Lee S Summit Planning Commission s2

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Tuesday, February 13, 2007, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Christopher at 6:03 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street, Lee’s Summit, Missouri.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Absent Mr. Christopher Present Ms. Rosenquist Present (Vice Chair) Mr. Reece Present Ms. Funk Absent Mr. Atcheson Absent Mr. Pycior Present Mr. Fristoe Present Mr. Gray Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Tom Scannell, Current Planning Division Manager; Christina Alexander, Staff Planner; Jennifer Baird, Assistant City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Michael Park, Senior Staff Engineer and Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Vice Chair Christopher announced that Item 5 (2006-293) would be continued to February 27, 2007, not February 23. Item 6 (2006-277) had been withdrawn by the applicant. As there were no other corrections or amendments, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda. On the motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr Reece, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as modified.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Application #2006-279 – SIGN APPLICATION – Great Southern Bank, 300 SW Ward Road; Great Southern Bank, applicant

B. Application #2006-289 – SIGN APPLICATION – Southside Plaza Monument Sign, 806-862 SW Blue Parkway; Southside Plaza, LLC, applicant

C. Application #2006-292 – VACATION OF EASEMENTS – located at the northeast and southwest corners of Lewis Drive and Olmstead Drive and at the southeast corner of Morton Drive and Thoreau Drive in Winterset Valley, 4th Plat, Gale Communities, Inc., applicant

D. Application #2007-002 – SIGN APPLICATION – AMLI at New Longview, 460 SW Longview Boulevard; AMLI Residential Construction, LLC, applicant

E. Minutes of the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting PLANNING COMMISSION 2 FEBRUARY 13, 2007

On the motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission voted by voice vote of five “yes” and one “abstain” (Vice Chair Christopher) to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Item 1A-E as published.

2. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2006-270 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Starbuck’s & Hillcrest Bank, 851 & 855 NE Woods Chapel Road; Commercial Site Consultants, applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m. and announced that continued Application 2006-270 was being continued to February 27, 2007 at staff’s request. He then closed the hearing.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

3. Public Hearing - Application #2006-269 – UDO Amendment #21 – Article 8 – accessory uses; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m. and announced that Application 2006- 269 had been withdrawn. He then closed the hearing.

5. Public Hearing - Application #2006-293 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – a portion of Lewis Drive and Olmstead Drive in Winterset Valley, 2nd Plat, Gale Communities, Inc., applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m. and announced that continued Application 2006-293 was being continued to February 27, 2007, to allow for proper notification. He then closed the hearing.

6. Application #2006-277 – SIGN APPLICATION – Houlihan’s Restaurant and Bar, 625 NW Murray Road, Commercial Sign Design., applicant

Vice Chair Christopher announced that Application 2006-277 had been withdrawn.

4. Public Hearing - Application #2006-186 – REZONING from PI-1 and CP-2 to CP-2 and Application 2006-187 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Douglas Corporate Center, Dahmer Brothers Investments, applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Dusty Dahmer [no address given] stated that he had owned the subject property for about 8 years. It originally had industrial zoning, and he wanted all the zoning to be CP-2 so they could PLANNING COMMISSION 3 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 develop it for office and retail. This type zoning seemed to be a better fit than industrial, as the land was on a major arterial road. He had talked with representatives with the Airport and Unity Village nearby. The applicants wanted to start out with at least one or two buildings per lot for the first phase.

Following Mr. Dahmer’s presentation, Vice Chair Christopher asked for staff comments.

Ms. Alexander entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record. She first stated the preliminary development plan was for seven retail/office buildings, totaling about 49,000 square feet. The subject property was at the southeast corner of Lee’s Summit Road and Douglas. Staff recommended approval subject to the three Recommendation Items, which Ms. Alexander read.

Following Ms. Alexander’s comments, Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Mr. Gray wanted to know if there was any discussion of the development of Douglas or Lee’s Summit Roads, considering the location and traffic patterns. Mr. Park answered that the traffic study for this development indicated it would have minimal impact in Phase 1. However, with Phase 2, the proposed south driveway had a limited sight distance, and they could wait for the development of Lee’s Summit Road or there would be a condition of improving sight distance. That could include lowering the profile. Another condition in the traffic report was providing adequate right-of-way to accommodate Douglas Road’s future expansion to four lanes. This development should not hinder any construction of that future arterial.

Mr. Reece asked what the easement under Building 3 was originally for. Mr. Dahmer pointed out two lots there, Lots 4 and 5, and explained that this was the utility easement between those two lots. The new plan would combine these two lots so they wanted the easement vacated. Mr. Reece then asked if he was in agreement with staff’s Recommendation Items and Mr. Dahmer replied that he was. They had already given a 50-foot right-of-way to the City for the Lee’s Summit Road improvements. Mr. Dahmer added that he had attended meetings of property owners along Lee’s Summit Road discussing the plans to make it a four-lane arterial, so he had been involved in that design process. He knew that the grades would change with the new road and was planning around that.

Ms. Rosenquist had looked at the site, and particularly the layout of 7 buildings, and had wondered if there would be cross-agreements for parking. There did not seem to be a lot of room for parking and landscaping. She wanted to know if the preliminary development plan met the requirements, as the site looked like the space was very tight. Mr. Scannell replied that the site was narrow, mainly because it backed up to the airport, but the development plan actually exceeded the number of parking spaces required. There would have to be some cross-access and parking agreements, given that the layout had an unbroken progression between one building and another. As to landscaping, they also met or exceeded what the UDO called for in terms of street frontage trees and shrubs as well as interior planting. The applicant was complying with all those requirements.

Ms. Rosenquist noted that the plan seemed to indicate two entrances, but some of the buildings seemed to have no driveway access. She asked what kind of uses the buildings would have. Mr. Scannell answered that the CP-2 zoning allowed office and retail uses. At this point, neither PLANNING COMMISSION 4 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 the staff nor the applicant knew anything specific. Ms. Rosenquist noted that this was a long, narrow space and she was not sure what kind of uses it could get.

Mr. Dahmer explained that when Mr. Hirst had first started designing, they had expected to have some medical office uses, since the development would be near two hospitals, and this kind of use had a more stringent parking requirement. That was one reason for having so many extra parking spaces - about 283 with a requirement of only 195. Concerning the access, they had consulted with the Traffic staff about the north approach, and the site had two access points. He agreed that there would need to be cross-access agreements.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Gray made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2006-186, Rezoning from PI-1 and CP-2; and Application 2006-187, Preliminary Development Plan: Douglas Corporate Center, Dahmer Brothers Investments, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of February 9, 2007, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Fristoe seconded.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called for a vote.

On the motion of Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2006-186, Rezoning from PI-1 and CP-2; and Application 2006-187, Preliminary Development Plan: Douglas Corporate Center, Dahmer Brothers Investments, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of February 9, 2007, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

7. Application #2006-295 –PRELIMINARY PLAT – Request for modification to sidewalk requirement – The Falls at Lakewood, Lots 1-20 and Tracts A-E; James W. Orr Jr., applicant

Ms. Shauna Othman, Facility Manager for Legacy Ridge Corporate Center at 250 NE Mulberry in Lee’s Summit. The Center was owned by Mr. James Orr, the applicant. They were requesting a modification for installing a sidewalk and walkways running through Tract A, as per the final site plan requirements. The Commission had granted The Falls several modifications in the past. Ms. Othman explained that now that homes were being built on the property and actual structures were present, the space was so limited it would be difficult to put in the sidewalks. They would meander from Lot 1 all the way down to Lot 14 and there was very little green space there.

Ms. Othman emphasized that the developer had spared no expense, asserting that he had made this a one-of-a-kind living environment. The villas had benefited Lakewood as well as Lee’s Summit by attracting upper-income homeowners who might have otherwise purchased homes in other cities. Due to the character of the subdivision, with most of the homes $500,000 or more, The Falls attracted mostly ‘empty nesters’ whose lifestyle did not typically involve using such walkways. No children currently resided at The Falls, and because of the strict covenants PLANNING COMMISSION 5 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 and limited green space it was doubtful that there would be any in the future. The applicant was asking to keep the area for green space. Ms. Othman had brought signed petitions from the homeowners, which she passed out to the Commissioners.

Ms. Othman displayed a picture of Lot 9, pointing out how the occupant had put in a tree and had irrigation. Most of the lots nearby had retaining walls, and a lot of concrete everywhere. Displaying a slide of Lot 14, she pointed out where the City had put in a light. The homeowners had put what little landscaping they had all the way to the curb.

Following Ms. Othman’s presentation, Vice Chair Christopher asked for staff comments.

Ms. Alexander confirmed that this Preliminary Plat application was a request for a modification to the UDO sidewalk requirement. The request was to take all the sidewalks out of the plan, as well as the walking trail in Tract A. The ordinance required sidewalks on both sides for developments with densities of 4 units per acre or more, but at the time this application first came in, staff had agreed to just one side. What was approved for both the Preliminary and Final Development plans and plats and for the rezoning was a 4-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of Dick Howser Place and Dick Howser Court. Eight of the 14 lots that were required to have a sidewalk, about 57 percent of the lots, were built without any sidewalk; and of these 8, two were under notice of violation and the other six were vacant and not built on yet. Staff recommended denial of the modification request.

Mr. Pycior asked how many total lots were in violation. Ms. Alexander answered there were 8 lots built without required sidewalks, but only 2 had received a notice of violation. The other six lots were vacant. Mr. Pycior counted 8 houses that were actually built altogether and Ms. Alexander said this was correct. Mr. Pycior then asked how they had obtained building permits. Mr. Scannell explained that the plot plans they had turned into the City for permits had shown sidewalks. For the other six homes built, the City had granted a Certificate of Occupancy pending the outcome of this application. He was not sure why the other two were under notice of violation.

Mr. Pycior asked why this had not gone to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and Mr. Scannell answered that sidewalks fell under the Subdivision Article 16 of the UDO. Any kind of modification to a platting requirement mandated the applicant submitting a preliminary plat.

Mr. Gray asked if the covenants Ms. Othman had referred to restricted children living there. Ms. Othman answered no, children were not prohibited, but because the covenants did not allow fences or playground material, it was not an attraction for people with children and it was not likely that families with children would be living there. The development was maintenance-free and had been designed with older residents in mind.

Vice Chair Christopher remarked that looking at the pictures, he could not see where four-foot sidewalks would actually fit. Mr. Pycior also asked where the light pole was. Ms. Othman pointed out the light pole and driveways, and Vice Chair Christopher remarked that he could not see any space, with Mr. Pycior noting that one would have to go behind a mailbox. Vice Chair Christopher also noted a retaining wall very close to the curb, and remarked that it looked like Tract A was a common area so there might be some tradeoffs they could do, perhaps with trails. He also felt that the short streets and probably light traffic should be taken into consideration in terms of whether sidewalks would make sense on this site. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 FEBRUARY 13, 2007

Regarding Tract A, Ms. Othman said that the developer had originally wanted to put a gazebo and green area there. He now lived next door, however, and had decided against that. Vice Chair Christopher remarked that it was usual practice for the City to look for some common area and green space with this dense a development. He was not in favor of taking away an amenity without giving something equal or better in return. Ms. Othman answered that there would still be green space. The developer just did not want a gazebo that would be an attraction for people so near his home. Vice Chair Christopher felt that this was a separate issue from whether there needed to be a sidewalk.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that this was a situation where the Commission had done a rezoning and the applicant went through a preliminary and final development plan as well as a preliminary and final plat being approved, and they had granted waivers for the street offsets, for the front yard setbacks, for the side yard setbacks, for the rear yard setbacks, for the lot depth, for the lot width and for the minimum lot area. Then they built homes without the sidewalks proposed and did not have green space. And now, because the developer lived there, he wanted to get rid of the one amenity that had been part of what the Commission had approved at every step. Ms. Rosenquist said that staff had recommended denial of the application, and the Commission could support the denial or, as it had granted all the previous modifications, they could allow the sidewalks to be eliminated but require the gazebo and the open space for Tract A. She did not consider the fact that the developer lived nearby and did not want people hanging out near his back yard to be an acceptable reason to eliminate it.

Ms. Rosenquist also mentioned a third option: that the Commission require both the sidewalks and the open space and gazebo. However, at this point it would mean retaining walls and trees pulled out. She was very irritated at how this decision had basically been forced on the Commission. Mr. Pycior commented that the sidewalk issue basically amounted to a “do what you want and ask forgiveness later” approach, which had been a common way of doing things in Lee’s Summit for awhile. The problem in this case was that there were now homeowners there who had invested their money and he was not enthusiastic about ripping up their front yards. He also saw the gazebo and walking trail as a separate issue from the sidewalks.

Ms. Rosenquist said that at this point, the Commission had granted so many waivers for this project that she was not willing to compromise the walkway, gazebo and common area. There was almost no other green space. She emphasized that the Commission had already given the applicant all the waivers they had asked for to maximize the building space. She wanted a condition attached to approval that the gazebo and the common area be developed as it had been shown on the original preliminary development plan and final plat.

Ms. Rosenquist also was skeptical of the argument that the development was mainly for empty- nesters. Her experience with people in this group was that they did look for amenities. Mr. Pycior had not seen anything on the plat about Tract A, but he was mainly concerned about residents having yards and walls torn up. Vice Chair Christopher understood the point that the street did not have high traffic, but he also did not like taking away an amenity that was the only green space. Ms. Rosenquist remarked that setting aside green space and common areas was something the Commission had emphasized with this kind of dense development.

Mr. Gray was concerned about the developer disregarding the code requirements, and asked what penalties were assessed for violations. Mr. Pycior asked if the developer was also the builder. Mr. Gray reiterated that in a case where there was total disregard for the City codes, he wanted to know what kind of message could be sent to the developer. He wanted the Commission to send a stronger one than just negotiating over green space, especially if this had PLANNING COMMISSION 7 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 been done as blatantly as it appeared to be. Mr. Scannell explained that the builder was separate from the developer and this area had two or three different builders who had built homes within Lakewood.

Mr. Gray responded that this did not answer his question. Someone had made a decision not to put sidewalks in. Mr. Scannell stated that the procedure was for the City to send a notice of violation to the builder, since they had pulled the permit. The builder would be the one held responsible for putting in the sidewalks.

Mr. Reece remarked that he had driven through that area numerous times, and the streets were quite wide. He agreed with Mr. Pycior that tearing up the yards for very little length of sidewalk did not seem worth the time and effort. However, the walkway down to the lake in Tract A should be there. It was a nice access to the lake, and the only other access would be through private back yards. He was in favor of a compromise where they could omit the sidewalks along the street, but the walkway in Tract A and the gazebo should definitely stay.

Mr. Gray still wanted to know how the builder or developer was going to be held accountable for disregarding the City’s and Commission’s directions. He was still not satisfied with the answers he was hearing. Mr. Scannell answered that the level of responsibility rested on the builder, as the plans and plats clearly showed that they had to put a sidewalk in. Codes Administration would have to send letters if the Planning Commission and City Council decided to have this development put the sidewalks in. They would notify the builders and give them a time frame for installing the sidewalks.

Mr. Gray did not think it was practical to put sidewalks in. His issue was with a developer or builder who put in a building of any kind, knowing that they were not complying with the conditions that they had agreed to for a building permit. What Mr. Scannell was describing was a series of letters and a slap on the hand, and he had a problem with that. Mr. Scannell responded that if they did not comply, it would go to legal action.

Ms. Rosenquist asked why the City had allowed this to happen, from an inspections point of view, when it was clearly on the site plan. It was part of the development plan, part of the final plat; they had done the inspections and knew about the omission. She wondered how it was that these homes had been allowed to be built when they were in violation of what was on the approved plan. Mr. Scannell had asked Codes Administration and they had attributed it to a staff mistake. Mr. Pycior noted that inspecting the sidewalks was probably one of the last things done.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if final occupancy permits had been granted, or if they were still conditional. Mr. Scannell answered that according to Codes these were conditional Certificates of Occupancy depending on whatever the outcome was regarding the modification. Ms. Rosenquist remarked that in that case, the Commission could essentially hold up the final occupancy until such time as the builder would go in and install sidewalks, and Mr. Scannell said this was correct.

Ms. Rosenquist asked how long these people had been living there with conditional Certificates of Occupancy. Looking at the permits, Mr. Scannell noted that some went back to 2003 and some to 2001, although some were as recent as 2006. Vice Chair Christopher understood the sequence of a sidewalk being built in front of a house, although some roads did have the sidewalk built at the same time. Mr. Scannell related that typically, sidewalks in front of residential lots would be installed when the builder built on the lot. Vice Chair Christopher then PLANNING COMMISSION 8 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 asked if Tract A would be part of the approval, and Mr. Scannell answered that sidewalks were required to be built across common ground when the streets were put in. As far as the sidewalks within Tract A were concerned, this was a private amenity so the City did not enforce that.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if that meant that the City did not enforce the requirements for trails and common areas shown in plats. He wanted to know if just not following through and building these amenities was common. Mr. Scannell replied that the City had not in the past gone out to inspect amenities that were on plats. Ms. Rosenquist asked if they didn’t have to inspect amenities when they included items like pools and tennis courts, and if there was a different rule for walking trails. Mr. Scannell answered that the City would inspect things like required landscaping around pool and other recreational areas but did not actually go out and inspect amenities. Vice Chair Christopher noted that the green space and open space was typically part of the approval and trade-off with a denser development like this. In this case, the developer had gotten his half of the deal but did not return what he was required to. It looked like the Commission should start considering the question of whether they were really going to get what they asked for and if the ordinances really gave them the ability to require it.

Mr. Reece noted that the developer had received seven waivers, and asked when does it stop. Ms. Rosenquist noted that 50 percent of these houses had Certificates of Occupancy granted, and the other 50 percent in an area requiring sidewalks did not. She recalled that the Commission had been adamant about the common area and gazebo for some of the waivers, and was not willing to compromise that.

Following Ms. Alexander’s comments, Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application.

Mr. John Trader gave his address as 1434 NE Dick Howser Circle. He supported the applicant’s request for the modification. He understood there might be an issue with the green space and gazebo, but concurred with his other neighbors who had requested the developer to have the sidewalk requirement waived. He lived at Lot 11.

Hearing no further discussion Vice Chair Christopher called for a motion.

Ms. Rosenquist made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2006-295, Preliminary Plat; Request for modification to sidewalk requirement: he Falls at Lakewood, Lots 1-20 and Tracts A-E; James W. Orr Jr., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of Feburary 9, 2007; with the condition that Tract “A” common area would have access from Dick Howser Circle down to the lake with the gazebo and amenities included that were originally provided for on the preliminary and final development plans and on the preliminary and final plats previously approved. Mr. Reece seconded.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was any discussion of the motion.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if she might need to add a condition that the Commission would grant the modification to the sidewalk requirement based on the construction of the sidewalk to the lake with the gazebo. Vice Chair Christopher believed her motion had been to approve the modification based on compliance with Tract A including sidewalk, gazebo and amenities. Mr. Scannell felt that Ms. Rosenquist’s addition clarified the motion, so it would not hurt to have it. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 FEBRUARY 13, 2007

For the sake of clarity, Vice Chair Christopher asked Ms. Rosenquist to withdraw her first motion and re-state. Ms. Rosenquist then withdrew her motion and Mr. Reece withdrew his second.

Ms. Rosenquist made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2006-295, Preliminary Plat; Request for modification to sidewalk requirement: The Falls at Lakewood, Lots 1-20 and Tracts A-E; James W. Orr Jr., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of Feburary 9, 2007; with the following two conditions: 1) to grant a modification to the sidewalk and 2) that modification would be granted based on compliance to the preliminary and final development plans and on the preliminary and final plats with regard to Tract “A” being developed into a common area with the gazebo and sidewalk access from Dick Howser Circle. Mr. Reece seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chair Christopher called for a vote.

On the motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2006-295, Preliminary Plat; Request for modification to sidewalk requirement: The Falls at Lakewood, Lots 1-20 and Tracts A-E; James W. Orr Jr., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of Feburary 9, 2007; with the addition of the two conditions as stated.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE

Mr. Gray wanted to discuss what the Commission could do to indicate their concern to the City Council. He felt that this application in particular was mishandled, and wanted to make sure it did not occur in the future. He wanted to communicate to both the Council and staff that violations of Planning Commission directions should be pursued to the extent they could. He did not think a series of letters would necessarily be the direction to go. Mr. Gray asked if the Codes Director could come to a meeting and give an explanation. Vice Chair Christopher thought that was a good idea.

Ms. Rosenquist asked how the condition would be enforced by staff and if they would have to get a permit for the gazebo. Mr. Scannell answered that they would if the gazebo was more than 120 square feet. Whatever Council action was voted on, staff would be following up with that. Ms. Rosenquist hoped that Council put a time limit of April or May to get that done.

Mr. Reece remarked that if a permit were issued for certain amenities to be installed and the City then allowed occupancy and did not do their job, then someone needed to be taken to task. Ms. Rosenquist added that she did not think final occupancy should be granted until the gazebo and walkway were done. Even though people were already living in some of the homes, they would need that certificate sooner or later and the City should not grant them until this work was done. The onus should be put on both the developer and builder. If the developer had this in his backyard that was unfortunate, but it had been agreed on as an amenity.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if this would go to the Council, and Mr. Scannell confirmed that it would, due to the modification. Vice Chair Christopher expressed some concern over the process. The City had some big projects, with a lot of amenities and generally conscientious PLANNING COMMISSION 10 FEBRUARY 13, 2007 developers, but he would not like for developers to figure that they did not have to go through with providing them.

Mr. Monter reported that staff was looking at a “developer’s bond”, which would hold a developer responsible for completing their project as proposed and approved. How to enforce it was the subject of a lot of discussions. He felt there was more to this particular situation than the personnel involved, and they were now trying to fix it.

Ms. Tyrrel reported that the Highlands at the Meadows of Winterset, which the Commission had denied in January, would be brought back to the Commission for them to consider some new information. Mr. Fristoe asked if they were going to modify the road from the road plan. Ms. Tyrrel answered that staff had discovered that the Thoroughfare Master Plan approved in 2006 had completely replaced all the previous alignment studies. The wide sweeping curve on the alignment was, consequently, no longer valid. The valid alignment was the one in the current Thoroughfare Master Plan, and it was a T-intersection. That could be changed to a roundabout, and as long as the road was in that location, it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission would need to decide in comparing the plat to the Comprehensive Plan, whether or not it was consistent. The date for that would depend on when they submitted their revised plat, but staff anticipated it would be heard on March 27th. The Thoroughfare Master Plan was accessible to Commission members on the City’s website.

Mr. Reece asked about the lot sizes next to Longview Farms, noting that the Commission had agreed they should make a better transition, perhaps having intermediate-sized lots between the large lots and the significantly smaller ones. Ms. Tyrrel answered that they did increase the size of the lots, losing two lots along that part. Mr. Reece noted that they did change it on the last plat, but the Commission had requested that they take another look. They had taken out only two lots out of over 200.

Ms. Tyrrel stated that the Thoroughfare Master Plan not being in the Commissioners’ packets, was one of the reasons for staff advising the applicant to go back to the Commission rather than going on to Council. They had not been provided with all the information needed. Mr. Monter added that there might be added conditions about the low-pressure sewer system, particularly for the formation of a CID (Community Improvement District). He was not sure the applicant had understood the impact of that. At present, they would most likely try to come up with alternatives that the City was willing to accept so it was a matter of what the developer would want to do.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Vice Chair Christopher adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.

PC021307