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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

October 17, 2000

Minutes

 

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Joe Robertson, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, Charles Malcom, Lori Hays and Sheri Geisler.  Others in attendance were Jim Orr, City Council Liaison; Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator; Jeff Bridges City Clerk/Administrator and Pam Johnson, Administrative Assistant. 

 

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

Call to order

 

 

 

 

Review of the minutes of the September 19, 2000 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes as presented by Lynn Heath, seconded by Sheri Geisler.  Motion carried 7 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the September 19, 2000

 

 

 

 

Minutes of the October 10, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Lori Hays arrived at 7:04 p.m.

 

Minutes of the September 26, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

 

Committee and Staff Reports.   None.

Minutes

 

 

 

 

Motion to recess the Planning Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals was made by Ron Roberts and seconded by Joe Robertson.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

The Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:08 p.m. 

 

Public Hearing of BZA-A-2000-01, Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Terry Presta, of Presto Oil, at 2035 N. Andover Road, Andover, Kansas.

Motion to recess the Planning Commission

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Additional Agenda Item No. 1

CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

 

CALL TO ORDER BY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CHAIRMAN McEACHERN:

 

It is 7:08 p.m. and I now call Additional Agenda Item No. 1 which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-A-2000-01 pursuant to Section 10-106 of the City Zoning Regulations as an appeal from a determination of the Zoning Administrator with respect to the interpretation, application or enforcement of the Zoning Regulations.  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.         I will call upon the Zoning Administrator to describe his determination and then the appellant to make his appeal.  After them, 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 Zoning Administrator, appellant, the public, and staff or our consultant.

 

4.         In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board may affirm or reverse, wholly or partially, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from, and my make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the Zoning Administrator.  Furthermore, the Board may issue or direct the issuance of a zoning permit and/or occupancy certificate.  Conditions may be attached to such a decision that could have otherwise been available to the Zoning Administrator in making the initial decision.  The Board shall render a written decision in the form of a resolution on the appeal without unreasonable delay after the close of the hearing, but within at least 45 days after the close of the hearing.

 

5.         You should also be fully aware that if the appellant chooses to describe various aspects of their appeal, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes. 

 

6.         Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address.  

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM 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.  No member disqualified themselves. 

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

            According to the Secretary, a notice for this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on August 24, 2000 and notices were mailed to the appellant and the real property owners of record in the area of notification on August 22, 2000.  Unless there is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I’ll declare that proper notification has been given.  The public hearing on this appeal was continued from the September 19, 2000 meeting.

 

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.  (If any written communications are presented, such material might better be read just before the close of the hearing.)  No one had received any ex parte communication.

 

BACKGROUND FACTS:

 

            There are certain preliminary background facts which we need to determine.

 

1.         Was the appeal made within 30 days of the decision by the Zoning Administrator?

            Yes.

 

2.         Has the Appellant submitted a statement specifying the grounds for appeal?  Yes.

 

3.         If requested by the Chairperson, has the Appellant submitted a drawing attached to the application?  The public hearing was continued with instructions to the Appellant to submit a detailed drawing of the site.

 

4.         Has the Zoning Administrator transmitted to the Chairperson all the record upon which the appeal is based?  Yes.

 

5.         Have all legal proceedings, if applicable, been stayed in accordance with Section 10-106 C of the Zoning regulations?  Yes.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION:

 

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

 

            Les Mangus stated that the appellant is protesting the following items:

 

1.         Construct a 6 foot cedar fence trash dumpster screening area at the southeast corner of the building with protective bollards at the corners of the concrete slab on property zoned as the B-3 Central Shopping District.

 

2.         Construct a blue metal fascia on the West side of the building to match the existing north and east sides of the building.

 

3.         Place six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the south edge of the parking and gas pump area, and six 5-6 foot evergreen trees along the west edge of the site.

 

4.         Construct hard surface paving of the areas south and west of the building used for truck traffic circulation, or close the access to those areas if left unpaved,

 

Mr. Mangus stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals wanted the following items addressed prior to this meeting:

 

1.         The opinions of the City of Andover City Attorney regarding if a lease can override zoning regulations and whether the City can block off a driveway or not.   Mr. Mangus stated that the City Attorney informed him that a lease between 2 people has no bearing on the zoning regulations.

2.         An accurate survey of the property in question.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Bill King is here to present the property lines in question.

3.         A meeting between Mr. Bridges, Mr. Mangus, Mr. Presta and Mr. King to talk over the issues of this meeting and see what the options are to resolve these issues.  Mr. Mangus stated that several meetings have been held and Mr. King is here to address the Board of Zoning appeals as to the outcomes of these meetings.

APPELLANT’S APPEAL:

I now call upon the appellant to come to the podium and make his presentation on the appeal.

Mr. Bill King of 3663 SW Prairie Creek Road is representing the appellant.  He stated he is the owner of the parcel of property at 21st Street North and Andover Road that Presto has the convenience store on.  He stated that there have been several meetings.  Mr. King showed the Board members a drawing of the development plan of the subject corner.  Mr. King stated that the dimensions of the leased area on the drawing presented today and the leased area today are the same.  Mr. King then presented to the Board a drawing of what the Site Plan Review Committee was initially shown.  He then gave a drawing that showed the lease lines and the dedicated ingress/egress and the future pavement.

Quentin Coon asked if it was the intent of Mr. Presta and Mr. King to go ahead with the entire pavement.  Mr. King stated it is not their intent; Mr. Presta is looking at approximately $20,000 worth of paving to the traffic flow area.  There was then general discussion regarding the issues.

Mr. King asked if this item could be continued to the next scheduled meeting, which Mr. Mangus stated would be November 21, 2000.  

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to continue this hearing until the next scheduled meeting, November 21, 2000 to allow the appellant the opportunity to formulate a proposal for completion of the project.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Case No. BZA-A-2000-01

 

 

 

 

BZA-A-2000-02:  Public Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Plaza Real Estate, to allow a temporary development sign for Cedar Park. 

ANDOVER BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Additional Agenda Item No. 2

CHECKLIST FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

 

CALL TO ORDER BY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CHAIRMAN McEACHERN:

 

            It is 7:48 p.m. and I now call Additional Agenda Item No. 2, which is a public hearing on Case No. BZA-A-2000-02 by Plaza Real Estate, to allow a temporary development sign for Cedar Park, pursuant to Section 10-106 of the City Zoning Regulations as an appeal from a determination of the Zoning Administrator with respect to the interpretation, application or enforcement of the Zoning Regulations.  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.         I will call upon the Zoning Administrator to describe his determination and then the appellant to make his appeal.  After them, 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 Zoning Administrator, appellant, the public, and staff or our consultant.

 

4.         In presenting your comments, you should be aware that the Board may affirm or reverse, wholly or partially, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from, and my make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the Zoning Administrator.  Furthermore, the Board may issue or direct the issuance of a zoning permit and/or occupancy certificate.  Conditions may be attached to such a decision that could have otherwise been available to the Zoning Administrator in making the initial decision.  The Board shall render a written decision in the form of a resolution on the appeal without unreasonable delay after the close of the hearing, but within at least 45 days after the close of the hearing.

 

5.         You should also be fully aware that if the appellant chooses to describe various aspects of their appeal, the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and other City codes. 

 

6.         Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by the Chairperson and give their name and address.  

 

DISQUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM 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.  No member disqualified themselves. 

 

NOTIFICATION:

 

            According to the Secretary, a notice for this hearing was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on September 28, 2000 and notices were mailed to the appellant and the real property owners of record in the area of notification on September 26, 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.  (If any written communications are presented, such material might better be read just before the close of the hearing.)  No one had received any ex parte communication.

 

BACKGROUND FACTS:

 

            There are certain preliminary background facts which we need to determine.

 

1.         Was the appeal made within 30 days of the decision by the Zoning Administrator?

            Yes.

 

2.         Has the Appellant submitted a statement specifying the grounds for appeal?  Yes.

 

 

3.         If requested by the Chairperson, has the Appellant submitted a drawing attached to the application?  A drawing was provided with the application.

 

4.         Has the Zoning Administrator transmitted to the Chairperson all the record upon which the appeal is based?  Yes.

 

5.         Have all legal proceedings, if applicable, been stayed in accordance with Section 10-106 C of the Zoning regulations?  Yes.

 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION:

 

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

 

Les Mangus stated that the appellant is protesting a decision by the Zoning Administrator to allow a temporary development sign for the Cedar Park Subdivision located +/- ¼ mile west of Andover Road on the west side of 13th Street.  Mr. Mangus stated that he has been working with the Cedar Park Real Estate agents for some time on a sign for Cedar Park.  During this time, Cedar Park has been working with KGE to place the sign on KGE property at the corner of 13th Street and Andover Road.  This process took much longer than anticipated.  KGE finally released the lease and Cedar Park brought in the sign application, after the City amended the sign regulations, which now prohibit off site advertising. Unfortunately this was very bad timing for Cedar Park.  Chairman McEachern asked if this is the biggest issue in this appeal.  Mr. Mangus stated the regulations allow only limited signs on this property leased from KGE zoned residential.  Real estate development signs are not allowed off-site from the property being sold.  Ron Roberts stated that this size is 72” x 72” and is too big under the new regulations.  Mr. Mangus stated this size also exceeds the maximums in the old regulations.

 

APPELLANT’S APPEAL:

I now call upon the appellant to come to the podium and make her presentation on the appeal.

Linda Mason, a realtor from Plaza Real Estate and property manager at Cedar Park told the Board that their biggest problem is that their development is not on any maps and people are not able to find them.  This has created the need for a development sign.  The corner in question is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and the other 3 corners are assumed to be business zoned.  She stated the development wants a temporary sign for 2 or 3 years, whatever the Board will allow.  Ms. Mason stated that she went by other development signs and used that for the basis for their sign size.  Ms. Mason stated they have been working with KGE and got verbal permission to use the property in January 2000.  Ms. Mason stated that on January 27, 2000 they asked Pam at the City for the rules and regulations regarding signs, which were faxed to them.  On January 27 they had a meeting with the developer and started working with a sign company.   They had several conversations with the sign people.   They talked to Pam about turning in the permit and she told Plaza Real Estate to just hold on to the sign permit until they had all the necessary information and turn it all in at the same time.  KGE signed the lease on August 17, 2000.  Ms. Mason stated on August 2 she thought she had lost the sign permit and called the City and asked for another set but found her original set.  Ms. Mason stated she hoped this was not just turned down because it was turned in late. 

Ron Roberts asked what the length of the lease was.  Ms. Mason stated it is for 3 years, and the cost of the lease is $600.00. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT;

Kathy Schmidt of Plaza Real Estate was disappointed that Les Mangus didn’t tell them this couldn’t be done without a zoning change.  She also asked why Les Mangus didn’t inform them there was no avenue for them to pursue to allow the sign.

 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:            There were none.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S APPEAL AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:            None.

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTS:      None.

CLOSE THE HEARING:    

Chairman McEachern asked if there were any other comments from the public.  Hearing none, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.

APPEAL BOARD DELIBERATIONS:      

The Board will now deliberate the appeal for which we need to make findings of fact.  Based on these facts, we need to determine whether we would have made the same determination as the Zoning Administrator or whether it should be reversed or modified.  Our Board should proceed now to review the evidence presented at this hearing and either by consensus or vote make a list of the findings of fact that provide the basis for determination.

Chairman McEachern asked if this sign would cause an obstruction of the traffic at that intersection.  Ms. Mason stated that the sign would be set back 25’ from the sidewalk.  Chairman McEachern asked if that would be on both sides.  Ms. Mason stated it would sit back 25’ from both streets. 

Chairman McEachern asked what the issues were for this case.  Les Mangus stated that this doesn’t meet the sign regulations for the R-2 zoning district, as development signs are only allowed inside the development; this sign is considered an advertising sign, nothing in the old or new regulations allowed for this; Les Mangus stated that Plaza Real Estate could use a portable sign until August 17, 2001 at this location if zoned for business.  Mr. Mangus stated that there was some talk earlier about rezoning this corner but no change has been applied for.  Lynn Heath asked if there was anything in the zoning regulations to allow for variances or exceptions.  Mr. Mangus stated Board of Zoning Appeals charge in this situation is to determine the reasonableness of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.  Les Mangus stated that no off site development signs are allowed under current regulations. 

Chairman McEachern stated that he wouldn’t want a development sign on a residential lot but this is commercial on all corners of 13th and Andover Road even if it is currently zoned residential.  Chairman McEachern asked if there could be a variance to allow this sign.  Les Mangus stated no use variance is allowed under current regulations.  Mr. Mangus stated that if the zoning was changed there could be a temporary sign allowed. 

Ms. Mason stated she would like to backdate the application.  Les Mangus stated that if we did that the sign still wouldn’t fit into R-2 sign regulations.  Mr. Mangus stated that at this location in this zone only 6 sq. foot real estate signs are allowed.  If the area was rezoned to business there could be a temporary sign for 30 days 4 times per year.

There was general discussion regarding the possible changing of the ordinance. 

DECISION:

 

Having discussed and reached conclusions on our findings of fact, I now call for a motion:

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing for Case No. BZA-A-2000-02 and determined the findings of fact as stated for the record, I Joe Robertson move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution wholly affirming the decision appealed from because this request doesn’t fit our current zoning regulations for signage. Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants in this hearing and stated they are welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Joe Robertson and Lynn Heath both commented that the Ordinance should be amended somehow to allow for some type of relief in special cases.  The Board of Zoning Appeals except for Quentin Coon and Ron Roberts feel there should be some type of Real Estate sign allowed for Cedar Park and asked Les Mangus to work with Plaza Real Estate and find a way to do one.

BZA-A-2000-02: Public Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator by Plaza Real Estate, to allow a temporary development sign for Cedar Park. 

 

 

 

 

 

BZA-V-2000-06:  Public hearing on an application for variance of the required 25’ front yard setback to 23’ for the purpose of allowing a covered front porch at 175 Williamsburg.

 

 Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.  Chairman McEachern asked if proper public notice had been given.  Les Mangus stated that it had.  Chairman McEachern asked if anyone needed to disqualify themselves.  No one disqualified themselves.   Chairman McEachern asked if there had been any ex parte communications.  There were no ex parte communications. The Zoning Administrator, Les Mangus stated that the facts are in the packet the members received.  In the process of building a front porch on the subject home, it was discovered during the first inspection that the architectural drawings had an error in the front setback footage.  The work stopped.  Mr. Mangus commented this is one of the only houses in the neighborhood without a covered porch.

 

Chairman McEachern stated there were no written communications from the public. 

 

Kelly Laflin, the applicant, read the following written statement:

 

We respectfully request that the 25 feet minimum front yard depth dimension of Lot 13, Block 6, Andover Village, commonly known as 175 Williamsburg, be reduced to 23 feet.  This request for a variance from Andover zoning regulations has come about through the following circumstances.  We, the homeowners of 175 Williamsburg, contracted an architect to design a front porch that complimented the architectural style of our home and enhanced its esthetic quality.  Working from a survey of the property that was conducted on May 13, 1998 by licensed surveyor Robert L. Castle prior to our purchase of the property, the architect designed a porch that met our criteria and conformed to current Andover zoning regulations.  The survey indicates a distance of 32 feet from our property front boundary to the front of the house, to a measured accuracy of 0.1 feet.  Subtracting the 25 feet front yard minimum depth distance from 32 feet gives a remaining distance of 7 feet from the house to the front yard setback line.  The porch designed by the architect is completely contained within this 7 feet distance.  A copy of both the survey and the architectural plans are included with this application. 

 

A contract was secured with Southwestern Remodeling to build the porch as per the architectural drawings, and construction was started July 31, 2000.  The existing entrance door stoop and steps were removed, a trench was dug, reinforced concrete footing was poured, and forms for the porch stem wall were in place when the builder expressed a concern regarding the front yard minimum depth requirement.  In order to address the concern of the builder, we had a surveyor locate the corner pins marking our property and requested that the Andover building inspector verify that the porch did not encroach upon the front yard setback line.  To our dismay, the front yard boundary line was found to be 2 feet closer to the house than was specified in the survey used by the architect.  As a result, the 25 feet minimum depth line is 2 feet closer to our home than the survey led us to believe, causing our partially constructed port to be in violation of current Andover zoning regulations.  Upon the discovery of this violation, we immediately directed the builder to halt construction of the porch and acted t file this application for zoning variance, so that we might obtain the appropriate permit to complete construction of the porch as per the architectural drawings.  No construction work as occurred since the discovery of the violation on August 21, 2000.

 

From the very start of this endeavor, it was our intent to build a front porch that was in complete compliance with Andover zoning regulations.  Using a survey that we believed to be valid to within its specified accuracy of 0.1 feet, we contracted an architect to design a porch that complied with all Andover zoning regulations.  When the possibility of a zoning violation was brought to our attention, we responsibly arranged for an independent survey to verify the position of our property front boundary.  Finally, when our partially constructed porch was found to be in violation of zoning regulations, we appropriately halted construction and filed this application for variance.  We are requesting this variance so that we might avoid the hardship of time and cost involved with both a porch redesign and, more significantly, the removal of the existing reinforced concrete footing.

 

Granting our requested variance requires only that the front yard minimum depth dimension be reduced by 8%.  This corresponds to an 8% reduction in the minimum front yard area.  The completed porch would have no less than 23 feet minimum distance to the property front boundary and no less than 37.5 feet minimum distance to the existing street curb.  A sketch showing our lot with existing structures, the proposed porch, and pertinent dimensions is provided with this application.

 

The proposed porch will have only a positive effect on the neighborhood and residence of Williamsburg Street.  The homes in the Andover Village development were built prior to the enactment of current Andover Zoning regulations.  Therefore, many of the homes in the development are closer than 25 feet to their respective property front boundaries.  In fact, Butler County property maps indicate that the house across the street from ours, 166 Williamsburg, is less than 20 feet from its property front boundary.  Additionally, 200 Williamsburg, which is within 200 feet from our property, is less than 10 feet away from its front boundary.  Therefore, at a minimum distance of no less than 23 feet from our front boundary, our proposed porch would be sufficiently setback to maintain a large front yard in comparison to neighboring lots.  Furthermore, the porch, if allowed to be completed, will not impair the visibility of drivers on Williamsburg in any way, nor will it significantly impact the yard-to-yard visibility of neighboring properties.  Actually, the open porch will be less visually obstructive than the two 20 feet tall cedar trees which we removed from the front corners of the house in order to build the porch.  The porch would protect the main entrance of the house from rain, ice, and snow; significantly reduce daytime heating of the East side of the house; provide an alternate fire escape route for the three upstairs bedrooms; and enhance the esthetic quality and functionality of the residence.  Finally, because of its style and esthetic quality, the porch will positively impact property values within the neighborhood, and the other homeowners residing on Williamsburg fully support its completion as per the architectural drawings, as is witnessed by signatures on the accompanying petition for variance.

 

We thank you for your thoughtful consideration regarding this request for variance.

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there were any questions for the applicant.  There were none.

 

Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. and proceeded with the Variance Report.

 

 

VARIANCE REPORT

 

 

CASE NUMBER:                    BZA-V-2000-06

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:            Kelly Laflin

 

REQUEST:      Variance of the front yard setback for a covered front porch.

 

CASE HISTORY: Andover Village Addition developed in the 1980’s.

 

LOCATION:   175 Williamsburg, Andover.

 

SITE SIZE:      100’ x 168’

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

NORTH:          R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition

SOUTH:          R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition

EAST:              R-2 Single-Family Residential - Andover Village Addition

WEST:             R-2 Single-Family Residential - Green Valley P.U.D.

 

* Note:   This report is to assist the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine their findings from the evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their decision on the required five findings found in Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations. The board may grant a request upon specific written findings of fact when all five conditions, as required by State statutes, are found to exist. The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Board of Zoning Appeal’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.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

 

None

 

SPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE MET:**

 

1.         That the variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant because the house was built without a covered porch at the front door.

 

2.         That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents because many homes in the area have similar encroachments in the required 25’ front yard;

 

3.         That strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application because the error in the survey drawing was not discovered until the footing for the porch was constructed;

           

4.         That the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity or general welfare because an adequate front yard area will remain;

 

5.         That granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations because the intent of the bulk regulations to provide open space and separation from the street will not be substantially altered.

 

The Board determined that the request is one of the instances under which the Zoning Regulations authorize the Board to grant a variance. 

 

There was no deliberation by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107 D 1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Quentin Coon move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance as requested. Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  The motion carried 8-0.

 

Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene Planning Commission.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  The motion carried 8-0.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

BZA-V-2000-06:  Public hearing on an application for variance of the required 25’ front yard setback to 23’ for the purpose of allowing a covered front porch at 175 Williamsburg .

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman McEachern called for a 5-minute recess at 8:27 p.m.  The Planning Commission reconvened from the recess at 8:32 p.m.

Recess

 

 

 

 

Cloud City, Amended P.U.D. Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.  Kenny Hill from

 

Poe and Associates presented information on behalf of the developer. Les Mangus stated that we have a peculiar situation with this P.U.D.  This P.U.D. now has two owners. The amendment to the P.U.D. leaves fragments of parcels, approximately a 40-50’ strip of land unusable as zoned on the residential side. After discussion with Bickley Foster, Mr. Mangus stated that any application to amend the P.U.D. needs to come from both owners.

 

Kenny Hill stated that there are meetings scheduled between the owners for later this month and asked that this item be deferred until the next meeting, which will be in November. 

 

The public hearing was closed at 8:36 p.m.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to defer this item until the November 21, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. Charles Malcom seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0

Cloud City, Amended P.U.D.

 

 

 

 

Diamond Creek, Preliminary P.U.D.   Kenny Hill from Poe and Associates presented information on behalf of the developer Rick and Donna Travis, who were also present.

 

Mr. Hill stated that the modifications which have been made include reducing lot sizes, (overall average size of lots are 10,800 sq. feet, the minimum lot sizes are 8,400 sq. feet) moving the streets slightly to accommodate the changes in lot sizes, modifying the streets to the current City standards, and reduce frontages.  Mr. Hill stated that 14.7% of the land is open reserve.

 

Mr. Hill stated they agreed with Les Mangus’s comments except the blanket 35’ utility easements along the hedgerow.  Mr. Mangus stated the request is from KGE.  Mr. Hill stated that the easements can be done in most places but not all, and keep the trees.  Mr. Mangus and Mr. Hill will work this out prior to the final plat. 

 

Mr. Hill stated that the developer does not agree with the 8’ sidewalks required on collector streets.  He stated that a number of lots front on the collector street and this would take a large part of the front yard.  The developer would like to put the sidewalks in the rear of the lots. 

 

Rick Travis of 4110 Jasmine Court, the owner/developer is in favor of sidewalks and feels they promote safety.  He would like to see 5’ sidewalks on each side of the road rather than 8’.  Mr. Travis feels that 8’ sidewalks would slow sales as no one would like that large of a sidewalk in their front yard.   Mr. Travis stated their goal is to sell the lots quickly.  Mr. Travis stated he would consider paths in and around the reserve in lieu of the sidewalks. 

 

Mr. Dale Tipton, 737 Porter, Wichita, a broker with Caldwell Banker stated that from a marketing stand point the 8’ sidewalk is distracting to the homeowner and people do not want that in their front yard.  He feels it would be better to put the walks in the back of the property.  Mr. Tipton feels that the users would like the path in the rear of the lots.  Mr. Tipton feels that it would be detrimental to the market to have sidewalks in the front of the property. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone else from the public to address the issue.  There were none.  The public hearing was closed at 8:49 p.m.

Diamond Creek, Preliminary P.U.D.  

 

 

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 6

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-99-03

 

APPLICANT/

AGENT:

Rick Travis, Kenny Hill, Poe & Associates

 

 

REQUEST:

R-2 Single Family Residential to R-2 Single Family Residential Preliminary Planned Unit Development

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

 

LOCATION:

Northeast corner of SW 120th Street and 159th Street East

 

SITE SIZE:

+/- 75 acres.

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

R-2 single-family

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

R-2 Single Family Residential - Polo Farm

 

South:

Butler County Suburban Residential and Agricultural

 

East:

R-2 Single Family Residential - Tuscany Addition

 

West:

Sedgwick County Agricultural

 

 

 

Background Information:

None

 

 

 

* 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:

Change to the real estate market

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Change to the real estate market

 

 

 

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 public facilities can be provided

 

x

 

PLANNING:

All public facilities can be provided

 

 

 

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:

N/A

 

x

 

PLANNING:

N/A

 

 

 

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:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

13. Would the request be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the intent and purpose of these regulations?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

 

 

x

 

PLANNING:

 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

None

 

 

x

PLANNING:

None

 

 

 

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 with modifications

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval with modifications

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of Z-99-03 the Preliminary Planned Unit Development of Diamond Creek with the following conditions:

 

1.         8’ sidewalk on the North side of Diamond Drive, then through Reserve A (behind lots 1-7) to Fieldstone and 5’ sidewalk on the rest of Diamond Drive and Garnet and Pearl on either side of the street. 

2.         Les Mangus and Kenny Hill will negotiate the 35’ easement required by KGE. 

3.  Cul-de-sac lots must have at least 40’ of street frontage.  60’ at front building setback                                                                                                         Cul-de-sac lots must have at least 40’ of street frontage.  60’ at front building setback.

4. 6’ sideyards must be 8’.                                                                                                         6’ sideyards must be 8’.

5. General Provision 15.  Change to “35% of the lots shown in each approved Final P.U.D. Plan must have Certificates of Occupancy for new dwellings…”                                                                                                         General Provision 15.  Change to “35% of the lots shown in each approved Final P.U.D. Plan must have Certificates of Occupancy for new dwellings…”

6. The name of one of the Emerald Court street must be changed.                                                                                                         The name of one of the Emerald Court street must be changed.

7. All lots that abut the arterial streets shall be provided a 6’ masonry screening wall along the arterial right-of-way.                                                                                                         All lots that abut the arterial streets shall be provided a 6’ masonry screening wall along the arterial right-of-way.

 

Findings to support the motion include items 12, 13, 14.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.   Motion carried 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS:                                                         

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.

 

 

 

 

 

Z-2000-07 Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from B-5 Highway Business to B-4 Central Business District on Andover Road between U.S. Hwy 54 an d Village Road.  Chairman McEachern opened the public hearing at 9:22 p.m.  Bob Kaplan presented information on behalf of the property owner, Dr. A. J. Reed.  Mr. Kaplan stated that this is a 188’ x 336’ lot that the owner is asking to lower the zoning to B-4 Central Business District to accommodate a Goodwill Store at this location.  Mr. Kaplan stated that it is a very attractive building. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was anyone from the public there to address this issue.  No one from the public appeared to address the issue.

 

Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. 

Z-2000-07 Public hearing on an application for change in zoning district classification from B-5 Highway Business to B-4 Central Business District on Andover Road between U.S. Hwy 54 an d Village Road. 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 7

 

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-2000-07

 

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

Minor Emergency Center , P.A./Robert Kaplan

 

REQUEST:

B-5 Highway Business District to B-4 Central Business District.

 

CASE HISTORY:

Vacant

 

 

LOCATION:

Between U.S. Hwy. 54 and Village Road on t he West side of Andover Road

 

 

SITE SIZE:

188’ x 336’

 

 

PROPOSED USE:

B-4 Central Business District.

 

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

 

North:

B-2 Neighborhood District - Braum’s under construction

 

 

South:

B-5 Highway Business - Vacant used car lot

 

East:

B-3 Central Shopping District - Andover Crossing shopping center

 

 

West:

Vacant B-3 Central Shopping and B-5 Highway Business

 

 

 

 

Background Information:

None

 

 

 

* 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:

Developing area as a regional shopping center

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Developing area as a regional shopping center

 

 

 

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:

Sewer must be relocated

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Sewer must be relocated

 

 

 

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:

In process

 

x

 

PLANNING:

In process

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

In process

 

x

 

PLANNING:

In process

 

 

 

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:

None in the immediate area, north of U.S. Hwy. 54. 

 

 

 

PLANNING:

None in the immediate area, north of U.S. Hwy. 54. 

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Added service and employment opportunities

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Added service and employment opportunities

 

 

 

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:

It is surrounded by lesser business zones

 

x

 

PLANNING:

It is surrounded by lesser business zones

 

 

 

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?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Yes

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Yes

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

 

x

STAFF:

None at this time

 

 

x

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?

 

 

x

 

STAFF:

Approval contingent on platting

 

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval contingent on platting

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Quentin Coon to recommend approval of Z-2000-07, change in zoning district classification from B-5 Highway Business to B-4 Central Business District.  Findings to support the motion include items 5, 12, and 13.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.   Motion carried 8-0.

 

CLOSING REMARKS: Chairman McEachern thanked the participants.

 

 

 

 

 

Goodwill Industries Addition, Preliminary Plat.  Russ Ewy of Baughman Company presented information on behalf of the owner/developer.  Mr. Ewy stated that they are in agreement with the staff comments of Mr. Mangus and that they are going to put an addition 10’ easement along the north and south lot line and submit a drainage plan to show the drainage running to the proposed storm sewer.

 

Ron Roberts asked about the land left between Braums and this property.  Mr. Mangus stated there is a plat being drawn up which will clear up the balance of the property. 

 

Chairman McEachern noticed that the driveway is a joint access, there is not one of it’s own.  Mr. Mangus stated that owners of the two pieces of property will have a joint access agreement.  He also stated the agreement will be provided at the final plat with as a separate document or will be included on the plat.  Mr. Mangus stated that the final drainage plan will also be required at the final plat.

 

Joe Robertson asked where the drop off point for the store would be.  Les Mangus stated the preliminary site plan shows a car drop off on the north side of the building and a screened/sunken dock in the SW corner of the building.

 

Marie Mareda, 18 N. Stratford, Wichita, Kansas, the President of Goodwill Industries, stated that the business will be open 7 days a week.  This will be an attended drop off center.  The drop off will be inside the building. 

 

Motion was made by Ron Roberts to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for  Goodwill Industries Addition with the following conditions:

 

1.         Submit grading plan to Zoning Administrator.

2.         Provide 10’ easements along the north and south property lines.

 

Joe Robertson seconded the motion.   Motion was approved 8-0.

Goodwill Industries Addition, Preliminary Plat. 

 

 

 

 

Flint Hills National Addition Amended Final P.U.D.  Jason Gish with Mid Kansas Engineering Consultants (MKEC) presented information on behalf of the owners.  Mr. Gish stated this amendment is to follow the intent of the current amended P.U.D.  This change is to complete the full connecting loop street inside Flint Hills National Addition.  Les Mangus stated there were no problems other than what to call this change.  Mr. Mangus will discuss this name change issue with Bickley Foster. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath for approval of the Amended Final P.U.D. for Flint Hills National.  Sheri Geisler seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Flint Hills National Addition Amended Final P.U.D. 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation on annexation of the proposed wireless communication facility site in the new City Park, +/- ½ mile south of Central Avenue on the west side of Prairie Creek Road.  Les Mangus told the Commission that our Wireless Communication Facility regulations allow for public sites to be utilized for Wireless Communication Facilities.  Mr. Mangus stated that the City has been approached to lease some land for a wireless communication facility.  Mr. Mangus stated that the City will work with the township to get the road in shape to provide access to the wireless communication facility site.  Prairie Creek is currently closed.  This wireless communication facility will be near the maintenance shed in the new city park.  This site is the only property of the park that is to be annexed.

 

A motion was made by Charles Malcom to recommend approval of the annexation of the site to the City Council.  Lori Hays seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.

Recommendation on annexation of the proposed wireless communication facility site in the new City Park, +/- ½ mile south of Central Avenue on the west side of Prairie Creek Road. 

 

 

 

 

Member items: Jeff Bridges let the Commission members know that there is a registration form in their packets from the Institute for Municipal Leadership.  This particular seminar is for planning and zoning.  He told the members if they wanted to go they can register and the city will reimburse their fee after the seminar. 

 

Joe Robertson stated he would like to see the sidewalk between Braums and Goodwill completed prior to Goodwill being opened.  Chairman McEachern asked Les Mangus to contact Braums and find out when this will be done.  Mr. Mangus stated there is not much more of a delay according to Braums.  He stated he would talk to them about the sidewalk. 

 

Joe Robertson also stated there was no access from Shay Road from the west on the drawings shown to the Planning Commission.  Les Mangus stated that the only public access was to the one homeowners’ property on Shay Street. 

 

Sheri Geisler asked what the new park was named.  Jeff Bridges stated that no name had been chosen yet. Jeff Bridges let the Commission members know that there is a registration form in their packets from the Institute for Municipal Leadership.  This particular seminar is for planning and zoning.

Member items:

 

 

 

 

Adjournment:   Motion was made by Charles Malcom to adjourn.  Lori Hays seconded the motion.  Motion carried 8-0.  Meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.

Adjournment: