|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July
20, 2004
Minutes
|
|
The
Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July
20, 2004 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 Charlotte Bass, Ron Roberts, Lynn Heath, and David Martine. Others in
attendance were Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City
Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn.
Commission Members Jan Cox, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Zoning
Administrator Les Mangus were absent.
|
Call to Order
|
|
|
|
|
Review
the minutes of the June 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
Lynn
Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass
seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Review the minutes of the
June 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications:
Review the City Council minutes from the June 8, 2004
and June 29, 2004 meetings. Charlotte Bass said that in the minutes of
June 8, 2004 had an error on page 3. Jeff noted the correction. The remainder
of the minutes were received and filed.
Review the minutes of the July 6, 2004 Site Plan
Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.
Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.
|
Communications
|
|
|
|
|
SU-2004-02:
Public Hearing on an application for Special Use by the City of Andover to exceed the 35-foot height limitation to allow the construction of a 60-foot
communication tower for the new Police Station/911 Center located at 909 N. Andover Road in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
Chairman
Nelson stated a memo from Les Mangus with information about both the
conditional use and special use cases being presented tonight was included in
the member's packets.
Clark
Nelson opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. Chairman Nelson asked if any of
the members needed to disqualify themselves due to conflict of interest or if
anyone had received any Ex-Parte communications which would prevent them from
voting. There were none.
Chairman
Nelson said a notice of this hearing was published in the Andover
Journal-Advocate on June 24, 2004 and notices were mailed to 18 property
owners on June 28, 2004. In the memo from Les, the first factor that, in his
opinion, justifies the granting of the request is that the conditions have
changed for the operation of emergency communication facilities. With the
overcrowding of radio frequencies, higher frequency bands have been utilized
for emergency communications, which operate with a weaker signal and a taller
antenna location. The second factor being that the relative gain to the
public safety will far outweigh the visual affects of a taller tower, which
is located between two large public buildings.
Jeff
Bridges, City Clerk/Administrator for
the City of Andover, Secretary to the Andover Public Building Commission, and
representative to the applicant presented the Special Use case. Mr. Bridges
explained the plan to upgrade the Police facilities and 911 center. He said
there would be a 35' lattice style tower as well as another at the current
Police Station. The plan is to replace the 2-lattice style towers with 1-
60-foot tower. The new tower will contain up to 18 antenna arrays serving a
dozen different agencies throughout Butler and Sedgwick Counties.
Clark
Nelson asked how long the City has known a freestanding tower would be
needed. Jeff said they learned a few months ago the roof-mounted tower would
not be sufficient.
Lynn
Heath asked for the height limitations for towers in other zoning districts.
Jeff said on page 3-16 section 6:
Þ 35 feet if self-supported and 45 feet if attached to
a permitted structure in the R-1 Single Family Residential District
Þ 35 feet if self-supported units and 45 feet if
attached to a permitted structure in B-1 District
Þ 60 feet if self-supported units and if attached to a
permitted structure in B-3 & B-4 District
Þ 75 feet if self-supported units and if attached to a
permitted structure in the B-5 District
Þ 100 feet in the A-1 Transition District
Þ 150 feet in the I-1 Industrial District, and on land
owned by the public and used for recreation purposes
David
Martine asked if the property across the street from City Hall is zoned
industrial. Jeff said the frontage is business zone B-6 and 200 feet off of Andover Road is zoned industrial. He said there is currently a 190-foot tower on that
property at the end of King Street.
Jeff
said this location was chosen because it is the most direct access to a
tower. The bank of radios will be inside the building. The City's repeaters
are located at the 13th Street Sports Park.
Charlotte
Bass asked for an explanation of "repeaters". Bill Duggan, Director of Communications, said that the radio in the building has a lower wattage
that goes out to an antenna on the tower, that power is just enough to get
the signal to the other tower, the repeater boosts the signal and retransmits
it on another frequency.
Chairman
Nelson said he appreciated all Bill Duggan's hard work on behalf of the City
over the last months and has learned a lot from the explanations of what is
involved with this project.
Clark
Nelson said that with no further public comment given, he closed the Public
Hearing at 7:18 p.m. and preceded with the Planning Commission deliberations.
|
SU-2004-02-
Public Hearing on an application for Special Use by the City of Andover to exceed the 35-foot height limitation to allow the construction of a 60-foot
communication tower for the new Police Station/911 Center located at 909 N. Andover Road in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 5
|
|
|
REZONING REPORT
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
SU-2004-02
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
City of Andover/ Jeff Bridges
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
60 foot communication tower
|
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Enhanced 911 communications
require line of sight antenna location.
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
909 N. Andover Road-
Police Station/ City Hall
|
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
180' x 660' +/- 2.7 acres
less R/W
|
|
|
PROPOSED USE:
|
911 Center/ Public Works Communication Tower
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- Andover Fire & Rescue/ Butler County EMS
|
|
|
South:
|
B-2 Neighborhood Business
District- The Horse of Course
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential
District- vacant land
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- single family dwellings
|
|
|
East:
|
B-6 Business District- Folger's Gymnastics
|
|
|
West:
|
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- vacant land
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
With the
addition of the Police Station to the City Hall building, 911 communications
systems will be upgraded to the latest radio/data transmission capabilities,
which require line of sight antenna location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 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 an
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:
|
North- Fire Dept./ South- The Horse of Course, vacant
land, and single family dwellings/ East- Folger's Gymnastics/ West- vacant
land.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
North- R-1 Single-Family Residential
South- B-2 Neighborhood Business, R-3
Multi-Family Residential, R-1 Single-Family Residential
East- B-6 Business
West- R-1 Single-Family Residential
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Expansion of City facilities on site including 911
communication improvements.
|
|
|
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:
|
All are in place and adequate
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The 60-ft. tower would be more visible than the 35-ft.
tower permitted in the R-1 zone.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur. Clark Nelson said there has been no opposition
to this request.
Lynn Heath said if the zoning of this property had been
B-3 then a 60-foot tower would have been permitted. He said it is not out of
character for the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
The Police Station/ City Hall building in the R-1 zone
is not a common use of residential property.
|
|
|
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:
|
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for expanded/
enhanced Police facilities.
|
|
|
X
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur- Lynn Heath stated the Comp Plan discusses making
commercial areas along Andover Road as R-1 houses are vacated.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
15.
What is the support or
opposition to the request?
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
None at this time. Property owner to the south has
responded in support of the tower.
|
|
|
|
|
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 as applied for.
|
|
|
X
|
|
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:
|
The enhanced capabilities for the 911 Center far
outweigh the visual impact of the 60-ft. tower.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur- Lynn Heath stated the savings in cost of 1 - 60'
tower vs. 2- 35' towers would be a benefit and the loss of capability would
interfere with the quality of service.
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing and the
factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that we
recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2004-02 be approved to
change the zoning district classification from the R-1 District to the R-1
Special Use District based on the findings of the Planning Commission (5, 11,
12, 13, 14) as recorded in the summary of this hearing. Ron Roberts seconded
the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
Clark Nelson said this case will go before the Governing
Body on August 10, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Protest petitions against the special
use case can be filed within 14 days after tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Martine made a motion to recess the Planning
Commission and convene the Board of Zoning Appeals at 7:27 p.m. Lynn Heath
seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BZA-CU-2004-01 Public Hearing on an application by
the City of Andover for a conditional use to construct a 60-foot lattice
wireless communication structure in lieu of the required monopole design on
property zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
Jeff Bridges, City Administrator and Secretary to the
Andover Public Building Commission said the reason for the lattice style
tower provides better opportunities for mounting the 13-18 different antennas
than a monopole would. The profile of the lattice style would only be 4"
different at the top from the monopole one. Jeff said the base of the lattice
style would be 48" at the base to 28" at the top, and the monopole
is 24" from top to bottom. The tower is galvanized steel.
Ron Roberts asked about the size of the cable array
coming down. Bill Duggan said the entire bundle of cable fits through the
9"x15" hole in the new building which will be run down the middle
of the tower.
Charlotte Bass asked if the tower would be lighted. Bill
said the tower will not be tall enough to fall under FAA Regulations for
lighting.
Chairman Nelson asked if any of the members needed to
disqualify themselves due to conflict of interest or if anyone had received
any Ex-Parte communications which would prevent them from voting. There were
none. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. with no comments.
|
BZA-CU-2004-01 Public Hearing on an application by the
City of Andover for a conditional use to construct a 60-foot lattice wireless
communication structure in lieu of the required monopole design on property
zoned as the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
|
|
|
|
|
ANDOVER CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
|
Agenda Item No. 6
|
|
|
CONDITIONAL USE
REPORT *
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASE NUMBER:
|
BZA-CU-2004-01
|
|
|
APPLICANT/AGENT:
|
City of Andover/ Jeff Bridges
|
|
|
REQUEST:
|
Conditional use to allow the
60 foot lattice type 911 communication tower in lieu of the required monopole
design
|
|
|
CASE HISTORY:
|
Enhanced 911 communications
require line of sight antenna location.
|
|
|
LOCATION:
|
909 N. Andover Road-
Police Station/ City Hall
|
|
|
SITE SIZE:
|
180' x 660' +/- 2.7 acres
less R/W
|
|
|
ADJACENT ZONING AND
EXISTING LAND USE:
|
|
|
North:
|
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- Andover Fire & Rescue/ Butler County EMS
|
|
|
South:
|
B-2 Neighborhood Business
District- The Horse of Course
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential
District- vacant land
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- single family dwellings
|
|
|
East:
|
B-6 Business District- Folger's Gymnastics
|
|
|
West:
|
R-1 Single-Family Residential
District- vacant land
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information:
|
With the
addition of the Police Station to the City Hall building, 911 communications
systems will be upgraded to the latest radio/data transmission capabilities,
which require line of sight antenna location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Note: This report is to
assist the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine their findings from the
evidence presented at the hearing in order to decide whether a conditional
use as an exception should be granted with the evidence and reworded as
necessary to reflect the Board of Zoning Appeals 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.
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
DOES THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
The proposed conditional use complies with all
applicable regulations, including lot size requirements, bulk regulations,
use limitations and performance standards; unless a concurrent application is
in process for a variance.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
Concurrent application for special use to allow 60 ft.
tower.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
The proposed conditional use will not cause
substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
The proposed lattice type tower is +/- 48" in
diameter at the base and tapers to +/- 28" at the top. The required
monopole design would be +/- 24" from base to top.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
COUNCIL:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
The
location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the
operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of
the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the
conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent
development and use of neighboring property in accordance wit the applicable
zoning district regulations. In determining whether the conditional use will
so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to:
|
|
|
|
|
a.
|
The location, nature, size and height of building,
structures, walls and fences on the site; and
|
|
|
|
|
b.
|
The nature and extent of landscaping and screening on
the site.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
a. The
proposed 60 ft. tower is located between the Police Station and Fire
Department buildings which are in excess of 20 feet in height to provide
separation and screening from adjacent properties.
b. The
tower is proposed between two 22-25 ft. tall buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Off
street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with the
standards set forth in Article 5 of these regulations. Such areas will be
screened from adjoining residential uses and located so as to protect such
residential uses from injurious effects.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Adequate
utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or
will be provided by platting, dedications and/or guarantees.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Adequate
access roads, entrance and exit drives and/or access control is available or
will be provided by platting, dedications and /or guarantees and shall be so
designed to prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in
public streets and roads.
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF:
|
N.A.
|
|
|
|
|
PLANNING:
|
Concur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Martine said this project has been approved by the
Site Plan Review Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having considered the evidence at the hearing for
Case No. BZA-CU-2004-01 and determined that the findings of fact in the
conditional use report support the conclusions which are necessary for
granting a conditional use as set out in Section 10- 108C of the Zoning
Regulations, I David Martine move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign
a Resolution granting the conditional use as requested with no conditions.
Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Zinn asked why the tower needed conditional use
approval. Jeff Bridges said the zoning regulations require wireless
communications facilities make any deviations from the standards adopted by
the Governing Body a purview of the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would
require a conditional use. This allows deviations from the regulations to be
site specific. There were further explanations given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Roberts made a motion to adjourn the Board of
Zoning Appeals and to reconvene the Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m. Lynn
Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review and approve the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement
Program for consistency with the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Jeff Bridges said that review and approval of the CIP is
the annual responsibility of the Planning Commission. He said the Public
Improvement information contained in the report would be of most interest to
the Commission. Jeff explained from page 22 the process of Subdivisions
coming online for special assessment financing and the debt management schedule.
Jeff said that when a new phase of a subdivision can be financed when the
current phase has been completed. When they have 35% of the lots with
building permits, the developer may plat the next phase. When there is 35%
full certificate of occupancies, they may receive financing for the next
phase. The city borrows 60% of the prior year’s growth in assessed value for
subdivisions each year. The last page of the report shows the available
financing.
David Martine asked where the money comes from to maintain
the parks. Jeff said the Park Improvement Fund is a mixture of liquor tax and
fireworks fees. The Park Impact Fee is $675 charged per dwelling unit of new
residential construction. Grants, donations, and bonds are other sources of
financing for the park system.
David Martine asked for more information about projected
improvements on 13th Street. Jeff said that in 2005 the bridge
would be built, in 2006 the street will be paved into Sedgwick County. Jeff said this is flexible because of KDOT requirements and the intent is for when the
street is paved together, the whole road will be open. Jeff said that between
the bridge and the paving, the 13th Street project would cost
around 4 million dollars.
David Martine asked how the city determines the order
for repair of streets. Jeff explained the schedule of age of the roads and
amount of traffic on each.
David Martine asked if it was planned to open another
arterial road such as Prairie Creek Road. Jeff said the recommendation of
staff is to finish 159th Street first. A proposal will be made
within the next month to the Metropolitan Planning Organization and to City
Council to submit a project request for 159th Street from Central
to 21st Street. Jeff said this could be scheduled for work to be
done in 2010. David asked if the funding for this would be a 3-way split
between Wichita, Andover, and the County. Jeff said it could be. Right now
the city is proposing a 50/50 split with the MPO.
David Martine asked if the City has any plans to pave Central Avenue east of the park to encourage growth in that direction. Jeff said tax
dollars are not used to encourage development; it is a supplement to new
development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David
Martine made a motion to recommend approval to the Governing Body for the
2004-2009 Capital Improvement Plan as it has been found to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Development Plan. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion
carried 5/0.
Clark
Nelson congratulated Jeff Bridges for all his time and expertise in working
with the future plans of the city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member
Items: Ron Roberts said there is
still a truck driver taking advantage of a parking lot on Harrison Street.
Jeff said he would report it.
Clark Nelson asked the
Planning Commission to read the contents of their packets before each
meeting. He encouraged them to also read the Zoning Regulations to become
familiar with them.
Chairman Nelson thanked Lynn
Heath for his knowledge of Andover.
|
Member Items
|
|
|
|
|
Lynn
Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.. Charlotte Bass
seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0.
|
Adjournment
|
|
Respectfully
Submitted by
__________________________
Deborah Carroll
Administrative
Secretary
Approved this 17th
day of August 2004 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
