06-14-1994 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
HELD TUESDAY, June 14, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Switzer at 7:30 p.m., followed by a moment of
silent meditation and the pledge of allegiance.
Alternate McKey was needed to form a quorum and the determination of a quorum was made.
PRESENT: Chairman Switzer, Members Jones, Landefeld, Alternate McKey, Planning
Director Wagner, Deputy Clerk King, and Clerk /Stenographer Lewis.
ABSENT: Vice - Chairman Bond, Members Miller, Rhodus, Swickerath, and Alternate Draia.
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of items A, B, and C. Alternate McKey requested moving item
C for discussion. Member Landefeld, seconded by Member Jones, moved to approve the
consent a. enda items A and B as .resented and lulled item C for a se . arate discussion and vote.
Motion carried 4 -0.
A. Minutes of the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 10,
1994.
B. Minutes of the Local Planning Agency Special Meeting of May 12, 1994.
THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
C. Prairie Lake Subdivision, Phases I & II, Final Subdivision Plans.
Alternate McKey presented a number of questions for Director Wagner to answer. (The
answers provided by Mr. Wagner are underlined.)
1. Mr. McKey requested an explanation on the waiver and the rain rate for the 25 year
storm: Director Wagner explained there had been a difference on how to compute
volume. The amount being discussed had been only 3/10 inch. It really did not affect
anything but staff had wanted to be consistent with the Code. The developer volunteered
to go along with the waiver.
2. Mr. McKey asked if a tree survey is included: Mr. McKey wanted the trees protected
and preserved in accordance with the Arbor ordinance and asked if the City could
negotiate with the developer to plant larger trees by the wall. Director Wagner said a
tree survey was not included. Most trees are in the relatively young 8" to 12" category.
When applying for individual building permits, the developer must provide a tree survey
for each building lot. As their grading plan would have destroyed a lot of trees, staff
had requested changes in their plan to minimize the amount of cut and fill on the site.
The developer has complied and the number has been dramatically reduced. He will
check with the developer to see if some of the smaller oaks can be transplanted by the
Planning and Zoning Conunission Regular Meeting
June 14, 1994
Ntw
wall. Chairman Switzer said every developer will preserve as many trees as possible.
It increases the market value of the property.
3. Mr. McKey asked if staff could negotiate moving some of the 3" or 4 "trees that are
being taken out for placement along the Clarke Road extension. Director Wagner said
he will check into that with the developer.
4. Mr. McKey asked if Prairie Dog Road is a collector street. Director Wagner said it
is called a sub - collector, a road that takes the traffic from inside the subdivision and out
to an arterial or collector. Whereas a collector arterial has a number of different projects
emptying into it. The only thing that empties, generally, into a sub - collector is the actual
traffic from that specific subdivision - sort of a hierarchy street, so additional paving
width/or right of way is not required on this street.
5. Mr. McKey asked if it is possible to split the road around the 24" trees at the roadway
entrance or divert the roadway to preserve the trees at Lots 106 and 107. Director
Wagner said from the grading that is necessary in that area, trees would be lost in any
case. It is also difficult to preserve a real large oak tree out in the middle of a roadway.
6. What amenities, such as tennis courts and basketball courts, are included in the 193
homes? Director Wagner said there will be two different recreation areas at either end
`''r"' of the retention pond. It is the option of the developer on what is provided. The
developer will still pay a park impact fee for those kinds of facilities. These are more
neighborhood oriented uses.
Member Jones, seconded by Member Landefeld, moved to support staff recommendation and
recommend that the Board of City Commissioners a. rove item C Prairie Lake Subdivision
Phases I and II, Final Subdivision Plans, as presented. Motion carried 4 -0.
NEW BUSINESS
WESMERE PUD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLANS (Public Hearing)
VILLAGES 10, 11, 12 and 13
Chairman Switzer said that while Village 10, 11, 12, and 13 were separate items, the four
projects are so closely interconnected that they will be discussed simultaneously. Planning
Director Wagner summarized the staff report of June 8, 1994. He explained that all four of
the villages were included within one approval. They are all a part of the overall Wesmere
PUD, located west of Maguire Road and north of Roberson Road. The staff report had listed
specifics on each of the villages. The developer is asking for approval of 157 additional lots in
the development. They are approved for a total of 724 dwelling units and have constructed 193
to date. They are still under the approved number of permitted number of units for the entire
project.
% 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 1994
The proposed phasing and proposed lot sizes within these villages vary slightly from those
originally depicted upon the Wesmere PUD Land Use Plan; however, these changes are
permitted under the development conditions of the PUD and do not represent an amendment to
the Plan. They are minor boundary changes and do not affect the densities or the general
approval of the Plan. Additionally, the project varies somewhat from current Land Development
Code requirements pertaining primarily to environmental buffers. Since the application of these
current requirements on the development would limit the ability of the developer to complete the
project as originally permitted, provisions within the Developer Agreement for the PUD take
precedence in such cases and permit the project to proceed based upon the approved Land Use
Plan.
Conversely, the developer was requested at this juncture to clarify the provision for adequate
recreation land within the project as called out in the Land Use Plan. Based upon a review of
the recreation lands already provided within the development, it was determined that the addition
of a 2.1 acre play area within Village 10 as well as a 0.5 acre passive park would bring the
plans into conformity with the requirement for a total 10.7 acres of recreation land within the
project. At the DRC meeting, the developer agreed to provide this land area as part of the
Village 10 development and incorporate it within the Final Subdivision Plans and Plat. The
three different villages have different character and range from 50 ft. to 75 ft. lots.
Chairman Switzer said, as this is a public hearing, he would like the developers to make their
%ay presentations.
John Rinehart, Planner of Glatting, Jackson, a planning firm for Wesmere, introduced Joe
DoBosh, Manager of Land Development, Miranda Fitzgerald, Attorney of Lowndes Drosdick
Doster Kantor & Reed, and Ray Bradick, Engineer of Bowyer - Singleton & Associates. He
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to bring the preliminary plans on Villages 10, 11, 12,
and 13 for commission review and consideration of the project. The developer had responded
to staff requests to look at recreational space. Through discussion with the community and staff,
the firm believed a solution had been reached on Village 6. Staff had recommended that Village
6 be developed as part of Village 10. Mr. Rinehart said that it is a timing issue (so it comes
in at an earlier point) as Village 6 is not before the commission for approval which is why it is
in Village 10. He suggested that the last word development in the staff recommendation be
changed to WI so the development of the 2.1 acre park occurs as part of Village 10 in the plat
rather than tying it down to the actual timing.
Mr. Rinehart responded to Chairman Switzer's question about the smaller lots and said the
plan had been approved in 1991 to include them. Mr. DoBosh clarified details on patio homes
which were detached with a 5 ft. side setback. Court yard areas are attached if 800 -900 square
feet.
3
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 1994
Ir
The public hearing was opened.
Ed Gamble, 4 Eaton Court, said an informal advisory group had met with Arvida in December
when plans were first revealed about the project. The group had concerns about recreational
space, playground equipment, quality landscaping, electronic gates, and reconsideration of 75 -85
ft. lot frontages. They were not happy about the 50 -60 ft. lots proposed for Villages 12 and 13.
The developer has worked with the advisory group and is pleased to say that they are happy with
the larger 75' lots in Villages 12 and 13. He realized that times change and the developer has
tougher economic restraints they must live with. For the record, the group will maintain a
watchfulness on how the rest of the project is developed. Also, there is a lot of unhappiness
with how Village 4 was developed and landscaped. He did not want to see Village 10 and 11
become another Village 4.
Planning Director Wagner said a provision in the Development Agreement and the original
approval provides that as the developer approaches the 300th building permit then the City would
ask the developer to do a traffic study to determine whether left turn/right turn lanes are needed
into the development. At that point, it will be decided if there will be turn lanes or open access.
Staff will monitor the situation as the developers approach the 300th permit.
Scott Glass, 203 Laurenburg Lane, has worked with Village representatives and his
neighborhood supports of the project.
4 0..
The public hearing was closed.
Alternate McKey commended the developer on recreational use. Chairman Switzer said he
had visited Arvida's projects throughout the State and was very impressed with how they were
landscaped, and developing through the years with growth.
Member Landefeld, seconded by Member Jones, moved to support staff recommendation and
recommend a. . royal of the Prelimina Subdivision Plans for 10 11 12 and 13 of Wesmere
PUD with the condition to I rovide an im . roved 2.1 acre • ark area as • art of the Villa. e 10
development, as presented. Motion carried 4 -0.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
DISCUSS ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
Planning Director Wagner explained that the City Manager had asked if it would be helpful
to have an additional P &Z meeting each month to clear back log. Projects are taken through
the process but there are always things hanging. If advertised public hearing deadlines are
wl1r• 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 1994
lorw
missed by the developers then the monthly P &Z Commission meeting is missed. For a
developer it is a costly proposition. The City also feels the economic repercussions in the way
of impact and building fees. Mr. Wagner said the issue is whether the P &Z Commission is
agreeable for staff to schedule a second P &Z Commission meeting in those months when staff
is assured that it would have projects to come before the Commission.
Member Landefeld, seconded by Member Jones, moved to a I . rove two re. lar Plannin ' and
Zonin . Commission meetin . s each month as needed to . rocess the back to .. Motion carried
4 -0.
COMMENTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR
Planning Director Wagner said the new planner will be on board soon. The planner, with
experience in smaller communities, will be a tremendous help in working with the back log, the
Land Development Code, and the Comprehensive Plan.
BOARD MEMBERS
Alternate McKey expressed appreciation to Director Wagner for explaining the plans discussed
earlier.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
, z ,
AROLD SWI ' R, Cha,ian
ELLEN KING, Deputy
/DIE LE S , lerk/Stenographer
5