PC Minutes

07/24/06

ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR MERCATO ADDITON 1^ST PLAT; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 & EAST OF HIGHWAY K-10 (MKM)

PF-06-15-06:  Final Plat for Mercato Addition 1^st Plat, North of Highway 40 & East of Highway K-10. This proposed residential lot contains approximately 49.995 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Kentucky Place, LC, property owner of record.

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 9^th 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 13^th, 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, 1^st 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. 6^th 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 Overland Drive to the north property line, when Overland Drive is constructed.

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 Graycliff Drive, improvements to K-10 frontage road and other improvements must be submitted to Public Works Department before final plat can be recorded.

4. The Final Plat can not be recorded until a special assessment benefit district or districts for the improvement of George Williams Way from West 6^th Street to the north boundary line of the Final Plat, including intersection improvements at West 6^th Street, has been successfully established.

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.