Planning Commission

November 25, 2013 The Russellville Planning Commission will hold its Regular Meeting on Monday, November 25, 2013, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. A request to review and approve the minutes of the October 28, 2013 Regular Meeting. 2. A request to review and approval to close a portion of West “C” Street located at the corner of West “C” and North Inglewood (close West “C” Street between Blocks “C” and “G” of Clay Addition to the City of Russellville), submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Bruce Brown and Carl Duesterbeck. (ST.13.04.73) 1  Russellville Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2013 @ 5:30 p.m. The Russellville Planning Commission met in its regular meeting on Monday, November 25, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. in the Russellville City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present Chairman Dennis Boyd Vice-Chair Nick Patel Secretary Aldona Standridge Jimmy Davenport Richard Perkins Eric Westcott Jimmy Sims Herschell Hargus Members Absent Mike Wilkins Also present: Council Liaison Richard Harris, Mayor Bill Eaton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, Planning Assistant Lequitta A. Jones, Building Official Brian Holstein, Fire Marshall Richard Setian, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates, Tony Jetton, and Ron Rispoli. The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the October 28, 2013, Regular Meeting. Secretary Sims made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davenport and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a request to review and approve the closure of a portion of West C Street, located at the corner of West C and North Inglewood (West C Street between Blocks C and G of Clay Addition to the City of Russellville), submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Bruce Brown and Carl Duesterbeck. (ST.13.04.73) Planner Harris said the portion of West C that is subject of this proposal runs from Inglewood to the middle of the next block, where it dead-ends at the rear privacy fence of a house that fronts on Houston. There is an existing single family dwelling that blocks continuation of this street further east, and there is no additional right-of-way beyond the dead-end. No issues have been raised as to why this proposal couldn’t be seriously considered for approval. Mr. Jim Lynch with City Corp said he has no issue with the closing. Commissioner Westcott said he could see no advantage for the City to retain a dead-end alley. Mr. Westcott moved to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel and passed on a 6 – 1 vote, with Patel, Standridge, Sims, Hargus, Westcott, and Davenport voting for and Perkins voting against. The Third Order of Business / Late Agenda Item: A request to review and approve the amended Overland Park Preliminary Plat to the City of Russellville, located between Brookside Addition to the north, Brookview Estates to the east, Camelot along the west, and West 12th Street along the south of the property, submitted by Dave Garza of Barrett & Associates on behalf of Overland Park Developer, LLC. (SD.13.08.266) Chairman Boyd said the amended plat was submitted via e-mail earlier in the afternoon and he did not see it until about an hour before the meeting, and so had not had a chance for a thorough review. The chairman said he had listened to the City Council deliberations the other evening but wondered if other commissioners were aware of those deliberations and whether the commissioners had a chance to review the new plat. Mr. Boyd said one of the things the City Attorney mentioned at the council meeting was the need for adequate review before taking action. The chairman reiterated his concern that the commissioners had not had time to review the revised proposal adequately. He also voiced concerns that there might not have been adequate public notice. He noted that a property owner on the South Durant stub had called him after the City Council meeting to ask if the Planning Commission would be discussing this tonight and the chairman told him no. Mr. Boyd said he would feel bad if that property owner was not allowed to take part in the discussion because he was not in attendance. Planner Harris said this plat had been reviewed and acted on by the commission last month. The applicant proposed access at South Durant and at 12th. The final motion included the condition that an additional access point to the Camelot stub be connected. That motion passed unanimously. The applicant then went before the City Council to ask that their plat be approved “as submitted.” The council had a long discussion about the plat. Participating in the discussion were neighbors and homeowners. Mr. Garza suggested there might be an alternative street layout with two entrances on 12th Street and no access to either Durant or Camelot. At that point the Council voted to send the plat back to Planning Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Jetton came by my office this afternoon and requested that the amended plat be put on tonight’s agenda. Because it is not a brand new submittal and it is before you again at the direction of the council, I agreed to put it on the agenda for tonight. Commissioner Perkins moved to delay action until the next meeting so everyone would have a chance to adequately look at it and think about it. Commissioner Hargus seconded the motion. Chairman Boyd asked Commissioner Perkins if he would be open to a Special Called Meeting. Mr. Garza said if it doesn’t go though they would like to go to the City Council and I think both are going to be early next month. Commissioner Perkins said as far as he was concerned they can take it back to the City Council. Mr. Perkins said I don’t intend to vote on it until we have a chance to look at it and think about it. Mr. Jetton said Councilman Harris suggested the design we have presented tonight. We apologize for the late arrival. We could not get the drawing together until today, so we asked City Planner Harris if he could put this on the agenda tonight. Commissioner Perkins asked if the City Engineer had changed his mind on anything and said he would like to hear from him at the next commission meeting after we all have a chance to look at it. They can take it back to the City Council; that is their right. Mr. Jetton said we cannot take this new proposal back to the City Council until the Planning Commission reviews it. City Engineer Oakes said he thought it appropriate that commissioners vote first on whether or not to hear this matter tonight. The city staff needs time to review the new plan. As the City Attorney said, you should not act if you have not had an adequate chance to see the alternative 2 display. The citizens on both sides of this issue have been attending all of our meetings, yet none are here tonight. We have seen 20 to 30 show up to observe the meetings and be heard on this matter. With no notice, they have no opportunity to attend. Finally, again I support the idea of delaying this on behalf of the administration. There is a lot of staff work that goes into looking at these considerations. I have plans over the next weeks; people that I want to talk to about the issue involved in this who have become more familiar with it. Obviously I would not have time to do that if you take action tonight. Finally, while I am not questioning anybody’s motives, it is a mistake to bring the amended proposal forth in this manner. We need to let people have time to review these important matters that will have, in some cases, decades-long implications. Ron Rispoli, a resident of Brookside Subdivision, commented on the proposed change presented at the City Council meeting for two accesses off 12th Street rather than through adjoining neighborhoods. Mr. Rispoli said during the discussion the other night the idea of having a grid system within the City interconnected was presented as though that it was a regulatory requirement. Mr. Rispoli said he had looked at the documents referenced during that discussion and they are all guidelines. Those guidelines also talk about interconnecting communities through the use of walkways and pathways. In the new plan, the developer recommends connecting with Camelot and Brookside with such walkways. If you are using the Comprehensive Plan and Master Street Plan as guidelines, then what they are proposing meets those requirements. Mr. Rispoli said he could not find a City Ordinance or State amendment that requires interconnection of the grid, though it was submitted the other night as if it was a “matter of fact.” Chairman Boyd said what they may have been referring to was the Land Subdivision and Development Code (LSDC). It requires integration with adjoining neighborhoods as a code requirement. Mr. Boyd said he agreed that the Comprehensive Plan was a guidance document. That determination was established during the Walmart Neighborhood Market deliberations. Mr. Boyd also agreed that the Master Street Plan was a guidance document. Mr. Boyd said the commission needs to take a thorough look at the LSDC to make sure that we do comply with that, or have a good reason if we do not. Mr. Rispoli said that was referenced the other night. Council Liaison Harris said he respects the commission’s thoughts about taking this matter for consideration and taking time for due diligence. He also appreciated Mr. Oakes’ comments about taking time to review this. However, the developer has gone back and forth between the City Council and Planning Commission several times. I do believe that we need to give Mr. Jetton prompt attention, whether it be a called meeting or whatever. Council Liaison Harris said I would hate for this to be at the end of December again before the Planning Commission meets, and then it would be mid-January before the City Council meets. That seems like a long time for this issue that has already been bounced back and forth. Commissioner Standridge said it is important that we do look at this. She voiced her concerns that the people in the neighborhood most affected by it were not present tonight. She advocated a Special Called Meeting, if possible. City Planner Harris asked the city attorney if it would be appropriate for Commissioner Perkins to consider amending his motion to just postpone action, rather than specifying that it be delayed 3 until the regular December meeting. Then, if the motion to postpone carried, there could be discussion as to when the commission might act on the amended plat. That way, commissioners would have a chance to call a special meeting if there was support to do so. Commissioner Perkins said he did not have a problem with not hearing it tonight and discussing whether a Special Called Meeting was in order, and when to have one. It is not going to be in a week. Mr. Hargus said with the different drawing I would like to see a letter justifying the changes. Mr. Garza said a letter was submitted with the drawings. For the benefit of any commissioners who had not had an opportunity to listen to the City Council deliberations on this issue, Chairman Boyd asked City Attorney Trey Smith to restate the reasons why he prevented the City Council from voting on the newly proposed two openings to West 12th Street. City Attorney Smith said at the Preliminary Plat stage, approval is by the Planning Commission. Because the plat acted on by the Commission was approved with the condition that the Camelot connection be made, the petitioner/developer asked the City Council to overrule the decision of the commission. If the petition/developer had gotten approval “as submitted,” the plat would have never gone to the City Council. Only final plats go to City Council. So, the developer petitioned the City Council to overrule and reinstate the plan as submitted. State Law is specific in that it is overruling the proposal as submitted. The plat that was submitted had an opening at Durant, no opening at Camelot and one opening on 12th Street. Thursday night, the developer came up with the plan that is before you now, which are two openings at 12th Street. That is not the plan “as submitted,” so technically it could not be heard by the council. It could only be heard at this body, which is why they sent it back and why it is before you today. Commissioner Hargus said the commission has had a meeting, held a discussion, and made a decision unanimously to approve the plat with the additional of the Camelot connection. Now the plat has been sent back from the City Council with no decision whatever, and saying 'here is the new plan- study that' or whatever. What they have done is they have changed the thing and sent it back to us to try to change our minds, but they haven’t given us any reasons. City Attorney Smith responded by noting that the petitioner took it to the City Council and the City Council asked this body to review the changes as submitted. That is why it’s here before you. Council Liaison Harris said he didn’t want to speak for the developer at all, but the impression he got on the City Council the other night was that the developer did sense that there was conflict with the neighbors on Camelot and Brookside and that the developer made these changes in response to that conflict. There is also a petition with 120 signatures opposing going just through Durant. The developer has made a good faith effort to try to appease those parties and still satisfy his needs and his concerns and he made that to the council. So when you say “why” Mr. Harris said that was the impression he got the other night for why the changes were made; again, trying to address the concerns of the citizens in the surrounding area. Mr. Dave Garza said we proposed to the City Council that we were looking for approval for the original plan. If they wanted to change the plat, then that was up to them. City Attorney Smith said they couldn’t do that without returning it to the Planning Commission first. 4 Commissioner Westcott said he was concerned that if we try to hurry this through in time for the December City Council meeting, the residents in that area won't have enough time to adjust their December schedules so that they can come to the meeting. We will be deciding something that will have 10, 20, 30, 50, maybe a hundred year impact on the people that live near there. Commissioner Westcott said he was all for doing what Commissioner Perkins said. Postpone until the next meeting and not have a Special Called Meeting. City Engineer Oakes said he would prefer two to three weeks to review. They are trying to rush this, and it is a very important decision. City Attorney Smith said this is a Preliminary Plat and if it is approved as submitted it’s done. If it is disapproved as submitted, then the petitioner has the option to appeal the decision to the City Council. Again, Commissioner Perkins moved to delay until the next regular scheduled Planning Commissioner meeting. Commissioner Hargus seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of five in favor (Hargus, Westcott, Davenport, Perkins, Boyd) and three against (Patel, Standridge, Sims). The December Planning Commission Meeting was set for December 16, 2013. Meeting Adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Dennis Boyd 5