|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
October
18, 2005
Minutes
|
|
The
Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, October
18, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Chairman Clark
Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission Members present
were David Martine, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and
Charlotte Bass. Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Services Director Donna Davis, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale. Commission Member Lynn Heath and City
Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges were absent.
|
Call
to Order
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the minutes of the September 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Charlotte
Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jeff Syrios seconded
the motion. Motion carried 4/0/2 with Jan Cox and Ron Roberts abstaining.
|
Review
the minutes of the Sept. 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council minutes from the September
13, 2005 and September 27, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and
filed.
Review the minutes of the October 4, 2005 Site Plan
Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the October 11, 2005
Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications:
|
|
|
|
|
Quentin Coon asked if the ISO
rates had been improved yet. Les said they have not but the rates are lower
from those of 10 years ago.
David Martine and Caroline
Hale arrived at the meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z-2005-05 and SU-2005-03 Continue the public hearing
on an application for a change of zoning district classification from the R-1
Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District
with Special use requested to establish a place for outside storage in the
B-2 Neighborhood Business District located at 816 N. Andover Rd.
Clark
Nelson said this case was continued from last month to allow the applicant to
contact the neighbors about this proposed special use.
Les
Mangus submitted a memo to the
Planning Commission which said this public hearing was continued from the
last meeting to allow the applicant to provide more detailed information
about the proposed outdoor storage. The Andover Church of Christ desires to
zone their property to B-2 Neighborhood Business District in order to market
the north 118 feet for sale for business use. The Special Use for outdoor
storage came about as a result of a possible purchaser of the vacant lot
needing outdoor storage and display for water garden plants and accessories.
The Special Uses listed in the B-2 Regulations lists lumberyards, which would
typically include some outdoor storage of materials. In general, Staff is not
opposed to the proposed change, but the outdoor storage could easily get out
of hand if not limited by conditions of the Special Use. The adjacent
residential neighbors to the east probably would not be opposed to seeing
plant materials across their back property line, but many other materials
could be objectionable.
Chairman
Nelson invited anyone in favor of this application to come to the podium.
Mark
Savoy of Savoy Co. and agent for the applicant presented the case. He said he
submitted a preliminary site plan to the Commissioners and does not think the
plan shows any “outside storage”. A “working display water garden” will be
exhibited at the front of the building. He said this is a 2,400 square foot
building. The storage area is enclosed inside the main structure. Behind the
building will be a poly covered display area. To the north of that is a 20’ x
25’ pot and planting area. 2- 20’ x 100’ poly-covered greenhouses will be
constructed to the east of the main building. The owner is planning for
traffic circulation around the entire perimeter of this property. The front
display area will be 42’ back from the property line which will allow for 18’
parking stall and 24’ drive. 10 parking spaces are required, and the church
has agreed to allow overflow parking into their existing lot.
Clark
Nelson thanked Mr. Savoy for the site plan information and asked for
clarification of the special use request. Mark Savoy asked Les for help to
define “outside storage”. Mark said he talked to the owner of Children’s Discovery Center and she is not opposed to this business. He also delivered a copy of the
site plan to Mr. McBride who stated his concerns at the last meeting. There
has been no further communication with Mr. McBride.
Quentin
Coon asked about maximum lot coverage. Les said all permanent and temporary
structures count. Quentin was concerned this site plan shows excess of 30%
coverage. Les said it is tough to exceed the maximum lot coverage if all
setbacks and building separation requirements are met.
Les
said this specific business is not listed as a permitted use in the B-2
Neighborhood Business District. B-2 has a provision that prohibits outside
storage and display of goods with few exceptions. He said the applicant needs
to change the zone with a special use overlay to add this garden store to the
permitted uses to allow the outside display.
Caroline
Hale asked about the difference between the outside display at Ace Hardware
and this application. Les explained Ace Hardware is zoned B-3 Central
Shopping District which allows the outside display. This application is for
B-2 zoning which is more compatible with the neighbors.
Caroline
Hale asked if this business sold, would the property continue to carry the
B-2 zoning with the special use. Clark Nelson answered the special use would
stay but only for the specific business approved.
Clark
Nelson asked if anyone else wished to
speak on this case. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Chairman
Nelson asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest that would
disqualify them from participation in this case. Hearing none, he stated
notice of this hearing was published in the Andover Journal-Advocate on
August 25, 2005 and notices were mailed to 13 homeowners within the
notification area on August 22, 2005. Chairman Nelson called for the
deliberation of the Rezoning Report.
Clark
Nelson stated that at the last meeting there were 2 neighbors of this subject
property present who spoke in favor of this special use, but were
uncomfortable about the language needed to limit the use.
|
Z-2005-05 and
SU-2005-03: at 816 N. Andover Rd.
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 5
|
|
REZONING REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2005-05
& SU-2005-03
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Andover Church
of Christ/ Mark Savoy
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Change
of zoning district from R-1 to B-2 with Special Use for outside storage.
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Existing
church and parsonage
|
|
LOCATION:
|
816
N. Andover Rd.
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
3.6
acres
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Existing
church and parsonage to remain. Vacant lot to be offered for sale for
potential business use with the possibility of limited outdoor storage.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- child care center
|
|
South:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- strip shopping/office center
|
|
East:
|
R-2
Single-Family Residential- Crescent Lakes subdivision
|
|
West:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- existing single-family residences
R-2
Single-Family Residential- existing single-family residences
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
The church desires zone and plat the property to
sell the vacant area for business uses.
|
|
|
|
*
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Chairman Nelson said they are on the application and in
the Staff report.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Existing water & streets are in place. Sewer can be
extended to serve the vacant lot.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Platting is in process.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Outdoor storage adjacent to residential property would
need intense screening.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Les Mangus stated the materials for screening would be
decided at the Site Plan Review Committee level.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Vacant land is available elsewhere in the nearby area.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
New business would offer new services and employment
opportunities.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
The property could be reserved for future growth of the
church.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Clark Nelson said the commercial lot being offered for
sale is no longer needed for church expansion.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Potential business uses would have increased noise,
light, traffic, etc. adjacent to residential neighbors.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Case by case review of business uses along Andover Rd.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval with conditions: 1. Screening of east property
line. 2. Storage limited to no more than 1/3 of the vacant lot. 3. Storage
limited to not more than 10 feet in height.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Roberts asked if the
10’ height needed to be specifically defined in the motion. Les said yes it
does. There was general discussion about the definition of storage, and about
the storage being limited to the back half of the lot. Les said the applicant
is not planning to store materials outside of the structures. Les said the
Commission needs to be specific when defining the outside storage and
merchandise display. He recommended the outdoor display area be no more than
the enclosed building. Les further suggested the outdoor storage should be
limited to the rear 1/3 of the lot and no more than 1/3 lot coverage.
Discussion continued.
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that
we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03
be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1
Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District
with a Special Use limited to Lot 1, Block A, based on the findings of the
Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the
following conditions be attached to this recommendation:
1. Limited to a retail nursery and water garden
product business.
2. Intense screening of the east property line to
the residential property.
3. Storage limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total
lot size and square footage of the building & display area is limited to
no more than the total square feet of the enclosed building.
4. Storage limited to maximum 10 feet in height.
5. Storage limited to the east 1/3 of the lot.
Based upon items 6, 10, 13, and 14. Motion seconded
by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 5
|
|
REZONING
REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2005-05
& SU-2005-03
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Andover Church
of Christ/ Mark Savoy
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Change
of zoning district from R-1 to B-2 with Special Use for outside storage.
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
Existing
church and parsonage
|
|
LOCATION:
|
816
N. Andover Rd.
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
3.6
acres
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Existing
church and parsonage to remain. Vacant lot to be offered for sale for potential
business use with the possibility of limited outdoor storage.
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- child care center
|
|
South:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- strip shopping/office center
|
|
East:
|
R-2
Single-Family Residential- Crescent Lakes subdivision
|
|
West:
|
B-2
Neighborhood Business- existing single-family residences
R-2
Single-Family Residential- existing single-family residences
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
The church desires zone and plat the property to
sell the vacant area for business uses.
|
|
|
|
*
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Chairman Nelson said they are on the application and in
the Staff report.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
4.
Would the request correct
an error in the application of these regulations?
|
|
|
x
|
STAFF:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Existing water & streets are in place. Sewer can be
extended to serve the vacant lot.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Platting is in process.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
8.
Would a screening plan be
necessary for existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
Outdoor storage adjacent to residential property would
need intense screening.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Les Mangus stated the materials for screening would be
decided at the Site Plan Review Committee level.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Vacant land is available elsewhere in the nearby area.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
New business would offer new services and employment
opportunities.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
11.
Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been restricted?
|
|
x
|
|
STAFF:
|
The property could be reserved for future growth of the
church.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Clark Nelson said the commercial lot being offered for
sale is no longer needed for church expansion.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Potential business uses would have increased noise,
light, traffic, etc. adjacent to residential neighbors.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Case by case review of business uses along Andover Rd.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15. What is the support or opposition to the
request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time.
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Approval with conditions: 1. Screening of east property
line. 2. Storage limited to no more than 1/3 of the vacant lot. 3. Storage
limited to not more than 10 feet in height.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Roberts asked if the
10’ height needed to be specifically defined in the motion. Les said yes it
does. There was general discussion about the definition of storage, and about
the storage being limited to the back half of the lot. Les said the applicant
is not planning to store materials outside of the structures. Les said the
Commission needs to be specific when defining the outside storage and
merchandise display. He recommended the outdoor display area be no more than
the enclosed building. Les further suggested the outdoor storage should be
limited to the rear 1/3 of the lot and no more than 1/3 lot coverage.
Discussion continued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that
we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-05 & SU-2005-03
be approved to change the zoning district classification from the R-1
Single-Family Residential District to the B-2 Neighborhood Business District with
a Special Use limited to Lot 1, Block A, based on the findings of the
Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the
following conditions be attached to this recommendation:
1. Limited to a retail nursery and water garden
product business.
2. Intense screening of the east property line to
the residential property.
3. Storage limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the total
lot size and square footage of the building & display area is limited to
no more than the total square feet of the enclosed building.
4. Storage limited to maximum 10 feet in height.
5. Storage limited to the east 1/3 of the lot.
Based upon items 6, 10, 13, and 14. Motion seconded
by Ron Roberts. Motion carried 7/0.
|
|
|
Les
Mangus stated this zoning change will
be heard by the City Council on November 8, 2005.
|
|
|
Review
the Small Tract Final Plat of the Church of Christ Addition located at 816 N. Andover Rd.
The
church desires to plat their property creating two lots. The Church &
parsonage would remain together as a lot, and the vacant land would be a new
lot available for commercial development. Most of the items in the Staff
Checklist comments have been resolved before the Planning Commission Meeting.
Les
Mangus said he had a conversation with
Bickley Foster about this building setback line which “jogs” around the
existing building. Bickley suggests the line be straight to 35’ and would
make the existing building a legal non-conforming use and could continue to
operate as it does today.
Clark
Nelson asked Mark Savoy, agent for the applicant, if he wished to comment.
Mark said he did not have anything to add.
David
Martine asked if there was enough room
on the front of these properties to accommodate the 10’ sidewalks. Les said
it is adequate.
David
Martine asked if all staff comments
have been satisfied. Les said they have been now that the zoning has been
approved.
Ron
Roberts made a motion to
approve the final plat for the Church of Christ Addition located at 816 N. Andover Rd. with the condition of the 35’setback line to go straight through. Quentin
Coon seconded the motion. Motion approved 7/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z-2005-06
Public hearing on the proposed change of zoning district classification from
the A-1 Agricultural Transition District to the R-1 Single Family Residential
District, and the establishment of the Serendipity Estates Preliminary
Planned Unit Development, located at 200 N. 159th Street.
Les
Mangus explained this case has been
discussed at the last 2 meetings of the Subdivision Committee. He said the
Serendipity Estates Preliminary PUD is Bob Kaplan’s desire to divide his 9.7
acre home site into five lots of varying sizes. The sole underlying reason
for the PUD is to take exception to the Subdivision Regulations requirements
for streets. Staff supports the proposal if some compromise can be reached
for an adequate road to serve the five homes. Discussion at the Subdivision
Committee Meetings has leaned towards a minimum 20 foot wide paved road with
a drainage ditch along the north side only.
Chairman
Nelson stated notice of this hearing was published in the Andover
Journal-Advocate on September 22, 2005 and notices were mailed to 17
homeowners within the notification area on September 23, 2005.
Chairman
Nelson asked if any Commissioners had a conflict of interest that would
disqualify them from participation in this case. Jan Cox and her husband own
property to the south of the applicant. She said after a previous discussion
with the Andover City Attorney, she chose to disassociate herself from the
assembled Commission.
Clark
Nelson asked the applicant to come to the podium and make his presentation on
the request and any response to the Zoning Administrator’s report.
Bob
Kaplan, owner of Serendipity Estates, presented his case. He introduced Russ
Ewy from Baughman Co. in the audience who is working with him on this
application. Mr. Kaplan said the only issue not resolved in Subdivision
Committee is access to this property. Mr. Kaplan recited the history of this
property. He said he is concerned about the existing trees along the access
road to these lots. He described the existing “S” shaped monument walls at
the street entrance at 159th Street and said he is concerned about
the possible necessity to remove them. Mr. Kaplan stated he does not want to
pave this private road because that would require the removal of some if not
all of the existing trees as well as the monument walls. He wants to continue
the “rural” effect of this property. He described this road that he
continues to overlay with rock and stated this is a very hard surface that
does not get muddy. Bob said the road could possibly be widened to 20’ if the
trees were cut back, but he is concerned they will not survive it. He would
prefer not widening the road to more than 16’.
Bob
Kaplan explained a conversation he had with Fire Chief Jim Shaver concerning
fire safety of these properties. Bob Kaplan said fire equipment has been in
and out of this property several times over the years and they have had no
problems. Chief Shaver told Mr. Kaplan he preferred the road be paved, but
that it would not be “a deal buster” if it remained rock. Chief Shaver told
Mr. Kaplan to get as close to 20’ in width as possible. Mr. Kaplan restated
his preference of 16’ to save the trees.
Bob
Kaplan conceded to remove Lot 5 making this application for only 4 lots. That
would shorten the total length of road to be maintained and would delete the
issue of providing utilities to that back lot. He explained the option of connecting
onto city utilities for lot 5 from Green Valley Home Owners Association on Lakeside Drive under the berm. Mr. Kaplan compared the entrance of Serendipity Estates to
that of Chateauroux and Belle Terre. There was continued discussion.
Ron
Roberts asked Mr. Kaplan if he has
received written permission to cross the berm in Green Valley. Mr. Kaplan
said no, and that he has had no contact with their HOA. Mr. Kaplan said that
would be the responsibility of the city to bring service to the lot line. Mr.
Kaplan said utilities can be accessed from 159th Street if
necessary.
Bob
Kaplan said he has submitted a copy of the Serendipity Estates HOA
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which has been
distributed to the Planning Commission. He said the document is preliminary
at this point.
There
was discussion about using the gaps between the existing trees on the road to
provide for passing lanes of 2-way traffic. David Martine asked how wide the
existing road is now. Bob Kaplan said it is about 8’ wide. Photographs of the
road and trees were shown to the Commissioners and Staff.
David
Martine was concerned about
contractor’s trucks not having enough room to function especially if 2 homes
are being built at the same time. Bob Kaplan said he does not foresee that
happening. David Martine restated his preference for a 20’ wide road to
access all properties included in the PUD. Bob Kaplan said he would comply
with the decision of the City, but continued to ask to keep the existing
trees.
David
Martine asked what the minimum street
width is in the city. Les Mangus said the minimum public street is 29’ wide
back to back. David Martine asked if there is a ditch along this road. Mr.
Kaplan said there would be a bar ditch built for drainage. There was
discussion about the drainage flow on the applicant’s property. Bob Kaplan
explained how all the utilities would be delivered to the property.
David
Martine asked Bob Kaplan which issues
are still in disagreement. Bob said 3 items:
- He
prefers the surface of the road remain rock.
- Save
the existing trees.
- Save
the entry monument walls.
David
Martine asked how wide the private
streets are in Green Valley patio homes. Les said they are also 29’ wide, but
that is a high density neighborhood. Jeff Syrios said it is hard to compare
the 2.
Les
Mangus said this comes from the
Uniform Fire Code which states “you shall provide fire access to any building
that would be a minimum of 20’ wide if the driveway is less than 150’ in
length. If it is more than that, the requirement increases to 26’.” After
talking to the Fire Chief, he and Les agreed that 20’ is a reasonable
compromise to service the 4 or 5 houses.
Les
said the entry monuments are out of his control. They are within what will be
dedicated as the 50’ minimum arterial street right-of-way. Once that is done,
the monuments must come down because they are an obstruction to the vision
triangle. When the Final PUD comes to the Planning Commission, the minimum
50’ arterial street right-of-way will be dedicated. The structures must be
removed. Les said the existing right-of-way is 30’, subdividing increases the
minimum to 50’.
There
was discussion about the 9 existing Eastern Red Cedar trees on the north side
of the road. Bob Kaplan asked to see the annexation ordinance from this
property.
Ron
Roberts asked if the existing house
would continue to be a duplex after it is sold. Bob Kaplan said that would be
up to the buyer.
Jeff
Syrios said the only issue of contention is for fire safety access. He is unclear
about the Fire Chief’s statement. Clark said the only information submitted
has been hearsay. Les read the following from the Fire Code: “Facilities,
buildings, or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible
to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road
with an asphalt, concrete, or other approved driving surface capable of
supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000
pounds.” The Fire Chief said the existing road will withstand the 75,000
pound equipment. Les said it is up to the Planning Commission and City
Council to decide the standards to be maintained by city subdivisions.
At
8:20 p.m., Clark Nelson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak
in favor or opposition of this application.
David
Cox of 120 N. 159th Street East said he is still concerned about
the pad height of lots 2 and 3, making the houses well above the street
trees. He is also uneasy about fire trucks being expected to make a 90 degree
turn onto this access road if it is only 16’ wide. He said it is difficult to
pull into his own property with his motor home.
Clark
Nelson asked Mr. Cox if the pad height and turning radius for fire trucks are
the only issues he needs addressed. Mr. Cox is still concerned about the
long-term maintenance of this private road as well as increased traffic on it
will create a dust problem. Mr. Cox said he does not care how wide the road
is, he just wants to keep the existing trees along the south side of the road.
Charlotte
Bass asked Bob Kaplan what material is currently used to maintain the road.
Bob said it is hard rock and that the road does not get muddy.
David
Martine asked if road maintenance is
addressed in the covenant. Bob Kaplan said that it states if he does not
take care of it, the city is authorized to take care of it and the cost will
be charged to his property taxes.
Clark
Nelson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this issue.
Janice
Cox of 120 N. 159th Street East said she is concerned that cars
need to have room to pass each other.
Les
Mangus said the Fire Code addresses
the need for widening roads to accommodate fire trucks parking at a hydrant.
It suggest a hammerhead. Mr. Kaplan stated he will work with the fire
department to accommodate a special “notch out” in the road.
David
Martine asked Russ Ewy of Baughman Co.
if the existing driveway would have to be raised or lowered. Russ Ewy said it
would not need to be changed.
David
Martine asked Russ Ewy for the minimum
pad height of foundation walls. Russ said it would be 1326.5 on the elevation
and would be 1’ above the crown elevation of the road. The orientation of the
houses will have to be to the south.
David
Martine asked if there are any
drainage easements. Russ Ewy said there is existing utility easement in the
south and they have planned an additional 50’ utility, access, and drainage
easement. There was discussion about the drainage of this property. Russ said
the width of the ditch will be overkill based upon the side slope ratio and
the 12’ culvert minimum standard.
Clark
Nelson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Joan
Thompson of 111 N. Lakeside Drive said her concern was about the utility
easement running through the middle of the berm which if used to supply
Serendipity Estates with utilities, would mean a loss of private property to
the adjacent owners. Clark Nelson said that since Mr. Kaplan has withdrawn
lot 5 that is no longer an issue.
Les
agreed as the Thompson’s property was platted, the easement is not contiguous
to the Kaplan property. There is 10’ between the property line and the edge
of the easement where the sewer is located. There is also a reserve adjacent
to Kaplan’s property, with no homes, that if necessary, could be negotiated
with the HOA for easement to service that property. Joan Thompson was
concerned precedence would be set for private property to be constantly
obtained in the form of easements to bring utility service to other areas.
Clark Nelson stated Mr. Kaplan would have to negotiate privately for
easements if necessary. Clark said since Mr. Kaplan has withdrawn Lot 5 from the PUD, this issue is no longer a problem.
Ron
Roberts asked if municipal water and sewer would be required for Lot 4. Les said yes it would be.
At
8:40 p.m., Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing and called for the
deliberation of the Rezoning Report.
Chairman
Nelson commended Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan for their compromising attitude during
this case.
Quentin
Coon said it would be more logical for the road to be widened to the north
side and his opinion is all PUD’s should be held to the same standards and
have paved streets.
Clark
Nelson said this PUD is for only 4 lots and is a unique situation. He does
not see this comparable to other additions containing more lots.
Ron
Roberts still wants to see this road paved and believes the dust from this
road will be a problem in the future.
|
Z-2005-06 Serendipity Estates Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, located at 200 N. 159th Street.
|
|
ANDOVER CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
Agenda
Item No. 7
|
|
REZONING
REPORT *
|
|
|
|
CASE
NUMBER:
|
Z-2005-06
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
Bob
Kaplan/ Baughman Co.
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Zoning
district change from A-1 Agricultural Transition to R-1 Single-Family
Residential with PUD overlay.
|
|
CASE
HISTORY:
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
200
N. 159th Street;
+/- ½ mile north of US-54 on the east side of 159th Street.
|
|
SITE
SIZE:
|
9.77
acres
|
|
PROPOSED
USE:
|
Single-Family
dwellings
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
North:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition- existing suburban residence on +/- 10 acres
|
|
South:
|
A-1
Agricultural Transition- existing suburban residence on +/- 10 acres
|
|
East:
|
R-2
Single-Family Residential- Green Valley PUD single family dwellings.
|
|
West:
|
Wichita SF-5 Single-Family Residential. - Grand Mere vacant
lots.
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
One of 4- 10 acre tracts along 159th St.
sold by the original developer of Green Valley for suburban homes. All were
annexed by the City after the adjacent areas were annexed and developed.
|
|
|
|
*
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Residential
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Agriculture to R-1 Single-Family
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
x
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Sewer, water, & streets can be extended from nearby
existing facilities.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
None required.
|
|
|
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:
|
Similarly sized residential lots are available across
the street in Grand Mere.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
David Martine said Grand Mere is in Sedgwick County, not Andover.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
x
|
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?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
No detriment is perceived.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Provides a variety of lot sizes, and promotes the use of
public water and sewer.
|
|
x
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15. What is the support or opposition to the
request?
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Neighbor to the south is opposed to the gravel road
being used by 5-6 families because of the dust.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Clark Nelson said many compromises have been made for
this case and that most issues have been settled.
|
|
|
|
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 contingent on the paving of an adequate private
road.
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
No further comment made here.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
Clark Nelson summarized previous comments as
follows:
- The brick monument must be removed due to the
extension of the 50’ right-of-way.
- Lot 5 has been
eliminated.
- The width of the road has been discussed as 16’
or 20’.
- Paving vs. Rock- Mr. Kaplan has proven the rock
surface has survived the years and the Fire Chief has stated this is
adequate for fire equipment access, and Clark Nelson said it would be
appropriate to allow the road to remain rock instead of requiring it to
be paved.
Quentin Coon asked where this is defined as a
private road. Les Mangus said these issues will be better defined at the Final
PUD plan when hard line dimensions will be put on all the roadways,
improvements and easements. There was continued discussion about the
definition of “private road”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I David Martine, move that
we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-06 be approved to
change the zoning district classification from the A-1 Agricultural
Transition District to the R-1 Single-Family Residential District based on
the findings of the Planning Commission as recorded in the summary of this
hearing and that the following conditions be attached to this
recommendation:
- Per the applicant’s request, removal of Lot 5.
- A 20’ drive be installed to the east end of Lot 3.From that point on can revert to a 16’ road.
- The road surface be asphalt millings or sand
road gravel, no exposed limestone will be acceptable.
- Trees on the south will remain in tact, and a
minimum of 2% drainage in all drainage easements.
Motion seconded by Charlotte Bass. Motion carried 5/1
with Ron Roberts in opposition over the surface material of the road (Jan Cox
had removed herself from the discussion due to a conflict).
Les Mangus said this will
go before the City Council on November 8, 2005. Bob Kaplan asked this be
deferred to a later date because he will be out of town then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan
Cox rejoined the Commission at 8:55 p.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the Final Plat of the Montana Hills 2nd Addition. This final plat is the second and final phase of the
Montana Hills Addition. The plat is in compliance with the preliminary plat,
and only has minor changes in lot sizes from the final plat that was reviewed
with the 1st phase. The Subdivision Committee debated the need for
sidewalks, even though the first phase does not have them. The design
engineer is researching the request for additional easement along the south
property line as requested by the electric utility. The staff comments from
the checklist can be satisfied before acceptance by the City Council.
Kenny
Hill of Poe and Associates represented the applicant. He gave a brief history
of this development. He said on the Preliminary Plat, minimum lot frontage
was 80’ and has been changed to 90’ on this final plat. This change has
reduced the total number of lots from 36 to 33 and lots have been made
larger. The configuration of the street right-of-way has been moved slightly.
He said the Subdivision Committee discussed the drainage easement along the
south side of lots 1-4 and 14. That has been agreed to be changed to
“drainage and utility easement”. Kenny Hill said he has noticed a number of
trees in that area, and after surveying, have decided that area of Lots 1-4
can be accessed without destroying the trees. On lot 14 they would prefer to
provide a 10’ utility easement between Lots 13 & 14 and work out the
details with Butler Rural Electric. He also said the building setbacks
throughout this addition are also utility easements.
David
Martine asked if all the drainage easements are designed at 2%. Kenny Hill
stated there is 2% grade away from all the houses, but he explained the
difficulty of designing all drainage at 2%. This property as well as the
others completed by Poe and Associates has been designed at 1% which is the
minimum standard. There was general discussion about grade percent. Les Mangus said this property has good natural drainage. Kenny Hill assured the Commission the
drainage system designed in Montana Hills is better than the one in the Aspen
Creek area. Les Mangus explained if the drainage inlets are blocked with anything
basements will flood if there is no other natural outlet.
Clark
Nelson asked how the drainage standard would be changed. Les Mangus said Subdivision Regulations would be amended by the Planning Commission. Clark wants to see a workshop session on drainage at the Subdivision Committee level.
Discussion continued.
Tom
Mack of Devlin Enterprises and managing partner of Montana Land Development
addressed the Planning Commission who said he trusts the judgment of Kenny
Hill and Les Mangus on drainage issues. Both have assured him this system is
better than Aspen Creek. Discussion continued.
Jan
Cox was concerned there are no sidewalks designed into this development.
Kenny Hill stated there are none in Phase 1 either. Jan asked for a sidewalk
on Logan Pass. Les Mangus said this is a loop street to tie into Harry Street and that the sidewalk would not connect to anything else in the city and policy
does not require sidewalks in this neighborhood.
Quentin Coon made a motion to approve the Final Plat
of the Montana Hills Phase 2 Addition. David Martine seconded the motion with
the designed 1% drainage that he has complete faith in. Motion carried 5/2
with Jan Cox and Ron Roberts in opposition because of the lack of sidewalks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review
and accept the 2006 meeting schedule.
Les asked the Planning Commission to notify him if he sees any potential
conflicts in this planning calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member
Items:
David
Martine- Dave said he wanted the
community to know the amount of work and labor that went into the Gazebo
project by the city. He said the city saved thousands of dollars by using
city manpower and city equipment. He commended the city on this project and
said the Gazebo is beautiful.
Jeff
Syrios- Said he appreciated the
additional FYI planning articles included in the packets. He hopes this
continues.
Clark
Nelson- Also stated his
appreciation to David Martine, Les Mangus, and other city employees for all
their hard work, and he agrees the Gazebo is beautiful.
Clark also wants to address the request for a drainage
workshop session.
Clark
noted that Jeff Bridges is absent tonight due to volunteering in Mississippi for the disaster relief. Clark commended Jeff for his efforts to help.
Clark said he appreciated Donna Davis attending the
meeting in Jeff’s absence.
Jan
Cox asked when the workshop sessions would begin again. Clark said that due
to the upcoming holiday season, workshops would be scheduled after the new
year.
|
Member
Items
|
|
|
|
|
Charlotte
Bass made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Ron Roberts seconded
the motion. Motion carried 7/0.
|
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully
Submitted by
__________________________
Deborah
Carroll
Administrative
Secretary
Approved this 15th day
of November 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|