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

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

November 16, 2004

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 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 David Martine, Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges, and City Council Liaison Keith Zinn.  Commission Members Ron Roberts and Quentin Coon were absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Chairman Clark Nelson welcomed members of the Boy Scouts who are in attendance to earn a merit badge. Steven, Jeff, and Nicholas were all presented with City of Andover pins by Chairman Nelson.

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Lynn Heath said he would abstain from voting since he was absent for that meeting, but he did find an error on page 10, 5th paragraph: “Keith Zinn asked at which point Parcels 7 – 10 would be developed. Greg Allison said the only the First Phase is planned for right now which is Parcels 3, 4, & 14. “

 

David Martine made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0/1.

Review the minutes of the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the October 12, 2004 and October 26, 2004 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the November 2, 2004 Site Plan Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the October 12, 2004 and November 9, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

 

 

Z-2004-03: Amendment to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development returned by the City Council for further consideration of the separation of the R-2 Single-Family Residential District and the B-3 Central Shopping District.

 

Chairman Nelson re-opened the Public Hearing and said he hoped the Planning Commission could approve this case and still remain consistent with the intentions of the City Council and the developers.

 

Lynn Heath said he was not at the last meeting, but he has read the Planning Commission minutes as well as the excerpt from the Andover City Council minutes, and feels qualified to contribute to this discussion. Chairman Nelson said Mr. Heath is entitled to take part in the discussion and decision making.

 

Les said the developer and engineer did not attend the City Council meeting to speak on behalf of their case which may be part of the reason for the case being returned.

 

Greg Allison, engineer from MKEC representing the applicant said he did not know this case would be heard by the City Council; otherwise he would have attended to answer questions. Mr. Allison said he has revised the language in the General Provision regarding screening.

 

Greg Allison said item 10D of the approved provisions states “Screening shall be provided along all side and rear lot lines adjacent to residential zoning districts. Screening may be provided by decorative fencing or evergreen vegetation not less than 6 ft. in height.  Type of screening and height shall be reviewed and approved by the site plan review committee. (See Preliminary PUD plan for plan locations.)

 

Greg Allison said item 10D of the revised provisions now state that “Screening shall be provided along all side and rear lot lines adjacent to residential zoning districts. Screening may be provided by a 6 ft. masonry wall or landscaped berm with a combination of coniferous and/or deciduous trees.  Type of screening shall be reviewed and approved by the site plan review committee. (See Preliminary PUD plan for locations.)

 

Clark Nelson asked Greg Allison to summarize the changes in General Provision item 10D. Mr. Allison explained the difference in the text and said no minimum height was specified on the berm.

Greg Allison said the owner would agree to a 3’ berm with trees planted on top. Greg Allison said the lots that back up to Parcel 3 (which is B-3 zoning) are deep lots between 167’ – 170’ and the owners should not feel crowded by the business district.

 

Lynn Heath asked if the B-3 lots were deeper than normal. Greg Allison said the lots are about 220’ deep, which is a standard size.

 

Clark Nelson said he thought the City Council was concerned about the B-3 lots being “squeezed down” in size. Greg Allison said the total area of the business zone in this PUD has been reduced from the original approved PUD. 

 

Clark Nelson asked Greg Allison to explain the expected positive and/ or negative impacts the 220’ of B-3 zoning would have to the new residential area to the north. Greg Allison said the landscape buffer and/or wall would soften the visual impact, noise and lighting from the residential area.

 

Clark Nelson asked about property to the east of Parcel 3. Greg Allison said the east side of the entrance road of Parcel 3 as well as all of Parcel 2 is Commercial zoning.  Greg Allison said Cornerstone Parkway has dedicated reserves on both sides with several well established trees in it.

 

Lynn Heath asked if drainage would be a problem if the 3’ landscape buffer/berm is created. Greg Allison said on the north line of the B-3 parcel, is proposed a backyard lot line underground drainage system. Greg Allison said this parcel would be part of the benefit district that would help pay for the cost of these improvements.

 

Keith Zinn said the City Council was concerned about an irrigation and maintenance plan for the new trees. Greg Allison said the developer wants the trees to live and they will be responsible for the irrigation system. Les Mangus said the Site Plan Regulations make it the responsibility of the property owner to maintain all of the required screening and landscaping. If the property owner fails to respond to a notice from the city to replace dead landscape materials, the city can hire someone to replace the materials and assess the cost back to the property owner. Greg Allison said this owner is very responsible and does not believe this will be a problem.

 

David Martine asked if the landscape buffer would be built when the commons are done in the initial phase. Greg Allison said it will be done when the commercial development begins. Greg Allison said this will be approved by the Site Plan Review Committee to assure the screening is appropriate for the business use.

 

Clark Nelson asked if there would be a landscape reserve between the business and residential uses as suggested by Les Mangus. Les said any dedicated reserve would be the responsibility of the business parcel to maintain. The Site Plan  Review Committee has the responsibility of deciding the height of original landscape or plantings.  This could be as simple as a 5’ - 10’ wall easement or as complex as a 40’ – 50’ landscape reserve.

 

Les Mangus said Greg Allison has made a satisfactory attempt to address the City Council’s request by stating this would “either be a masonry wall or a landscape screen” to be determined at the time of Site Plan Review.

 

There was general discussion about screening options to keep the noise level out of the residential area.  Lynn Heath is not sure 6’ of screening would be adequate for an intense business use. 

 

Rob Ramseyer representative of Ritchie Development apologized for having this case return to the Planning Commission. He said the commercial area lots are typical size and does not feel like they are being “squeezed down”.  He feels that by changing a portion of the zoning on the north to residential, they have minimized the impact of the commercial lots. 

 

Clark Nelson said the City Council was fearful that a “Towne East” development could be built on this property. He thought that by reducing the depth of the commercial lots, which would limit the use to lighter business.  Rob Ramseyer said he imagines the commercial uses will be light retail or office use.

 

Rob Ramseyer said they are only developing the PUD on this small portion and do not have any idea what commercial uses may go there. He said the language on the PUD should remain fairly general so the new owner can propose something more specific to the committee. He said the goal is to put the framework up and let the user work out the details at the time of platting.

 

Clark Nelson asked if the potential residential buyers would be well informed that the property to the south is zoned commercial.  Rob said adjacent zoning is disclosed during the sale of every lot and is shown on the sales maps provided by their company.

 

Clark Nelson asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on this case. There was no public comment.

 

Clark Nelson asked Jeff about the procedure to decide this case. Les Mangus said it was the Planning Commission’s choice whether to do a full review or just consider the developer’s suggested changes and send it back to the City Council with modifications.  Clark Nelson recommended only considering the changes.  There was further discussion about the choices.

 

Charlotte Bass asked that the applicant be told tonight the date and time of the next City Council meeting so they can attend.  Clark Nelson stated the Council meeting will be November 30th at 7:00 p.m.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there would be any screening between the R-4 on the west and the B-3 if the B-3 is developed first.  Les said everything is conceptual at this point, and it is difficult to screen from the unknown. Clark Nelson asked if this is to be decided when the R-4 area is developed. Les said multi-family residential developments are required to go before the Site Plan Review Committee. All cases will be heard on their own merits at the time there is some proposed use.

 

Jeff Syrios asked Les if all his comments have been addressed. Les said he does not want to try to out-guess the future when screening between uses. Les feels the developer has done a good job and the rest of the details should be left to the Site Plan Review Committee.  Mr. Syrios asked if the modification to the text gives the Site Plan Review Committee the most flexibility while protecting everyone’s best interest. Les said yes it does.

 

Les Mangus said that in the past the Site Plan Review Committee and Planning Commission have required 8’ masonry walls if the buildings are close together or taller in relation to the residences. He feels that to tie it down to a 6’ masonry fence may be a hamstring if the business development is a more intense use in the B-3 zone.

 

David Martine made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for the Amendment to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development with the revised general provision text 10D: to add a minimum 6’ masonry screening wall or buffer. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

 

Clark Nelson stated the next Council meeting will be November 30th at 7:00 p.m.

Z-2004-03: Amendment to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary General Planned Unit Development

 

 

Review the Final Plat for the Blazing Meadow Two Subdivision, a replat of a portion of the Blazing Meadow Subdivision.

 

Les Mangus said that in 1994, Blazing Meadow development was platted into +/- 20 acre lots. There was an existing home on the property and an existing pond. Reserve A is the 6 acre pond. Lot 1 is the existing home site. Since then, Lot 3 (20 acre gross) was lot split into 2 parcels 10 acres gross each or 9 acres net. Tonight is a replat, because you can’t lot split again, which would divide Tract A into 2 lots (4.5 and 4.6 acres each).

 

Roger Cutsinger of Goedecke Engineering explained the relationship of the pond to these 2 lots. He said the reason for the unusual configuration in the lot split was to meet the county zoning requirements at that time of a 330’ frontage. That left the property owner, David Ogan, with 10 acres and his desire is to split it into 2- 5 acre gross tracts. On the east side of the proposed replat is the location of the pond. There is a Farmland Gas pipeline diagonally running from northwest to southeast through the property. Roger Cutsinger said David Ogan is planning to build on one of these tracts. He said the zoning is correct now according to the county. The road is in place with rural water available.

 

David Martine asked if the remaining lots are 10 acres. Roger Cutsinger thinks they are all 10 – 20 acre lots.

 

Lynn Heath asked if there was building on Lot 2. Roger thinks there is 1 home on it with part of the lot below the dam.

 

Roger Cutsinger said there is no official FEMA floodplain on this property.  Charlotte Bass asked if the property floods even if it has not been designated by FEMA as a problem.

 

There was general discussion about gross versus net of 5 minimum acre lot sizes. Les said if it was necessary, the Butler County Planning Commission could grant a variance to the 5 acre net minimum lot area. In a platting case, there is a modification clause in our Subdivision Regulations and a similar clause in Butler County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, which allow slight modifications to the standards in unusual cases. There is the ability tonight to modify the 5 acre net minimum lot area.

 

David Martine asked if the balance of the development is built out. Roger Cutsinger said 1- 20 acre lot to the south is still vacant.  David Ogan, owner said there are some 5 acre plots in the next subdivision. Les said adjacent to the west in the Hoover Tracts are some 10 acre tracts.

 

Clark Nelson said the acting Butler County Planner, David Yearout, approves of this requested application.

 

Les Mangus said that from here this matter goes to the Butler County Commission.

 

David Martine made a motion to recommend approval for the Replat of the portion of the Blazing Meadow Two Subdivision. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Final Plat for the Blazing Meadow Two Subdivision

 

 

Member Items: David Martine asked for an explanation of the Resolution of Street Policy and the case study provided by Jeff Syrios.

 

Clark Nelson said the case study is of a recent Kansas Court of Appeals case called Dowling Realty vs. City of Shawnee pertaining to conflicts of interest. Jeff Syrios said he will be following planning issues heard by the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Court of Appeals. He will provide them as they become available for the information to the Andover Planning Commission. He will make copies of the case available for anyone who wants it.

 

Lynn Heath suggested Norman Manley review the policy about conflict of interest at one of the upcoming workshop meetings.

 

Clark Nelson stated the Resolution of Street Policy was included in the Commission packets for information only. He thinks this policy may be a good subject for a workshop. 

 

Clark Nelson said he wants to schedule the first short workshop meeting for December 21, 2004. Les Mangus said this would work to meet at 6:00 p.m. before the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Lynn Heath said it would be fine with him to stay for 1 hour after Planning Commission if the meeting adjourns at or before 8:00 p.m. Clark Nelson said Les has some PowerPoint subject matters that could be covered in an hour. Jeff Bridges said tonight’s Planning Commission meeting would need to be recessed to December 21, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. , adjourn at 7:00 from the workshop meeting and convene the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00. Les said at this point there are no public hearings scheduled for the December meeting, but the application deadline is not until Friday the 19th.

 

Keith Zinn was concerned the Planning Commission members would not attend the workshop if it was not mandatory. Jeff Bridges said the Planning Commission members have a responsibility to attend every meeting that is scheduled.  Les said there is no requirement for a quorum at a workshop meeting because no action will be taken.

 

Jeff Syrios asked for a reminder page on the front of the packets that the meeting will be at 6:00 p.m.

 

Lynn Heath asked if any other businesses would be moving into Andover. Jeff said 2 hotels, restaurants, Country Store, Andover Village Retail Center, Pergola Place, Kwik-Shop.

Member Items

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to recess the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m. to a Planning Commission workshop meeting at 6:00 p.m. on December 21, 2004. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0. . 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 15th day of March, 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.