EDWARDSVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

690 SOUTH 4^TH STREET P O BOX 13738

EDWARDSVILLE, KANSAS 66113

JUNE 20, 2007

Members Present: Bryan Smith, Tim Sweeten, Kelli Curry, Jeff Martinek, Gerald Pappert, Woody Berry, and Robert Craven

REGULAR MEETING
 

Chairman Martinek:  I call the meeting of the Edwardsville Planning Commission to order.

Has anyone had a chance to look at that secretary’s report?

Tim Sweeten: Yes, I make a motion we accept the secretary’s report of May 16, 2007.

Gerald Pappert: Seconded. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS 

None.

OLD BUSINESS

Chairman Martinek:  Under old business we got the Kaw Valley Industrial Park. Preliminary Plat. Philip & Suzan Reed, Owners. Are we doing anything new with that Dan?

Dan Van Petten: That is what I want to talk to you about tonight. Please refer to Item A attached. The property owners appear to include Leon and Donna Reike, as well as Philip and Suzan Reed although only Philip and Suzan Reed are shown the property owner. The City Engineer, Mr. John Bayless, notes that the applicant by way of this plat is dedicating rights of way that include a building. Please refer to Item B attached. The building would become City property and would be the responsibility of the City. No environmental effort has been undertaken to determine if the building is considered a hazard. When taken in its totality, and the fact that this is another try at this preliminary plat, my recommendation based on the enumerated comments and the comments of Cook, Flatt and Strobel, I recommend that the City deny the preliminary plat for Kaw Valley Industrial Park II and advise the applicant to recommence the Preliminary Plat process at such time as the noted and attached issues are resolved.

Right now, Philip and Suzan Reed own all three of the lots, it doesn’t show it, but assuming they own all three of the lots including The Judy Co. They are existing lots of record and they can sell them. But, because they want to change the three lots into two lots for the purpose of a sell of land transfer, I am requiring this preliminary plat to go through. Because, when there is this type of a change something is going to go in here. We need to know what goes in here. It makes a big difference on how Woodend Road is laid out. What sort of access issues we have? Do any additional lanes on Woodend Road need to be put in now, as a result of what is being purposed here? Those are important questions, that we need to know.  And we don’t have any of those answers. And we have a plat here that is technically not acceptable to the city engineer and from a planning point of view, it does not meet our ordinance.

Tim Sweeten: Is it up to the Roger Dill to get this right?

Dan Van Petten: Absolutely.

After discussion:

Chairman Martinek: I entertain a motion to deny.

Tim Sweeten: Did the landowner receive these comments?

Dan Van Petten: The surveyor contacted Phyllis and asked when the next planning board meeting would be. He indicated he didn’t know if he could get it all done by the next meeting date.

Tim Sweeten: Is the landowner here? Can we switch things up a little bit and open the floor to the applicant?

Chairman Martinek: I don’t see how it could hurt anything. If there is some comment that could be some education to any of us, this is a very important issue.

Dan Van Petten: I think it is.

Tim Sweeten: Are you Mrs. Reed? I’m not sure when you came in, but we have been discussing this for about 20 minutes. Did you get the comments letter?

Suzan Reed: I got them yesterday.

Tim Sweeten: We were wondering if you could shed some light on those comments?

Suzan Reed: I was hoping to find out something about some of the comments. What we are trying to do is just replot it, so that we can sell it. We are not planning to do anything. We cannot give you any calculations or any numbers because we have no plans other than to sell. And we need it replotted in those dimensions, those lot sizes in order to sell. We feel it would be more pertinent for you to ask the person who in the future is going to make some plans to do something with it. They will have the information at the time they come and ask for a permit to build or whatever they have to acquire to do something down the road. The appropriate time would be then.

I do know that the engineer I hired talked to Tom Ingram today and he said it should be able to be approved – (this is third hand, this is what the engineer told me that Tom has said, I didn’t get to talk to Tom), with the understanding that whoever buys it and develops it, at that time, all of those questions can be answered. I can’t tell you what is going to be done with it, because I don’t know. I’m not even sure that the person who is buying it 100% knows what he is going to do with it in the end.

Chairman Martinek: I’m curious, what is the reason for replotting it, if you are just selling it?

Suzan Reed: Because right now, it was plotted back in the 80’s as an industrial park in the configuration that you see on the map that you have. The way we have sold it, is into two pieces. The buyer that we have wants to buy the front half that fronts over on I-435 - he wants that, which is approximately 26 acres. He wants that now with the option on the remainder. Well, in order to get title insurance, it has to be plotted the way it is sold. We can’t break up a lot. And by doing that it breaks two of the lots in two, even though nothing has ever been done with them. They’re exactly as we bought them back in the 80’s. They were plotted after we bought them, but nothing has been done with them.

Tim Sweeten: What do you think the city should do with the Judy building that is left over in the front? It’s not even in that Lot A.

Suzan Reed: Well, it should be. It should be in there. Now the way I read the comments, and I’m not sure I understand it completely. That is one of the things I wanted to ask. But, the engineer seemed to get from Tom that those comments on the second page, were just recommendations to the city. That in the future, when the city starts making rules and regulations, those recommendations would be kept in mind. But I didn’t know - does the city want us to give the building to them? I couldn’t tell by the way I read it.

Tim Sweeten:  No, I think once you get the City planners’ questions answered, it’s going to answer a lot of our questions.

Suzan Reed: Well, what are the questions?

Tim Sweeten: Well, they’re all in the memo.

Dan Van Petten: It’s all in that report.

Suzan Reed: I only have a report, I believe, from Mr. Bayless.

Tim Sweeten: There are two sets of comments. There is one from the city planner and one from the city engineer.

Suzan Reed: Okay, is page two from the city planner?

Tim Sweeten: Yes, and pardon me for saying so, this isn’t really to resolve the questions tonight. This is just to understand what you are doing. We really need the questions answered from your surveyor.

Suzan Reed: He can’t answer them either. He doesn’t know what is going to be done after it is sold.

Tim Sweeten: He is a licensed surveyor, he is the one that needs to answer these questions.

Suzan Reed: No, he doesn’t know what the future owners plan to do with the property.

Tim Sweeten: That’s not the only questions on the comments. That’s not even a question on the comments.

Suzan Reed: Are you referring to easements? I noticed some easements that were asked for and some right of ways.

Tim Sweeten: That is one of the issues, is an easement from the city engineer, a concern.

Suzan Reed: Are we to just give that to the city, is that what is expected?

Tim Sweeten: No I think, again, it is not my job to be answering those questions. But it is a question mark on the plans that he has prepared. He needs to answer the questions and go back and forth through the process with the city engineers and planners and work through a solution. We’re just here to look at their comments and make a recommendation that the city move forward or not on approving this preliminary plat. Does that make sense?

Suzan Reed: I think so, if you want the spelling corrections, I noticed, and those things, is that what you are referring to?

Tim Sweeten: No, that is minor. We are not too worried about that, it needs to be fixed on the final plat, I’m sure. But, I think there are some other things that are more of a concern.

Dan Van Petten: On the preliminary.

Gerald Pappert: Are the questions you are concerned about with these here? (Referring to items A and B attached). Is that the comments? Does she have that copy?

Tim Sweeten: The comments from Dan and Bayless, are the comments that I’m talking about.

Secretary: That would be the June 12, 2007 HNTB memo. (Item A attached).

Suzan Reed: Let me show you what I received. It’s not very legible.

Dan Van Petten: No, that’s the engineer’s report. (Item B attached).

Secretary: These are the points that need to be resolved. (Referring to Item A attached).

Suzan Reed: I never received that. (Item A attached).

Secretary: I can make you copies of this after the meeting.

Suzan Reed: Is it something that is monumental? I mean is it a major thing? Or is it just a matter of -

Tim Sweeten: It’s major. We’re going to vote on it here in a minute. We’re going to find out. I’m pretty sure it’s major enough to not be able to pass this tonight. We are going to find out after everyone votes here.

Suzan Reed: You can’t pass it with recommendations or contingencies?

Tim Sweeten: No, absolutely not.

Suzan Reed: Well, when I get to see what it is, I can make sure it is taken care of.

Tim Sweeten: This isn’t shutting the door. You get another chance, you just have to go back and correct these things.

Suzan Reed: I know but I have been working on this since last year, trying to get this through.

Tim Sweeten: In all fairness, we’ve seen you tonight and then what about, maybe two, three meetings ago? So it hasn’t been every meeting that we’ve been holding you up.

Suzan Reed: Well, I’m not saying you are holding us up. It’s just, it seemed so simple when we started, to take a piece of property that wasn’t going to change and draw the lines differently on it.

Tim Sweeten: Unfortunately, it is a lot more complicated than that.

Chairman Martinek: Is this something that in lieu of the development, should we table again, as she tries to get these things corrected?

Bryan Smith: I made a note here, that it was originally tabled on March 21.

Tim Sweeten: Are the staff reports done on that Dan?

Dan Van Petten: Yes sir.

After further discussion:

Bryan Smith: I make a motion to table the Kaw Valley Industrial Park, Preliminiary Plat.

Gerald Pappert: Seconded. Motion carried.

Chairman Martinek: Next we have change of zoning 9701 Kaw Drive, Applicant Gerald Currie. This was tabled on 5/16/2007. Dan what is the story on this?

Dan Van Petten: The first letter here is from the applicant, Mr. Gerald Currie dated June 5, 2007. Please refer to Item C attached. My recommendation, please refer to Item D attached, is to recommend tabling it and continue it off the docket.

After further discussion:

Kelli Curry: I make a motion to table off the docket the Change of Zoning, 9701 Kaw Drive to be heard and have a decision from Gerald Currie on or before September 17, 2007

Tim Sweeten: Seconded. Motion carried.

Items from the Planning Commission
 

Kelli Curry: Is it possible that I could get a blue notebook with all the ordinances in it?

Secretary: Yes

Dan Van Petten: Could I get a copy of the revised parking ordinance that was approved?

Secretary: Yes

Items from the Floor
 

There were no items from the floor.

Adjournment

Harold Berry: I make a motion to adjourn.

Kelli Curry: Seconded. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:52p.m.

Next regularly scheduled meeting is July 18, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Bounds

Secretary