[1. Call to Order of the Edmond Planning Commission.]
[00:00:05]
GENTLEMEN, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'LL CALL THE ORDER THE TUESDAY, JUNE 4TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[2. Consideration of Approval of Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes: May 21, 2024.]
ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, REGULAR MINUTE MEETING, MEETING MINUTES ON MAY 21ST, 2024.HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE AND ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE? SECOND, UH, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
UH, THAT BRINGS US TO OUR GENERAL CONSENT ITEM, WHICH IS, UH, THREE, A CASE NUMBER PR 24 DASH 0 0 0 0 4, A CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLAN FOR CARMEL VALLEY PLACE LOCATED NORTH OF SORGHUM MILL, WEST OF BROADWAY.
UH, I, I'M ASSUMING EVERYBODY'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, AND DO WE HAVE? I DID, BUT I CAN, I, I DO WANNA PULL IT TO DISCUSSION ITEM, IF THAT'S COOL.
WELL, WE WILL MOVE THAT DOWN TO ITEM FIVE.
[A. Case #Z24-00004 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single-Family to “PUD” Planned Unit Development for 321 West First Street, located on the north side of West First Street between Walnut and Fretz. (Hornbeek Architecture) (Ward 1)]
US TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEM FOUR, CASE NUMBER Z 24 DASH 0 0 0 0 4 PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION FOR A REZONING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 3 21 WEST FIRST STREET, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST FIRST STREET BETWEEN WALNUT AND FRETZ.AND I'VE ALREADY NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, SO WOULD YOU CARE TO PRESENT THAT? YES, SIR.
UM, AS INDICATED, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD TO ALLOW TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES.
YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION HERE ON THE SITE MAP.
THE SITE IS 16,250 SQUARE FEET AND IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS TWO LOTS, BUT ACTUALLY INCLUDES FOUR PLATTED LOTS FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAT.
THE PUD WILL ALLOW FOUR, FOUR DUPLEXES OR TWO DUPLEXES AND TWO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, UM, AT THE APPLICANT'S DISCRETION.
NEARBY ZONING AND USES ARE RESIDENTIAL AND INCLUDE BOTH SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND TWO FAMILY HOUSES.
THE PUD INCLUDES PARKING SPACES FOR THESE DWELLINGS, BOTH ANGLED AND ON STREET ALONG FIRST STREET AND OFF THE ALLEY.
A SIDEWALK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FIRST STREET.
THE EDMUND PLAN CATEGORIZES THIS LOCATION AS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ENVISIONS A VARIETY OF LIVING OPTIONS BETWEEN THE MORE INTENSE DOWNTOWN AREA AND LESS INTENSE SUBURBAN AREAS.
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD SUPPORT ACTIVE MOBILITY AND WALKABILITY.
HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? IF NOT, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER? THANK YOU, MARK.
I'M WITH HORNBY ARCHITECTS, AND THE OWNER IS ALSO HERE WITH ME.
WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND AND WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS? THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS IS, UM, 1,250 SQUARE FEET AND THEY'RE UM, THEY ARE THREE BEDROOM UNITS.
ALRIGHT, WELL I'D LOVE TO SEE THE PLANS FOR THOSE, BUT ANYWAY, OKAY.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY RELEVANT QUESTIONS? UH, IF NOT, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? OKAY.
DO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A SECOND.
UH, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY AKA VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 24TH.
[B. Case #PR23-00017 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Preliminary Plat for Honeyfield, located on the southeast corner of Kelly and Covell. (Honeyfield Development LLC) (Ward 1)]
US TO OUR NEXT ITEM, MARK.IF YOU'RE SERIOUS, I'LL GET YOU A SET OF THE PLANS.
SORRY, THAT ONE
MR. BRIAN, IF YOU'D PLEASE PRESENT THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COVELL AND KELLY, THE AREA SHOWN HERE ON THE MAP, THE SITE LOCATION INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES OF THE KELLY CORNER, PUD, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN APRIL OF 2023.
THIS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES PARCEL AREAS 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR FROM THE PUD.
[00:05:01]
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT INCLUDES FIVE LOTS.THEY RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2.3 TO 13.5 ACRES.
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWS FOUR POINTS OF ACCESS, TWO ON KELLY, TWO ON COVEL.
THESE ACCESS POINTS ARE SHOWN TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING DRIVES OR ROADS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF EACH ARTERIAL RESPECTIVELY.
A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
IT SHOWS THAT AT FULL BUILD OUT A NEW SIGNAL MAY BE WARRANTED AT COVELL AND SHORTGRASS.
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT SHOW ANY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AT THIS TIME.
THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT SUBDIVISION RULES AND THE APPROVED PUD CURRENT CODE REQUIRES 100 FEET NEAR ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS AND 90 FEET ELSEWHERE.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT A DEVIATION OF THIS DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF COULD SUPPORT A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF DEDICATED RIGHTWAY AS FOLLOWS, 90 FEET WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE INTERSECTIONS AND 80 FEET ELSEWHERE.
NEXT, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWS PUBLIC STREETS THAT DO NOT STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE CITY'S STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS IN TERMS OF TRAVEL LANE WIDTH AND ON STREET PARKING.
WHILE THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION IS NOT COMMON IN EDMOND STAFF IS CONTINUED TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION AND IS CONFIDENT THAT IT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE STAFF REPORT THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
AND THAT IS A, JUST AN INCIDENT OF THE CONTINUED EVALUATION OF, OF, UH, WHAT IS GONNA BE, UH, FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AND HAS A, A DEVELOPMENT WITH A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND IS SOMETHING WE'RE EXCITED TO SEE BUT ISN'T ISN'T TYPICAL OF, OF, UH, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING.
SO HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, UM, AS SO LONG AS WE CAN KIND OF WORK OUT THOSE, THOSE TWO ITEMS RELATED TO RIGHT AWAY AND THE, UH, THE INTERNAL STREETS.
SO MR. BRIAN, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO IN REGARD TO THE, UH, NARROWER STREETS, THE, THE CITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS BELIEVING THAT THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT, IT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, BUT IN REGARD TO THE, UH, VARIANCES ON THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, WE STILL HAVE NOT REACHED SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS NECESSARILY COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT YOU'RE WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND ACCOMMODATE THEM AND POTENTIALLY ALLOW IT TO PROCEED TO COUNSEL IF WE SEE FIT TO DO THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OR BOTH VARIANCES? WELL IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY VARIANCES THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN RESOLVED.
AND SO, AND, AND I I BELIEVE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION LATE LAST WEEK THAT WAS, UM, POST THAT WAS AFTER THE AGENDA HAD BEEN FINALIZED AND POSTED.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THAT SPECIFIC ITEM.
IN TERMS OF THE INTERNAL STREETS, UM, YEAH, BEING SLIGHTLY NARROWER THAN THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED AND IN FACT MAY BE, UM, APPROPRIATE ELSEWHERE.
WE KNOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS NEED SOME ATTENTION AND, UM, THERE'S A, A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT COMING SOON TO ADDRESS THOSE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTION OF STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? SEEING NONE, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD CARE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND PERHAPS BRING US UP TO SPEED ON WHERE WE ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE RIDEAWAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, TODD MCINNIS, UH, CLAY HOLD IRON AND I ARE BOTH HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SAWYER FAMILY.
UH, JUST ONE THING, UH, KEITH WAS ON THE CALL WITH US.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS AGREEMENT THAT THIS, THE AREA THAT IS OUR LARGEST LOT ALONG COVEL IS THAT 2 2 2, UH, THAT IS RIGHT BELOW THE WORD HONEY FIELD.
THAT LARGE LOT THAT'S RIGHT THERE, UH, THAT'S OVER 500 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION AND I BELIEVE THERE'S RESOLUTION THAT THAT'LL BE A 75 FOOT RIGHT AWAY AT, IN FRONT OF FRONTING THAT NORTH BOUNDARY OF PARCEL TWO.
UH, KEITH WAS ON THE CALL, STEVE LAWRENCE WAS ON THE CALL.
UH, AND THAT WAS WHAT I BELIEVE WE RESOLVED BEFORE WE GOT OFF THE CALL, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THAT ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE.
UH, AND, AND THEN WE'RE AGREEABLE FOR ACCEPTING ALL THE OTHER YEAH.
I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PRIVATE STREET PUBLIC STREET ISSUE BECAUSE THAT CAME UP DURING OUR CONVERSATION AS WELL AS A COUPLE OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO STORMWATER.
UH, BUT WITH RESPECT TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S IN THE MEMO, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 75 FOOT RIGHT AWAY IN NORTH OF PARCEL TWO.
WE, WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT I THINK ENGINEERING, I BELIEVE IS UH, AGREEABLE TO THAT.
ENGINEERING IS AGREEABLE TO THE 75 A FOOT ON THAT TRACK TOO.
WITH THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL.
BRADY, CAN I ASK YOU REAL QUICK, SO ON KELLY, YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO THAT CHANGE AS WELL? YES, SIR.
IN THIS AREA WE NEED ENOUGH FOR THE LANES AND WIDENING AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT THE AREA'S PRETTY FLAT, SO WE DON'T NEED A LOT FOR, UH, SLOPING OUTSIDE THE ROADWAY TO TIE
[00:10:01]
BACK INTO NATIONAL GRADE BECAUSE THE AREA'S PRETTY FLAT, WHICH GIVES US SOME, ALLOWS TO BE ABLE TO MAYBE REDUCE THAT DOWN TO WHAT WE REDUCED WHAT WHAT WE HAVE THERE IS ENOUGH TO SERVE ALL OUR FUTURE PROJECT PROJECTIONLOAD AND UNLOAD AND ALL THAT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT WASN'T ALL INCLUDED IN THE MEMO? WHY IT WAS PRESENTED THIS WAY AT THE TIME? THIS WAS WHAT WAS AGREED TO DURING, WAS THAT WHERE WE WERE AT ON WHEN THE MEMO MEMO WAS GENERATED? THERE WAS CONVERSATION FRIDAY.
THAT WAS AFTER THE MEMO WAS ALREADY COMPLETED THAT THIS DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE AND THE AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN STAFF AND THAT CAN COME TO BE, UH, COMMISSIONER WINTER I, I MIGHT MENTION, AND THE BURDEN MIGHT BE ON ME A LITTLE BIT, WHEN, WHEN WE SAW THE MEMO, IT UH, RAISED A COUPLE ISSUES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE, WE DIDN'T, WE THOUGHT WERE RESOLVED AND THEY WEREN'T.
SO I REACHED OUT TO, UH, RANDY ENTZ AND ASKED HIM IF HE COULD GET A MEETING PUT TOGETHER AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND WITH, AND THEY DID AND ENGINEERING WAS FANTASTIC.
UH, AND WE GOT ON THE CALL FRIDAY MORNING AT 10 OR 10 30 AND IDENTIFIED THINGS THAT WERE COMING OUT OF ENGINEERING FROM DIFFERENT EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS FROM DIFFERENT, UH, STAFF PEOPLE.
UH, AND SO IT'S LIKE, HEY, LET'S TRY TO GET ALL THIS ON.
AND IT WORKED OUT REALLY WELL.
STEVE LAWRENCE LED THE CALL AND IT'S LIKE, HEY, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND SO LET'S UH, WORK THROUGH THOSE TOGETHER.
AND UH, STEVE REFERENCED THAT KEITH WOULD BE HERE OF COURSE TONIGHT, BUT I THINK IT WAS JUST THE MAGNITUDE OF ALL THE THINGS MOVING AROUND WITH RESPECT TO THIS, UH, PLAT, IT'S PRETTY INVOLVED.
I MEAN IT'S 55 ACRES AND, AND I NEVER HAD EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT BUS PULLOUT LANES UNTIL I HEARD IT ON THE CALL FRIDAY MORNING.
AND SO THIS IS ONE OF OUR MOST FULLY DEVELOPED INTERSECTIONS IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF EDMOND.
I MEAN 33RD AND BROADWAY MAYBE IS MORE, BUT WE GOT TWO L LEFT HAND TURN LANES GOING EVERY DIRECTION.
UH, WE'VE GOT TRAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET.
AND SO IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF KIND OF BRINGING ALL THAT TOGETHER.
AND THEN WHERE WOULD THAT BE? FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY MENTIONED THE BUS TURNOUT LANE, IT'S LIKE, WELL, IT'S GOTTA BE OFF THE CORNER, BUT WHERE AND HOW DO WE MANAGE OUR TURN LANES IN AND OUT OF OUR PROPERTY? SO IT WAS JUST A CONCERTED EFFORT AMONGST THE STAFF AND, AND CLAY AND OUR TEAM.
JUST KIND OF THE TIMING WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT TIGHT.
SO OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE IN HERE, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING THAT EXCEPT FOR THE 75 FOOT ALONG KELLY? OR WHAT, WHAT DID WE DIDN'T DISCUSS SEVEN, FIVE FEET ALONG KELLY DID WE WELL YOU SAID 75 AT THE AREA, BUT IS THAT PAST THE 500 FEET? THE ONLY THAT WAS ON VALE.
SO THAT COMMISSIONER GLENDALE, THE SPOT THAT IS JUST WEST OF SHORT GRASS AND I, MY, I HAVE A POINTER BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING UP ON THE BOARD.
YEAH, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT THAT IS THE AREA RIGHT ABOVE NUMBER TWO.
SO THE, THE STUFF, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT WAS PROVIDED IN OUR PACKET.
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE, IS THAT, WHAT IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE MEETING? MY DOCUMENT HAS EIGHTIES CROSSED OUT AND 75 FILLED IN WHERE IT SAYS COWELL ROAD 80 FEET.
I CROSSED OUT ROAD 75 ON MINE, BUT IT SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PARTIAL TWO ONLY.
WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT IS THAT WE WOULD DROP, WE WOULD VARY FROM WHAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT ONLY ON TRACK NUMBER TWO AND TRACK NUMBER TWO WOULD GO TO A 75 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.
OTHER THAN THAT, THE STAFF REPORT IS CORRECT OTHER THAN FOR TRACK TWO.
UH, DO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND THEN HOW DO WE IS WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE INTERNAL ROADS, WHEN ARE, I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE PASS IT ALONG? IS IT WE APPROVE, IS SUBJECT TO CITY STAFF AND FINALIZING THERE? THEY AGREE TO THAT OR WHAT, WHAT, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE INTERNAL.
I THINK WE'VE COME TO RESOLUTION ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.
WHAT ABOUT THE INTERNAL STREETS? 'CAUSE I'S, SO I, I, I WOULD, I THINK I CAN REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF CLAY, WE'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE STAFF MEMO BECAUSE WE HAD FOLLOW UP COMMUNICATION EVEN TODAY, UH, WITH UH, THE PLANNING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PRIVATE PUBLIC STREET ISSUE.
AND IT IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WE, WE DO HAVE CHANGES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT PER SE TODAY.
WE'RE PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THE DIALOGUE WE HAVE GOING ON.
AND THERE I BELIEVE BASED UPON WHAT, UH, WHAT CITY STAFF HAS INDICATED, AS WELL AS THE DETERMINATION PERHAPS FOR THE STREET WIDTH AND HOW THEY'RE WORKING IS SOMETHING THE CITY'S LOOKING AT.
ADDITIONALLY, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE CHANGES, THEY BELIEVE THAT IT POTENTIALLY COULD WORK AND, AND, UH, DO THAT, UH, RUNNING THE NARROWER STREETS.
HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE WAY THE CITY'S BEEN OR WE'VE BEEN APPROVING THINGS, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY DO IT, IT WILL STILL POTENTIALLY BE PRESENTED AS A VARIANCE FOR CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE HAPPY TO GO ANYWAY BECAUSE OF OUR VARIANCE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, SO CORRECT.
[00:15:02]
YEAH.UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ANYTHING FURTHER TO BE ADDED ABOUT THE APPLICANT? I'LL, I'LL MENTION ONE OTHER THING JUST TO PLANT THE SEED 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA COME IN LATER.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST OF US, UH, THERE'S A STUB OUT THAT COMES FROM THE EAST INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT AND WE HAD NOT A CONTENTIOUS ZONING, UH, BUT THE FAMILY, I MEAN THE, THE NEIGHBORS WERE REPRESENTED AND THEY DID NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF CONNECTIVITY BECAUSE OF SOME COMMON AREA ELEMENTS THEY HAVE IN THOMAS TRAILS.
UH, AND SO WE TOLD THEM AT THE TIME, AND YOU'LL, I'M SAYING IT TODAY JUST 'CAUSE YOU'RE HEARING ME SAY IT AGAIN.
WHEN WE COME IN WITH THE REST OF IT, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT DOWN HERE ROUGHLY.
WELL, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT REALLY LIKE CONNECTIVITY.
WELL, I'M, AND SO I, I'M GONNA REMIND YOU WHAT WE SAID AT THAT TIME, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THE REST OF OUR PARCEL.
UH, WE TOLD THE NEIGHBORS GIVEN OUR WORD, HEY, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT WE WILL TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
BUT STAFF AND THE POLICY OF THE CITY MAY REQUIRE CONNECTIVITY.
SO I'M GONNA SAY THAT EVERY TIME WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH RESPECT TO THIS 150 ACRE PARCEL BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS WERE WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH, BUT THEY DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO CONNECTIVITY IN THEIR PARKS AND SOME OTHER ISSUES.
SO, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC STREETS OR PUBLIC STREETS AND CONNECTIVITY IS IMPORTANT FOR FIRE SAFETY AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER REASONS AND THE WALKING ELIMINATION OF EXCLUSIVITY IN ANYWAY.
BUT, UH, OTHER PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE WITH ME.
WELL SOME PEOPLE MIGHT EVEN HAVE BASKETBALL GOALS ON THE PUBLIC STREETS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THOUGH THAT'S RELEVANT HERE.
UH, ANYTHING FURTHER BY THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO TELL US WHY THIS IS A TERRIBLE PROJECT OR SPEAK FOR IT? SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE? ARE WE HAVING TO APPROVE IT WITH SUBJECT TO WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH THE STAFF WITH THOSE FIVE? MOTION, MOTION TO APPROVE IS REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO AND IT WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON FI, I'M SORRY, 6 24 AS WELL.
[A. Case #PR24-00004 Consideration of the Final Plat for Carmel Valley Place, located north of Sorghum Mill Road, west of Broadway. (Stephen Grimes) (Ward 4)]
BRINGS US BACK TO WHAT WAS ITEM THREE A AND HAS NOW BECOME ITEM THREE A TO BE HEARD UNDER ITEM FIVE FOR DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL CONSENT ITEM, CASE NUMBER PR 24 DASH 0 0 0 0 4 CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR CARMEL VALLEY PLACE.THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL RESIDENTIAL PLAT NORTH OF SORGHUM MILL, WEST OF BROADWAY AT THE END OF CARMEL VALLEY PLACE.
AS SHOWN HERE, UH, THE FINAL PLAT CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT, WHICH UM, WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN LATE 2023.
UM, THE ZONING, UM, WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THAT IN, UM, IN THE FALL OF 2023.
UM, AND JUST TO RECALL, THE PLAT UM, INCLUDES THREE LOTS ON THESE 2.3 ACRES.
HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO THE REASON I PULLED IT IN THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ON MY DRIVE HERE, ONE OF THE HOA MEMBERS OF OAK TREE CALLED AND NO ONE COULD MAKE IT.
UM, LAST MINUTE EVERYONE'S OUTTA TOWN, BUT, AND I HAVEN'T GOT TO, I DON'T HAVE MY IPAD AND I DIDN'T BRING MY FULL PACKET SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO READ THROUGH, BUT THEY SAID THERE WAS A PORTION OF IT THAT SAID THAT THERE WAS COMMON AREA THAT WAS AT THAT POINT WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE HOA AND THE HOA WASN'T ASKED IF THEY WANTED THAT.
AND THE HOA DOES NOT WANT THAT COMMON AREA.
THEY DON'T WANT THE UPKEEP ON IT.
AND SO IF THAT IS INCLUDED, THEN THE HOA OF OAK TREE IS AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.
I, AND FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT THAT QUESTION BE PROBABLY FOR THE APPLICANT.
A I'M MAX MORRIS WITH MACARTHUR.
I'M REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER ON THIS PROJECT.
AND REASON FOR THE COMMON AREA IS, UH, DETENTION ONSITE, STORMWATER DETENTION IS REQUIRED.
AND I DID WORK WITH ENGINEERING TO SEE IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, UH, HAVE SOME SORT OF CREDIT, UH, WITH THE EXISTING PONDS ELSEWHERE WITHIN DEVELOPMENT.
BUT BASED ON THE HYDROLOGY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A AREA FOR DETENTION STORMWATER RUNOFF.
AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE ADDED THAT IN, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T INCLUDED THAT.
SO IS IT THE, IS IT YOUR INTENT TO, UH, PERHAPS AS, UH, THE OTHER PARTIES BELIEVE BURDEN THEM WITH THE UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE FOR THAT COMMON AREA? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT UH, YOU ALL WILL BE TAKING CARE OF AND PROVIDING FOR ON YOUR OWN?
[00:20:02]
UM, WELL IT'S, I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE FRAMED IN A WAY TO WHERE IT WOULD BE THE MAINTENANCE OF I, YOU KNOW, I JUST DUNNO HOW THAT WOULD WORK EXACTLY.IF IT WAS JUST THOSE THREE LOTS THAT WERE, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT.
UM, SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IT ULTIMATELY, I THINK ALL OF THESE, THESE LOTS WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE HOA PAYING DUES INTO THE SUBDIVISION.
AND SO I GUESS IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBDIVISION WOULD, UH, ULTIMATELY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE OF THAT COMMON AREA.
BUT I HAVEN'T FULLY FLESHED THAT OUT YET, OBVIOUSLY.
AND I IT HASN'T BEEN A DISCUSSION UP TO THIS POINT.
SO, UM, WHO'S TAKING CARE OF IT NOW? WHO'S, WHO'S MOWING IT? WHO'S, OH, THE LOT AS IT IS CURRENTLY? UM, THE GOLF COURSE.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CURRENTLY MOWING IT AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T WANNA MOW IT.
CURRENTLY THEY'RE BUYING BUT NOT THE HOA THEY TWO DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP, I THINK.
I THINK WHAT THE HOA IS MORE WORRIED ABOUT IS, UH, THE COMMON AREA DETENTION POND.
AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT ONCE THEY'VE SOLD IT.
TYPICALLY, UH, WITH MOST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF AN AGREEMENT, UH, WHATEVER DETENTION YOU PUT IN, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
UNLESS YOU DON'T PAY THE TAXES ON IT, THEN IT BECOMES THE COUNTIES AND THEN THEY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT IT, YEAH, IT'S THE, IT'S A STRIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE GOLF COURSE.
SO IT'S A STRIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO IF THE GOLF COURSE DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF IT, THE HOA DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO GET TO IT.
IT'S A DETENTION AREA? YEAH, IT'S A DETENTION AREA.
AND SO THE HOA JUST SAYS, WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT THAT.
AND WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND THEY DON'T, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT ON ANY OF THE REST OF THE, THE GOLF COURSE HOUSES.
WELL THAT'S 'CAUSE THEIR STORM WATERS ARE TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THEIR PLANTS.
THIS IS A NEW STORMWATER PROBLEM.
RIGHT? THIS IS THREE NEW LOTS.
IT'S RIGHT ON THE, THIS IS BASIC, ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT A DEVELOPMENT, SO YOU OWN RULES AND IT'S RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TOO.
AND THE EXISTING LAND WAS UNDEVELOPED.
SO, UM, I SUPPOSE I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, UH, DISCUSS OR I DON'T KNOW IF WE CONTINUE TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE OR, UM, IF THE HOA DOESN'T WANT TO, UH, MAINTAIN THAT.
UM, WELL, I MEAN OF US VOTING ON AND APPROVING IT, IT DOESN'T OBLIGATE ANYBODY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
I GUESS IT WOULD JUST POTENTIALLY PUT YOU ALL IN A WONDERFUL, CONTENTIOUS SITUATION CORRECT.
WHERE YOU ALL COULD LITIGATE IT BETWEEN IT JUST BECOMES A PROBLEM.
I, I MEAN I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
UH, I, I CAN GET WITH THE OWNER.
UM, HE LIVES JUST RIGHT THERE AS WELL AND HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE HOA, SO WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
AND I MEAN, MR. BRIAN, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD POTENTIALLY GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THIS OR DO YOU THINK AND TO GET THAT RESOLVED? OR SHOULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER IT AND HOPE THEY HAVE IT WORKED OUT BEFORE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CALLING FOR A VOTE.
THAT IS CONTINUED BY A VOTE OF FIVE.
AND THAT WILL BE BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THAT BRINGS US TO A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.