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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

December 19, 2000

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at the Andover Civic Center.  Members present were John McEachern, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Lynn Heath, and Charles Malcom. Joe Robertson, Lori Hays and Sheri Geisler were absent.  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 7:03 p.m.

Call to order.

 

 

Review of the minutes of the November 21, 2000 Andover Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.  Motion to approve minutes with the following change on page 23, “north side of the building” to read “north entrance on the west side of the building” by Lynn Heath, seconded by Charles Malcom.  Motion carried 5 to 0.

Review of the minutes of the November 21, 2000

 

 

Minutes of the December 12, 2000 Subdivision Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the December 5, 2000 Site Plan Review Committee meeting were received and filed.

 

Minutes of the December 12, 2000 City Council meeting minutes were received and filed.

 

Committee and Staff Reports.  None.

Minutes

 

 

Z-SU-2000-05:  Public hearing on an application for special use to establish a place of assembly at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive.    Les Mangus stated that the owners of the property, which is in the B-5 Highway Business District, located at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive has operated under temporary use permits for fireworks, haunted houses and dances in the past.  Mr. Mangus stated that this property is located at the southeast corner of 159th Street and U.S. Hwy 54.  Mr. Mangus stated that Augusta R.V. did a lot split 3-4 years ago and Mr. Krehbiel bought the property.  Wholesale Fireworks has come before the City Council in the past with temporary use permit requests and been approved.  Mr. Mangus stated that the purpose of this request from the landowner is to expand the current uses and allow some of the these requests to become permitted uses in order to eliminate the need for them to have to appear in front of the City Council on such a regular basis.

 

Chairman McEachern asked if any members needed to disqualify themselves.  No one did.

 

Chairman McEachern asked if proper notice was given.  Mr. Mangus stated that it was.  Notice to landowner was mailed November 21, 2000 and Public Notice was published in the Andover Journal Advocate on November 22, 2000. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there was any ex parte communication.  There was none.

 

Mr. Mangus commented that this property is currently zoned B-5 Highway Business District and was zoned this when the property was annexed into the city and platted in the early 1990’s.   

 

Chairman McEachern stated that there was a letter in the packet that needs to be included in the minutes.  It is as follows:

 

Dear Planning Commission Members,

 

            We own the adjacent Cottonwood Point Housing Development and have concerns with the special use request proposed by Wholesale Fireworks.  The houses on our northern border will be impacted by excessive noise and site pollution generated by these and other uses requested at this location.  Please review carefully each special use request as if it were to be within 100 feet of your home.

 

The definition of a special use PG 2-19 (by ordinance 740) of the City of Andover says;

           

“A use of a structure or land which is not permitted outright within a zoning district because of characteristics that might have an adverse affect upon nearby properties or the future development of the district unless certain conditions can be placed on the use which would make it suitable to the purpose of the district and compatible to the other uses so designated.  Such uses are “special” in that they are facilities and/or whose location would have planning implications for a neighborhood or the entire city.”

 

            It is our opinion that the application brought before this committee by Wholesale Fireworks will have an impact to our housing development if the activities are not restricted.  Because the storefront of this business has in its name Fireworks, we request the following restrictions are placed on the special uses requested.

 

            1.  No outside storage of any kind.

a. This should include Balloons, signs, diesel trailer, boom box, fencing   materials and tents.

 

b. If a storage truck is used to unload equipment of any kind, it will be unloaded and removed from the parking lot.  If a storage trailer is needed for any of these events a temporary use permit would be required.

 

            2.  No outside activities of any kind.

 

3.  Boom boxes or remote radio stations vans will not be allowed on the southern Side of the Wholesale Fireworks building.

 

4.  No activity will be allowed which interferes with the normal flow of traffic on public roads.  If after the activities, a public road has been littered or trashed, Wholesale Fireworks will clean up the area.

 

5.  Rave parties will not be allowed.

 

6.  Seminars that are put on to sell Fireworks should not be included in this special use permit or should any event that includes Fireworks be assumed to be part of this special use request.

 

7.  No activities will occur after 12:00 p.m. weekends and 10:00 p.m. weekdays.  If activities after 12:00 p.m. are desired, a temporary permit must be applied for.

 

Please consider our concerns as related to the approved residential development immediately to the south of these activities.  If these uses are allowed, without restriction, adjacent lot values, assessed values and ultimately taxes collected will be impacted.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

Dennis & Debie Bush, Owners of Cottonwood Point Development

 

Jim Roth of the firm of Woodard, Hernandez, Roth & Day, LLC, of 237 N. Broadway is representing the applicant, E. K. Investments, 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive.  Mr. Krehbiel is out of state or he would have been at the meeting.  Mr. Roth views this application as clean up work.  This property has been zoned B-5 Highway Business District since Mr. Krehbiel has owned it.   Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Krehbiel has spent close to one million dollars on this property so far, and has recently acquired some additional land.  Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Mangus suggested that this application be brought in as a special use.  Mr. Krehbiel would like to hold other functions such as auctions, seminars, reunions, weddings and other such functions.  Prior to today he has had to come before the City Council and ask for a temporary use.  Mr. Roth didn’t believe any request had been turned down.  Mr. Roth stated that Mr. Krehbiel is asking for the right to do what he has already been doing but without having to go in front of the Council each time.  These uses requested are not as onerous or disruptive as the allowed B-5 uses.  These uses seem to be in with the examples listed as special uses.  Mr. Roth stated that the letter from the Bush’s has many restrictions requested that if they would be imposed would be very damaging.  Mr. Roth stated he believes this is part of a standing disagreement with neighbors.  Mr. Roth asked that the Planning Commission please not hinder the request for the special use.  Mr. Roth asked that Mr. Krehbiel be allowed to keep the status quo and this be a special use instead of a temporary use. 

 

Chairman McEachern then opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.  

 

Debie Bush from Cottonwood Point Development spoke on behalf of herself and Dennis Bush.  She stated that they own the property adjacent to the subject property and submitted the subject letter.  She stated that their addition, Cottonwood Point was approved and should be developing within 1 ½ years.  Mrs. Bush stated that their premise is that as it is now the uses are not restricted.  They are also concerned because the word “Fireworks” is on the building. This gives the impression it is a fireworks building 365 days a year.

 

The Bush’s do not feel that seminars having to do with fireworks should be allowed.  They do not feel there should be any outside storage of any kind allowed at any time, however if there is storage allowed it should be limited.   They feel that there should be no outside activities allowed as this is close to their property line.  They feel that auctions outside would be inappropriate. Mrs. Bush stated that boom boxes or remote radio stations vans should not be allowed on the southern Side of the Wholesale Fireworks building as it is detrimental to the residential area.  Mrs. Bush commented that after an event in his building there is a large the amount of trash on the highway and he should clean it up.  Mrs. Bush stated that we don’t’ want “rave party” to be a perception of Andover.  Mrs. Bush commented on the seminars at this building.  The Bush’s also expressed their concern at the 2:00 a.m. curfew; they feel this is too late.

 

Mrs. Bush asked why haunted house was not in the application as a special use.  Mr. Mangus stated that it was not listed on the application for the special use.  Mrs. Bush stated she did not understand the phrase “but not limited to” on the application and wanted a definition of this.  Mrs. Bush stated that the biggest issue for them is the storage outside and the perception that fireworks are sold there. 

 

There was no one else from the public to address the issue.

 

Mr. Roth responded to the issues in the letter and the comments from the Bush’s.  Mr. Roth stated that the permanent sign on the building does say “Fireworks” but does not feel anyone thinks they can come in 12 months a year and buy fireworks.  He does not feel the sign with the name of the company is an issue and should not impact any decision made tonight.  Mr. Roth addressed the issue of hours.  Mr. Mangus stated that the application had no hours of operation requested.  Chairman McEachern stated that this is a staff recommendation.

 

Chairman McEachern commented on the Rave party that was held at this location.  He was concerned that there were drugs and lots of young kids at the party.  Mr. Roth stated that this was a supervised party and the Andover Police Department was there.  Jeff Bridges stated that the name Rave just means a dance party.  If any drugs were there, the drugs are there illegal and certainly not sanctioned by the owners of the property.  Mr. Roth stated that if there is a special use or a temporary use he would hope the Police would be there and that obviously drug use is the worse thing in the world for the property and the community. 

 

Mr. Roth was not sure why the issue of seminars being held at the building was brought up.   He stated that Mr. Krehbiel has stands across the state and sometime during the year he has a meeting to explain rules and regulations and to educate them as to how to run the stands for the 4th of July holiday.  In regards to the outside storage it is allowed by any other businesses in this area and there is no logical reason to deny their request based on storage.

 

Mr. Roth stated that as for the trash, there is trash at both locations for the fireworks in this area and that should be taken up with the parties which are involved with licensing of the fireworks stands.

 

Mr. Roth stated that they are asking for everything which was allowed under the temporary uses, none of which have had any restriction by the City Council thus far.  Mr. Roth also stated that none of the neighbors have had any restrictions for boom boxes and he doesn’t feel his client should have any restrictions. 

 

Chairman McEachern asked if there were any further comments from the public.  Hearing none, Chairman McEachern closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.

 

Chairman McEachern asked if the 17 uses in the zoning were outright allowed, such as taverns.  Mr. Mangus stated that they are outright permitted uses; there is no need to go before the City Council for a permitted use.  Chairman McEachern confirmed that what the applicant is requesting is not a permitted use.  Mr. Mangus stated that an “assembly building” is not listed as a permitted use.  There was general discussion.  Lynn Heath asked about screening in the rear of the property.  Mr. Mangus stated that the Site Plan Review Committee approved an 8’ solid wood fence for the rear of the property.  Chairman McEachern asked if it was in place yet.  Mr. Mangus stated that it was not.  The owner wanted to wait until this case was decided. 

 

Quentin Coon asked about the “but not limited to” phrase on the application.  Mr. Mangus stated that Mr. Krehbiel and Bickley Foster, the City Planning Consultant, came up with this phrase to cover other similar uses, such as bar mitzvahs, divorce parties, etc.  Things that are similar but not necessarily written down. 

Z-SU-2000-05:  Public hearing on an application for special use to establish a place of assembly at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive.   

 

 

 

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Agenda Item No. 5

 

REZONING REPORT *

 

CASE NUMBER:

Z-SU-2000-05

 

APPLICANT/AGENT:

 

E. K. Investments, L.L.C.

 

REQUEST:

Place of assembly in B-5 Highway Business District

 

CASE HISTORY:

Headquarters for Wholesale Fireworks and Haunted House

 

LOCATION:

1611 W. Ledgerwood, US Hwy 54 and 159th Street

 

SITE SIZE:

290’ x 500’

 

PROPOSED USE:

Social and business functions, business office, auctions, exhibits, seminars, reunions, birthdays, anniversaries, and receptions.

 

ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

 

North:

B-4 Green Valley P.U.D. vacant property

South:

R-2 Cottonwood Point P.U.D. vacant  property

East:

B-5- Highway Business, Augusta RV Sales & Service

West:

Sedgwick County Agriculture

 

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 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:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

4.   Would the request correct an error in the application of these regulations?

 

x

 

STAFF:

The special use would bring the corporate office use into compliance and eliminate the need for individual temporary uses.

x

 

PLANNING:

The special use would bring the corporate office use into compliance and eliminate the need for individual temporary uses.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

YES

NO

5.   Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

All public facilities exist.

 

x

PLANNING:

All public facilities exist.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

7.   Would the subject property need to be platted or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements access control or building setback lines?

 

 

x

STAFF:

 

 

x

PLANNING:

 

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

 

 

YES

NO

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

 

 

x

STAFF:

Site plan changes have already been approved._

 

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:

Not applicable

 

x

PLANNING:

Not applicable

 

 

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:

Employment and entertainment opportunities

x

 

PLANNING:

Employment and entertainment 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:

The uses are similar to those already permitted in the B-5:  commercial recreation center, clubs, service and fraternal clubs.

x

 

PLANNING:

The uses are similar to those already permitted in the B-5:  commercial recreation center, clubs, service and fraternal clubs.

 

 

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:

Traffic, noise, lights

 

x

PLANNING:

Traffic, noise, lights

 

 

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 hours of operation limits:  11:00 p.m. Sun-Thurs., 2:00 a.m. Fri-Sat .

x

 

PLANNING:

Approval with hours of operation limits:  11:00 p.m. Sun-Thurs., 2:00 a.m. Fri-Sat .

 

 

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 due similarity to the uses already permitted.

 

 

PLANNING:

No detriment to the public is perceived due similarity to the uses already permitted.

 

 

COUNCIL:

 

 

 

There was then general discussion regarding outdoor auctions and noise levels.  Mr. Bridges stated that we now have a noise ordinance.  He stated that the City has a decibel and uses it.  Chairman McEachern had a question about the police enforcing the noise ordinance and their jurisdiction.  Mr. Mangus stated that the police have the jurisdiction.   Mr. Mangus stated that the dances are listed as a temporary use under accessory uses.  Mr. Mangus stated that the sale and discharge of fireworks is regulated under separate ordinance. 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-SU-2000-02, be approved to allow a special use to establish a place of assembly at 1611 W. Ledgerwood Drive, based on the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing, which include items 4, 12, 13, and 14.  John McEachern seconded the motion. 

 

There was general discussion regarding parking of storage trailers.  Jim Orr asked what the hours of operation were in the B-5 District.  Chairman McEachern stated there are no hours of operation in this district.

 

Chairman McEachern moved to amend the motion to not allow storage within 100’ of the rear of the property.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  The motion for the amendment passed 5-0.

 

There was general discussion regarding the hours of operation for this location. 

 

Chairman McEachern moved to amend the amended motion to limit the hours of operation to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 2:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.   The motion passed 5-0.

 

There was discussion as to whether or not to change Sunday time to 2:00 a.m. on a three day holiday weekend.  No one wanted to make a motion in this regard. 

 

Chairman McEachern called for a vote on the original motion.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Chairman McEachern thanked the public for their input. 

 

Chairman McEachern called for a 5 minute recess at 8:45 p.m.  Meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 

 

 

 

VA-2000-01:  Recommendation on the vacation of that portion of Shay Street right of way as a follow-up to the realignment of Shay Road for the USD 385 campus.  Les Mangus stated that this came about as a shift of Shay Road for USD 385.  The mobile home park is to create their own access.  The current road right of way will be given to the mobile home park and to Mr. Dave Riley.  Mr. Mangus stated that the recommendation of staff is to vacate the right of way and deed title to the mobile home park and Mr. Riley and retain the right of way as an easement.  Chairman McEachern asked if the City is asking for the vacation.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is the City of Andover who is asking for the vacation as this was the agreement with the mobile home park and Mr. Riley.

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the vacation of the right of way and retention of the easement, to the City Council.  Quentin Coon seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.

VA-2000-01  Recommendation on the vacation of that portion of Shay Street right of way as a follow-up to the realignment of Shay Road for the USD 385 campus. 

 

 

Goodwill Industries Addition Final Plat.  Russ Ewy of the Baughman Company at 315 Ellis, Wichita, Kansas presented on behalf of the property owners.  Mr. Ewy stated that the only issue left is the drainage plan of the site.  A good deal of the property to the west drains on to this site then on to Andover Road.  Mr. Ewy stated that the revised drainage drawings were submitted to Les Mangus last week.  Mr. Ewy stated that the property is able to handle the drainage to the east to the drainage on the site.  Chairman McEachern asked where this drainage will be going.  Mr. Ewy stated that the drainage will divert south to Kellogg and North to the storm water inlets along Village Road.  Chairman McEachern asked where the water will go, this isn’t clear.  Mr. Ewy stated that they will obtain off site drainage agreements with the property owners to take the water to the storm water inlets.  Mr. Mangus stated that he was not satisfied with the water diversion which sends water from one property owners to another’s property.  Mr. Mangus commented that at the southwest corner there is a 5 ½ foot difference between the top of Goodwill’s curb and the adjacent property.  Mr. Ewy stated they will probably need to build a stem wall instead of a 6” curb as originally thought.  Les Mangus stated he will need to see the proposed grading plan to see how the grading and drainage will work.  Mr. Mangus also stated that he wants to see the agreement between the landowners and the grading plan for the Goodwill property. 

 

Chairman McEachern made a motion to continue this item until the January 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.  The drainage plan and agreements to be turned in prior to the meeting for review by Les Mangus.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.

Goodwill Industries Addition Final Plat. 

 

 

Final Plan of the 2nd Phase of the Cloud City Planned Unit Development.  Kenny Hill of Poe and Associates represented the developers.  Mr. Hill stated that all the revisions requested by Mr. Mangus have been done and include the following:

 

1.      In General Provision 11 Reserve A regarding the sidewalks, identify who is responsible for the cost of the sidewalks.

2.      In General Provision 10 change the wording from a “Homeowners Association” to “Owners Association.” 

3.      Approval is contingent upon the completion of the traffic study.

 

Mr. Hill stated that a contract for the traffic study was signed today and the study should be completed in four weeks.

 

Leo Goseland of 125 N. Longford, Wichita, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the developer.  He looked at the issue of the sidewalks and bike trails and the pedestrian traffic ways.  He is concerned with how the City will tie the bike path in Andover to the commercial area.  His first concern is that a traffic way will turn into a bike pate and skateboarders will use it.  His second concern in potential liability as this is adjacent to Cloud Avenue, where everything is commercial.  He stated that bike paths so close to commercial areas would be too inviting for kids to go into the parking areas.  He stated that the City could possibly share in the responsibility.  Their insurance company sees this as a potential problem.  Mr. Goseland stated that an 8’ sidewalk is a potential open traffic way.

 

 

He stated that they would at best consider a 5’ or 6’ traffic way and not along Cloud Avenue.  There was general discussion.  Mr. Goseland stated that they are concerned about the liability of sidewalks in a commercial area.   He says there needs to be ways to get in and out on the sidewalks/traffic ways without going through major commercial areas.  Les Mangus stated that this is a new way of thinking for planners; there is a need to provide for non-automobile trips.  Jeff Bridges stated that these are public right-of-ways, public streets and public easements.  Chairman McEachern commented that he thought Cloud Avenue had 8’ sidewalks and the sidewalk through Reserve A was 5’.  Chairman McEachern asked for a couple of benches to be put along the sidewalk in Reserve A.  Kenny Hill asked if he meant he wanted a sidewalk through Reserve A on the west side to tie into the south side of Cloud Avenue.  Chairman McEachern stated that was correct. 

 

Motion was made by Lynn Heath to recommend approval of the Final Plan of the Second Phase of the Cloud City Planned Unit Development with the following clarifications:

 

1.      5’ sidewalks through the west side of Reserve A, near the FEMA floodway.

2.      8’ sidewalks on the south side of Cloud Avenue.

3.      Two nice benches along the sidewalk in Reserve A.

4.      Traffic study as required by City Staff.  

 

Quentin Con seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.

Final Plan of the 2nd Phase of the Cloud City Planned Unit Development. 

 

 

Additional Agenda item:        Petition for Vacation of the platted Clayton Drive road right-of-way adjacent to Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, Block 5, and Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, Block 4, Crescent Heights 1st Addition.   Les Mangus, Zoning Administrator, provided background information to the Commission and stated that the property adjacent to the right-of-way is owned by the petitioner.   Mr. Mangus stated his only concern is with the right-of-way.  He recommends to the Commission that there should be a cul de sac on the remaining section of Clayton Drive , with a 70’ gravel surface in a 100’ diameter right of way.  After general discussion regarding the location of the property a motion was made.

 

Ron Roberts made a motion to recommend to the Butler County Planning Commission approval of the vacation of Clayton Drive as shown on the map presented, with the condition there be a 70’ gravel surface cul de sac in a 100’ diameter right of way.  Lynn Heath seconded the motion.  The motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Member items.           Quentin Coon wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

 

Les Mangus stated that Sheri Geisler called in and wanted to say thank you to the City for letting her attend classes.  She stated she learned a lot in the class and appreciated the opportunity to take the class.

 

Ron Roberts mentioned that J&H Transportation was now parking their trailers in front of the building.  Mr. Mangus stated that he can park on his property not on the public street.  This has eliminated the trailers on Andover Road. 

 

Chairman McEachern stated that he would like Les Mangus to check on the building at 135 S. Andover Road.  He stated there are windows in the rear of the building and he didn’t think there were supposed to be any.  Mr. Mangus stated he will check on this.  Chairman McEachern also was concerned with the drainage.  Mr. Mangus stated that it is above ground, across the Weigand yard into the storm drain, water is also directed by a swale.  Mr. Mangus stated he has talked to Mr. Blair, the builder, who is going to cut the bottom of the fence to allow for drainage from the Shepler property to the swale.  When the sod was put in it went to the bottom of the fence, they did not take into account the height of the sod when the fence was set.

 

 

 

Motion to adjourn by Charles Malcom.  Ron Roberts seconded the motion.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.