreage.  The road will be winding through the property for aesthetic value and greater visibility.  This would be a dedicated access street all the way through. The two groups wanted a street alignment workable for both sides.  At some point the developers would like a signalized crossing.  The alignment allows traffic to flow between both sites.

 

Mr. Spangenberg stated that this is just a preliminary sketch.  They want to keep people informed and make sure they are doing things the right way.  This is a large sized development.  The McCoy side (or west side of Andover Road) will be 20 acres.  There will be approximately 100,000 sq. feet in the first phase and 200,000 sq. feet in the second phase of Cloud City.  The concept is for neighborhood commercial centers interspersed with larger uses. 

 

Quentin Coon asked if there was a project completion date.  Mr. Spangenberg stated that they cannot say exactly at this point.  It is too early to say. 

 

Leo Goseland, a real estate agent for over 20 years, is working with the developer on this project.  He stated that a lot of people would use this instead of going into Wichita. He has questioned community leaders and received a lot of input about the market.  The market appears to be for small businesses and pad sites.  They want to create something the City can be proud of.  Regional or national businesses may become interested.   They are putting drawings on paper to show to potential clients.

 

John McEachern likes the winding road in the development.  Quentin Coon believes it is a good buffer on the south.  Lynn Heath asked about private residential property to the south of this development and asked what was to happen.  Mr. Goseland stated that the owner of the property just recently passed away.  He has contacted the family and told them when they were ready to deal with this to please contact this developer.  Mr. Goseland would like to develop this area within two to three years.  Partially depends on when the south Andover Road will be completed.  Jeff Bridges stated that KDOT has a letting date of 2003 for this area but the City can accelerate that.  There were no further questions from the Commission members.

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants for their information.

 

The meeting was recessed at 9:48. 

 

The meeting reconvened at 9:54 p.m.  Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Joe Robertson seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

Review the sketch of the proposed commercial development of the McCoy property and the amendment of the Cloud City P.U.D. 

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission. Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 7-0.

 

Meeting reconvened at 10:47 p.m.

Adjourn BZA

 

 

Member items:  There were no member items.

 

Motion was made by Quentin Coon to recess to August 23, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.   The motion was seconded by Lynn Heath.  The motion carried 7-0. 

 

The meeting recessed at 10:49 p.m.

Member Items.