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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.