Planning Commission

SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015 7:00 P.M. SPRING HILL CIVIC CENTER 401 N. MADISON – ROOM 15 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA FORMAL ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes: April 2, 2015 2. Public Hearing – Rezoning Case No: Z-01-15 Request: C-2 General Business to P-O Protective Overlay Address: 21901 Victory Rd. Applicant: Kim Thompson, TKT Properties 3. Public Hearing – Rezoning Case No: Z-02-15 Request: C-2 General Business to P-O Protective Overlay Address: 116 S. Main St. and 118 S. Main St. Applicant: Kelly Ashton & Jeff Seib, The Creative Place LLC 4. Establish alternate date for the July 2, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting DISCUSSION 5. Fence Regulations 6. Regulations regarding the outside display of merchandise in Commercial Districts 7. Capital Improvement Projects (Citizen’s Proposal Form) REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF 8. Planning & Zoning Commissioners Workshop on May 13, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. located at the MARC Conference Center, 600 Broadway, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64105 Topic: Effective Meetings: Response to Common Citizen Concerns ADJOURN  PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 1. Chairperson opens the public hearing. 2. Commission members describe what, if any, ex-party contacts they might have had regarding this case; indicating the nature of the communication and whom it was with. 3. Commission members describe what, if any, conflicts of interest they may have and dismiss themselves from the hearing. 4. Staff presents a report and comments regarding the case. 5. Applicant or agent of the applicant makes brief presentation of the case or request. 6. Commission members ask for any needed clarification of the applicant or agent. 7. Public comments are solicited from the audience. Each member of the audience must fill out a Citizen Participation/Comment Form. 8. Commission members ask for any further clarifications from applicant or staff. 9. Public Hearing is closed. 10. Members deliberate the request. 11. 14-day Protest Period begins after the Planning Commission Public Hearing is closed. * * Protest Petitions: Any protest petition must be filed in the Office of the Spring Hill City Clerk within 14 days from the conclusion of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. Sample copies of protest petitions may be obtained from the City Clerk Office at 401 N. Madison, Spring Hill, KS 66083 (913-592-3664).  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION City of Spring Hill, Kansas Minutes of Planning Commission Regular Session April 2, 2015 A Regular Session of the Planning Commission was held in the Spring Hill Civic Center, 401 N. Madison, Room 15, Spring Hill, Kansas on April 2, 2015. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Mitchell presiding, and Christie Campbell, Planning Secretary recording. Commissioners in attendance: Troy Mitchell Brian Haupt Josh Nowlin Janell Pollom Stephen Sly Cindy Squire Commissioners absent: Tobi Bitner Michael Weber Staff in attendance: Jim Hendershot, Community Development Director Christie Campbell, Planning Secretary Public in attendance: Dena Cade ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll of the Planning Commissioners. With a quorum present, the meeting commenced. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Motion by Mr. Haupt, seconded by Ms. Pollom, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried 6-0-0 FORMAL ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes: February 4, 2015 Due to a lack of a quorum on March 5, 2015, no meeting was held; thus, no minutes were recorded. Motion by Ms. Squire, seconded by Mr. Mitchell, to approve the minutes as presented for February 4, 2015. Abstain by Mr. Nowlin, as he was not in attendance at the February 4, 2015 meeting. Motion carried 5-0-1 Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 1 of 6  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION 2. Public Hearing regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations designated “Spring Hill Unified Zoning Ordinance” addressing Cargo Container Storage and Cargo Container Maintenance Facilities and Cargo Container Use in individual zoning districts. Mr. Hendershot noted the changes to the definitions as highlighted in red in the Commissioners’ packet. Additional grammatical revisions will be made to definition #25, and definition #40 will be removed as it is a duplicate. It was also noted that definition #126 regarding semi-trailers has been refined as requested by Mr. Haupt. Mr. Hendershot noted that Section 17.328-MP Industrial Park Districts and Section 17.330.C M-1 General Industrial Districts under paragraph #5 that Cargo Container Storage Facilities and Cargo Container Maintenance Facilities are allowed uses with a Conditional Use Permit subject to the new Use Regulations outlined in Section 17.336.A.5. Mr. Hendershot reviewed Section 17.336.B noting that in any zoning district, permanent cargo containers are prohibited except where otherwise specified. Cargo containers shall not be modified or retrofitted for on-site habitation. Cargo containers shall be prohibited from having windows, heating and cooling, plumbing, or multiple entrances. Cargo containers are allowed to have electric and ventilation systems installed that would be necessary to meet the minimum codes and standards for lighting and air circulation for storage purposes. It was also noted that cargo containers are prohibited for use as an accessory building or as a component of an accessory building in AG, R-R, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-O, C-1 and C-2 districts. Cargo containers will only be allowed as an accessory use in Industrial MP and M-1 districts. Cargo containers that are already in place are classified as a non-conforming use. They are allowed as long as they stay in safe condition. If these pre-existing, non-conforming use cargo containers are removed, then they have 6 months to re-establish in the same location abiding by the original non- conforming use guidelines. It is Staff’s recommendation for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to go to the City Council on April 23, 2015. Chairman Mitchell formally opened the public hearing; with no comments presented, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Mr. Haupt, seconded by Mr. Sly, to approve the zoning ordinances with regards to Cargo Container Storage and Cargo Container Maintenance Facilities and Cargo Container Use with grammatical revisions by Staff. Roll Call Vote: Nowlin-Aye, Sly-Aye, Haupt-Aye, Mitchell-Aye, Pollom-Aye, Squire-Aye Motion Carried 6-0-0 Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 2 of 6  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION 3. Lot Split – Tom Beachner (LS-01-15) Beginning of Staff Report SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT Case #: LS-01-15 Meeting Date: April 2, 2015 Description: Proposed Lot Split Location: K7/US169 Highway north of 191st St. Applicant: Tom Beachner Engineer: Allenbrand-Drews & Associates Site Area: 26.25 Ac. Total: Lot 1 = 5.0 Ac., Lot 2 = 21.25 Ac. Minimum Lot Area: No minimum Current Zoning: M-1 General Proposed Use: Farm ground and Industrial industrial business Related Applications: None SITE LOCATION Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 3 of 6  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION Lot 1 Lot 2 191st St. K7/US169 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Tom Beachner, has submitted an application for a lot split for the 26.25 acre tract located on US169 Highway approximately ½ mile north of 191st Street. The existing drive to the property will be a common entrance to both properties and the applicant is aware of the future concept improvements along the highway. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is requesting a lot split to create two tracts with one being 5 acres and the second being 21.25 acres in area. Lot 1 will remain industrial in use and Lot 2 will remain vacant farm land. The property is currently zoned “M-1” General Industrial. The Subdivision Regulations of Spring Hill, Section 17.374 provides for the division of a tract of land or lot into not more than two tracts or lots without having to comply with the platting requirements described in Section 17.372. STAFF REVIEW Section 17.374.D of the Subdivision Regulations provides for the following review criteria for a proposed lot split: No lot or tract split shall be approved if one of the following applies: 1. A new street or alley is needed or proposed. 2. Such action will result in significant increases in service requirements or will interfere with maintaining existing service levels. 3. There is less street right-of-way than required by the Subdivision Regulations unless such dedication can be made a separate instrument. 4. All easement requirements have not been satisfied. 5. Such split will result in a tract without direct access to and less than 75 feet of frontage on a street. Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 4 of 6  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION 6. A substandard sized lot or parcel will be created according to the Subdivision Regulations or the Spring Hill Zoning Regulations. 7. The lot split does not have a plan on how it will be served by water and sanitary sewers. It is staff’s opinion that none of the items listed in 1-7 above apply to this application RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lot split application LS-01-15. End of Staff Report It was noted by Mr. Hendershot that the owner of this lot does understand that the entrance to this property could potentially be removed if the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) decides to modify US 169 Hwy. Motion by Ms. Squire, seconded by Ms. Pollom, to approve Lot Split (LS-01-15). Roll Call Vote: Squire-Aye, Pollom-Aye, Mitchell-Aye, Haupt-Aye, Sly-Aye, Nowlin-Aye Motion carried 6-0-0 DISCUSSION 4. Overview of 223rd Street Transportation Plan Mr. Hendershot presented a summary of the 223rd Street traffic study. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), the City of Spring Hill, and Miami County entered into a mutual agreement in November 2014 to partner on a study. This study included Columbia Road to Victory Road with particular emphasis on 223rd Street to include Webster Street, Old KC Road, and Harrison Street. HNTB is the on-call contractor for KDOT on the K-7 Management Program. This group was contracted to complete the 223rd Street traffic study. They analyzed all of the previous studies, along with the impact studies done by various subdivisions, particularly the Wilson Study in 2007. The current HNTB study is based on projected traffic growth to the year 2040. The committee included ten (10) different options, which was narrowed down to two (2) viable options during the Phase I analysis. More details will be published in the near future. 5. Review of Planning Commission ByLaws A general discussion of the Planning Commission ByLaws commenced with no formal action taken. Staff was requested by the Planning Commission to communicate with Mayor Ellis regarding consistency of expectations for all City boards and commissions. Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 5 of 6  THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND ARE NOT OFFICIAL MINUTES UNITL APPROVED BY THE SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS 6. Annual Review on Conditional Use Permit CU-01-14 (Ad Trend Off-Premise Billboard) Staff has reviewed the conditions placed on this CUP that was approved in 2014 and found the sign to be in compliance with the CUP. The next review date is February 27, 2016. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF Ms. Squire inquired about the status of playground equipment at Melvin Murry Park. Mr. Mitchell stated that Johnson County Parks and Recreation has a park in every JOCO municipality with the exception of Spring Hill. Mr. Mitchell asked about the status of the water tower rehab project. Per Mr. Hendershot, this project is still on schedule to begin soon. Mr. Sly inquired as to when the developer would begin breaking ground for the construction of the Blackhawk Apartments. Per Mr. Hendershot, the developer is working through financial applications with the City for benefit districts and will potentially break ground in the Summer of 2015. Planning Commissioners are invited to attend a meeting sponsored by MARC with a topic entitled “Effective Meetings: Response to Common Citizen Concerns”. This meeting will be held on May 13, 2015, starting at 6:30 p.m. at the MARC Conference Center. Please contact Christie Campbell, Planning Secretary, to confirm attendance and reservation. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the status of the organization, MARC, that is trying to connect all of the walking trails together in Johnson County. Mr. Hendershot stated that this project is still in the works with MARC. Mr. Hendershot shared that the annexation of the 100 acres north of the golf course will be submitted to the City Council on April 9th. The approval of this will allow the City to get the right-of-way dedicated, which will allow the City an access road to West Lake Park, which will in turn allow us to start the park project. Mr. Sly inquired about the status of Red Crow Brewing Company’s microbrewery opening date. It is scheduled to open in the Summer of 2015. Mr. Hendershot reported that two buildings have sold in the Spring Hill Historical District on Main Street. ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Nowlin, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Session Minutes April 2, 2015 Page 6 of 6  Agenda Item No. 2 SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING STAFF REPORT Case #: Z-01-15 Meeting Date: May 7, 2015 Description: Proposed Rezoning from C-2 to C-2 with P-O (Protective Overlay) Location: 21901 Victory Road Applicant: TKT Properties, Kim & Terry Thompson Engineer: N/A Current Zoning: C-2 Proposed Zoning: C-2 with P-O Site Area: 11,730 Sq. Ft. Number of Lots: 1 Current Zoning Existing Land Use Future Land Use Map Site: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. North: R-1 Commercial Mixed Use Comm South: R-1 Residential Mixed Use Comm. East: R-1 Residential Residential West: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. Proposed Use: Commercial with Residential Overlay SITE LOCATION  AREA PHOTO 21901 Victory AREA ZONING R-4 C-O 21901 Victory Rd. C-2 R-3 R-1 P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-01-15 staff report.doc  FUTURE LAND USE Residential 21901 Victory Rd. Mixed Use Commercial BACKGROUND: An application has been received for rezoning property located at 21901 Victory Road from C-2 (General Business) to C-2 with a P-O (Protective Overlay). Purpose of the rezoning is to continue the primary use of the building as commercial while providing an option for residential use on either the main floor or second floor. Location of the residence would be dependent on the commercial use of the building. Currently the building could be modified for an apartment on either level with minimal remodeling. PROTECTIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT – REVIEW: The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows residential uses in a commercial district upon approval of a “P-O” Protective Overlay district (Section 17.326.B.2). The “P-O” district may establish specific development standards for residential uses in the underlying “C-2” district, which is the existing zoning in the downtown area. The P-O district may be applied in combination with any base-zoning district. By tailoring use or property development standards to individual projects or specific properties, the P-O district is intended to: 1. Ensure compatibility among incompatible or potentially incompatible land uses; 2. Ease the transition from one zoning district to another; 3. Address sites or land uses with special requirements; and 4. Guide development in unusual situations or unique circumstances. P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-01-15 staff report.doc The P-O district can be used to modify and restrict the use and property development standards of an underlying base zoning district. All requirements of a P-O district are in addition to and supplement all other applicable standards and requirements of this Regulation. Restrictions and conditions imposed by a P-O district shall be limited to the following. 1. Prohibiting otherwise permitted or conditional uses and accessory uses; or making an otherwise permitted use a conditional use; 2. Decreasing the number or average density of dwelling units that may be constructed on the site; 3. Increasing minimum lot size or lot width; 4. Increasing minimum setback requirements; 5. Restrictions on access to abutting properties and nearby roads, including specific design features; and 6. Any other specific development standards required or authorized by this Regulation. REZONING: The review of the proposed rezoning is consistent with Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 584 P. 2d 130 (1978). 1. Consistent with purposes of the regulations and intent and purpose of the proposed district: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations regarding Protective Overlay Districts. 2. Neighborhood Character: As shown on the aerial photo above, the surrounding neighborhood is commercial and residential. 3. Zoning and uses of nearby parcels: As shown on the area zoning map above the surrounding neighborhood is a combination of commercial and residential zoning districts. 4. Requested because of changing conditions: Request is based on a business opportunity. 5. Suitability of parcel for uses restricted by the current zone: C-2 districts are available for most all general retail and service establishments. 6. Suitability of parcel for uses permitted by the proposed district: The parcel under consideration for rezoning is suitable for uses permitted in a C-2 district. 7. Detrimental Effect of Zoning Change: No detrimental effects are anticipated. 8. Proposed amendment corrects an error: No error is being corrected. P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-01-15 staff report.doc 9. Length of property has been vacant: This property has been occupied in the past with only minor interruptions in the occupancy rate. 10. Adequacy of facilities: All utilities are adequate and available to the property and the property is adequately suited for the proposed use. 11. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Mixed Use Commercial. This classification promotes a mixture of neighborhood-oriented office, retail-commercial, institutional, civic, and medium to high density residential uses through compatible site planning and site design. The use of the property as a commercial business with the implementation of an Overlay District is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. Hardship if application is denied: The applicant can better speak to hardships if the application is denied. 13. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of rezoning case Z-01-15 from C-2 (General Commercial) to C-2 with a P-O (Protective Overlay) for use as a commercial business with a one residential apartment. P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-01-15 staff report.doc  Agenda Item No. 3 SPRING HILL PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING STAFF REPORT Case #: Z-02-15 Meeting Date: May 7, 2015 Description: Proposed Rezoning from C-2 to C-2 with P-O (Protective Overlay) Location: 116 & 118 S. Main St. Applicant: The Creative Place, LLC – Jeff Seib Engineer: Studio 605, Leawood, KS Current Zoning: C-2 Proposed Zoning: C-2 with P-O Site Area: 7,048 Sq. Ft. Number of Lots: 4 Current Zoning Existing Land Use Future Land Use Map Site: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. North: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. South: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. East: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. West: C-2 Commercial Mixed Use Comm. Proposed Use: Commercial with Residential Overlay SITE LOCATION  AREA PHOTO 116 & 118 S. Main AREA ZONING 116 & 118 S. Main R-1 C-2 M-1 P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-02-15 staff report.doc  FUTURE LAND USE 116 & 118 S. Main Mixed-Use Comm. Residential BACKGROUND: An application has been received for rezoning 116 and 118 S. Main St. from C-2 (General Business) to C-2 with P-O (Protective Overlay). The two buildings will be used as a retreat center featuring educational activities, artistic training, human creative development meetings, workshops, conferences, seminars and related training activities or similar events and short term functions. The facility will include dedicated space for meetings and educational purposes, communal kitchen for personal food preparation and dining, bathroom and shower facilities and overnight sleeping areas for groups of generally unrelated individuals attending an event at the retreat center. The facilities are only for participants during the period of the retreat or program and are not designed or intended for use as a residence and not to be utilized by the general public for meals or overnight accommodations. Included with this packet you will find a written narrative and responses to zoning review criteria as prepared by the applicant. Notifications to area owners were mailed as required and a notice was published in the newspaper. To date no public comments have been received. PROTECTIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT – REVIEW: During the development of the Spring Hill Comprehensive Plan this area was designated mixed-use commercial to allow for residential uses in the downtown area. The Plan recommends preparing a comprehensive Town Core Master Plan for the area, which includes downtown and the Webster Corridor, to address issues such as market niche/opportunities, growth and development strategies, target development sites, parking, streetscape improvements, P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-02-15 staff report.doc financial incentives for development, and the adoption of new zoning and development regulations tailored specifically to the needs of this area. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allow residential uses in a commercial district upon approval of a “P-O” Protective Overlay district (Section 17.326.B.2). The “P-O” district may establish specific development standards for residential uses in the underlying “C-2” district, which is the existing zoning in the downtown area. The P-O district may be applied in combination with any base-zoning district. By tailoring use or property development standards to individual projects or specific properties, the P-O district is intended to: 1. Ensure compatibility among incompatible or potentially incompatible land uses; 2. Ease the transition from one zoning district to another; 3. Address sites or land uses with special requirements; and 4. Guide development in unusual situations or unique circumstances. The P-O district can be used to modify and restrict the use and property development standards of an underlying base zoning district. All requirements of a P-O district are in addition to and supplement all other applicable standards and requirements of this Regulation. Restrictions and conditions imposed by a P-O district shall be limited to the following. 1. Prohibiting otherwise permitted or conditional uses and accessory uses; or making an otherwise permitted use a conditional use; 2. Decreasing the number or average density of dwelling units that may be constructed on the site; 3. Increasing minimum lot size or lot width; 4. Increasing minimum setback requirements; 5. Restrictions on access to abutting properties and nearby roads, including specific design features; and 6. Any other specific development standards required or authorized by this Regulation. REZONING: The review of the proposed rezonings are consistent with Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 584 P. 2d 130 (1978). 1. Consistent with purposes of the regulations and intent and purpose of the proposed district: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations regarding Protective Overlay Districts. 2. Neighborhood Character: As shown on the aerial photo above, the surrounding neighborhood is commercial in the downtown area. P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-02-15 staff report.doc 3. Zoning and uses of nearby parcels: As shown on the area zoning map above the surrounding neighborhood is zoned C-2, General Commercial. 4. Requested because of changing conditions: Request is based on a business opportunity unique to the City of Spring Hill. 5. Suitability of parcel for uses restricted by the current zone: This area of Spring Hill is the core downtown and zoned C-2, General Commercial. Uses restricted by the current zone may be located in various areas of the community. However, C-2 districts are available for most all general retail and service establishments. 6. Suitability of parcel for uses permitted by the proposed district: The parcels under consideration for rezoning are suitable for uses permitted in a C-2 district. 7. Detrimental Effect of Zoning Change: No detrimental effects are anticipated. 8. Proposed amendment corrects an error: No error is being corrected. 9. Length of property has been vacant: This property has been occupied in the past with only minor interruptions in the occupancy rate. 10. Adequacy of facilities: All utilities are adequate and available to the property and the property is adequately suited for the proposed use. 11. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map identifies this area as Mixed Use Commercial. This classification promotes a mixture of neighborhood-oriented office, retail-commercial, institutional, civic, and medium to high density residential uses through compatible site planning and site design. The use of the property as a retreat center through the implementation of an Overlay District is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. Hardship if application is denied: This issue has been addressed by the applicant in the narrative provided with the application. 13. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of rezoning case Z-02-15 from C-2 (General Commercial) to C-2 with a P-O (Protective Overlay) for use as a retreat center with provisions for overnight accommodations for patrons of the facility only. P:\PLANNING\Christie\Boards\Planning Commission Data\2015 PC Agenda\050715\Z-02-15 staff report.doc  City of Spring Hill CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITIZEN’S PROPOSAL FORM NAME: _____________________________________ DATE: ____________________ ADDRESS: __________________________________ PHONE #: __________________ INSTRUCTIONS Please complete both pages of this form. It is not necessary to complete all of the information on this form. General project descriptions, project justification and estimates of costs are the basic items required. Additionally, it is helpful to suggest a potential funding source. City staff will contact you to discuss the recommended project in more detail. The City of Spring Hill appreciates your participation in this process. ITEM DESCRIPTIONS 1. Project Address/Location: Describe as best as possible the location of the proposed project. For example, give the address, name of street, name of intersection, name or park or whatever else would be helpful in describing the location of the project. If it is a citywide project, please enter “citywide.” 2. Project Descripction: Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. What is the source of the problem? How do you suggest fixing the problem? Attach any additional information (sketches, maps, etc.) that might be useful. 3. Project Justification: Describe the benefit of the proposed project. Will it address a safety issue (i.e., faulty playground equipment)? Will the project provide a cost savings to the city? Is it a functional improvement, such as a new off-street parking lot? Does it provide an aesthetic benefit to the city? 4. Construction Cost Estimate: Describe your best guess of what the approximate cost will be to construct/complete the project. This is only considered as a rough guideline; city engineering staff is responsible for projecting a refined construction cost and total project cost estimate for budgeting purposes. 5. Potential Source of Funding: The City uses a variety of sources to fund projects, including: ❑ Special Parks Fund ❑ Special Highway Gas Tax Funds ❑ Property Tax ❑ General Funds ❑ State or Federal Funds ❑ Private Funds Do you have any ideas regarding the potential funding source(s) for this project?  City of Spring Hill CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITIZEN’S PROPOSAL FORM 1. PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Attach any additional information - sketches, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 4. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE(S) ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________