PC Minutes
07/24/06
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR MERCATO ADDITON 1ST PLAT; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40
& EAST OF HIGHWAY K-10 (MKM)
PF-06-15-06: Final Plat for Mercato Addition 1st
Plat, North of Highway 40 & East of Highway K-10. This proposed residential lot contains approximately
49.995 acres. Submitted
by
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Phil Struble, Landplan,
spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Struble requested Condition 3 on the Staff Report be removed due to
contradiction with Items 2a and b.
Stogsdill asked Struble to
clarify if the objection was to 2a & b.
Struble repied that he
wanted Item 3 to be eliminated.
Eichhorn clarified that
there would be 5 conditions after the removal of Item 3.
Stogsdill noted that 4 is
not listed and asked if Struble was stating that he did not want the requirement
for public improvement plans.
Struble clarified that he
did not want the condition requiring submittal of public improvement plans
prior to recording the final plat as it is not a requirement of subdivision
regulations.
Stogsdill explained that
Item 3 is a standard condition before recording every final plat that the
public improvement plans must be submitted.
Struble stated that the
applicant objects to the condition. They
do not yet know what the first piece of the project will be; if they have to
design all the infrastructure they will but they want to make certain they go
on record that they disagree with the condition.
Stogsdill gave an
explanation that the reason Item 3 is a standard condition is that the City Engineer
desires that the Public Improvement Plan be submitted so there is an
opportunity to review before the right of way and easements are dedicated and
of record. In the past, the plans had to be submitted and approved before the final
plat was filed. The submission is to
ensure there is an opportunity to check and make sure the utilities proposed
are within the easements that are shown on the plat and right of way and the
City has the opportunity to review the plan
before the right of way and easements are dedicated, which ensures
consistency. Previously, plats were
conditioned so that public improvement plans were submitted and approved before
the final plat was filed and there were objections from the development
community that the requirement was too onerous.
Burress asked if there is
harm to the applicant with removing or not removing the requirement.
Struble stated the harm is
that the client is going to spend a lot of money and that things may change. The City Engineer and Mr. Struble agree with
the end result is but Mr. Struble feels the point in which it is being imposed
is incorrect. Imposing it as a condition
of a final plat is the wrong place to impose construction documents.
Burress asked if the
applicant is being required to do things out of order or do things prior to
when they are normally done and whether there was an advantage to filing the
plat first.
Struble replied in the
affirmative and replied that the advantage is being able to sell or mortgage the
property.
Burress asked Staff if
there would be harm to the City in doing things as Mr. Struble proposed.
Stogsdill stated that
Staff had given as much information as was available on the issue and that this
is a Public Works issue.
Struble explained that
once something is designed in the current system and a modification needs to be
made, they record easements by separate instrument which doesn’t always show at
the Register of Deeds office in a timely manner. There could be a discrepancy between what is
originally recorded and the actual end result.
The City Engineer, the Public Works Director and Mr. Struble have been
talking about how to solve this issue.
Burress replied that it
would at least address the inconsistency.
Haase explained that he
sat on the task force with the City Manager, Commissioner Schauner and Doug
Stephens which held hearings and solicited input from all City departments
regarding the short comings of the process.
Near the end of the investigation, developers were contacted by letter
regarding items to be addressed, and issues to be solved. Comments were not provided and this is
exactly the kind of thing that should have come back to the task force.
Haase questioned whether
Struble agreed that this is a matter that should be taken up with Public Works,
and that we should be given some guidance.
Struble agreed with
Commissioner Haase but stated it is not surprising the task force received no
response. He continued that he has
worked in enough communities where they have resolved this problem and if this
is the best that can be done then the problem will not be solved.
Eichhorn agreed the
Commission would like to solve the problem if possible but does not feel it can
be resolved without Public Works input.
Finkeldei questioned
whether there is a particular committee or group that can study this issue.
Eichhorn explained there
is a Development Code Group to deal with these issues.
Haase added that the City
Commission has hired a consulting firm to review the development process to
make recommendations regarding effectiveness for the development
community.
Stogsdill clarified that
the Matrix report is due in mid to late August.
She continued that the issue has been discussed with Public Works and
feels the Commission should not make a policy change on one plat as opposed to
having Public Works make the policy change which would apply to everyone
equally.
Struble indicated the
condition was selective in identifying improvements required.
Eichhorn asked if Struble
felt it is selective as written and wanted to make it more selective.
Harkins asked if the
improvements could be phased.
Eichhorn questioned if it
is a piecemeal development due to lack of foresight.
Struble indicated the
piecemeal issue is his fault and will take full responsibility; he stated it is
piecemeal in the sense that they are going to build what the market will
bear. He continued that developers are frequently
criticized about platting small subdivisions and that planning should be given
the big picture to provide something to work with as far as
infrastructure. Struble said they could
have done the first plat as a 55 lot subdivision but they want to show everyone
what they are going to do.
Eichhorn suggested a
Mid-month meeting on this topic.
Haase stated that Struble
is in front of a group that is unprepared to make a policy change and asked the
applicant if he wished to defer the item.
Struble stated he
absolutely did not want the item deferred, they want it to go through today.
Haase asked if Mr. Struble
would like the Planning Commission to pass the item with conditions.
Struble said he would
rather have the item passed, with the conditions if necessary, rather than not
have it pass at all.
Harkins asked if the
proposal to do as much of the infrastructure as necessary for this portion of
the project would meet the purpose being discussed.
Stogsdill stated there was
a requirement that the developer build the infrastructure for the final plat
that they are recording and that is why final plats are usually seen in smaller
pieces as it reflects a year or two worth of supply. Subdivision regulations require public
improvements be in place before building permits are issued. Stogsdill indicated she didn’t believe there
is the ability to phase public improvements for final plats.
Struble replied that he
has phased numerous projects and held conversations with the City Engineer on
turnarounds, sewers, utilities, etc. Struble
cited Monterry Bluffs as a good and bad example where they fully platted the
entire property. The end result was a
client that decided not to build it all.
The City Engineer has to be shown how it’s going to be safe, how it will
be built and that the existing homes are not disturbed and there is a process
they go through. Otherwise the developer
will go back to small plats.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress stated there is
not much option other than to pass the final plat the way it is written. The options are to pass it as written then to
figure out what motion can get something going.
He asked for discussion on what the second motion should contain.
Eichhorn replied that he
wouldn’t mind seeing this issue as part of Mid-Month discussion and wondered if
the consultant study could be brought forward as part of the review
process. Eichhorn also felt including
studies of other communities would be helpful.
Stogsdill explained that
August 9th would likely be too early as the consultants may not be
ready with the final report. The report
should contain comparisons with other communities and is expected in
mid-August. The following Mid-Month is
September 13th, the final report is due from the consultants by the
end of August.
Haase said the information
gathering process was set in motion and the input from the consultants is
necessary before making recommendations.
Harris questioned whether
the consultant is looking specifically at this issue.
Stogsdill replied that
they are looking at the entire development review process across all
development departments; Planning, Public Works, Neighborhood Resources and
Utilities for the City and County.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Haase to approve the Final Plat of Mercato Addition, 1st
Plat, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for acceptance
of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1.
Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a.
Recording fees
made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
b.
Revised Master
Street Tree Plan with Patmore Ash replaced with Zolkova, Japanese. The name
Acer Rubrum must include “Autumn Blaze’ or ‘Red Sunset’.
2.
Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:
a.
Note stating that
the developer will remove the W. 6th Street/K-10 frontage road and
access south of Overland Drive, when Overland Drive is constructed and links up
with the K-10 frontage road.
b.
Note stating that
the developer will improve the K-10 frontage road, north of
c.
Note that states
that a ‘Use of Right-of-Way’ permit must be obtained from KDOT before any work
may be done within the highway right of way. A condition of the permit will be
that the developer takes financial and physical responsibility for closure of
the frontage road.
d.
Note that states
that sanitary sewer improvements will be provided per approval of the City
Utility Department. Any easements, benefit districts, etc. will be decided at that
time.
3.
Public
Improvement Plans for utilities, sidewalks, traffic calming devices along
4.
The Final Plat can not be recorded until a special assessment benefit
district or districts for the improvement of
5.
Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the
Subdivision Regulations.
6.
Submittal of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Harris then moved to add
this topic to the August Planning Commission Mid-Month meeting.
Harkins stated he believed
there were two separate issues. One is condition 3 in the Staff Report which
would be required in advance. The other issue is the concept of staging a large
development. Two points of view were presented,
the first being that if it is a large plat it has to be built out. The other is that you file a large plat so
everyone knows what is going on and then you build it in stages. Harkins questioned if that is an issue and if
there is an agreement which way it should be done.
Haase stated Harkins
brought up a legitimate issue that boils down to defining the function of a
phasing plan. Haase’s preference is to
receive a large scale plat accompanied by a
phasing plan which also includes a public improvements phasing
plan. Haase feels this satisfies what
the development community wants and what he heard Staff represent as a concern
of the City.
Harkins asked if this item
was put on Mid-Month agenda and the Planning Commission makes a decision regarding
the best direction to take, could it be forwarded to the consultants to ensure
the issue is addressed.
Eichhorn stated the
Planning Commission can always make a recommendation.