title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on January 25, 2007.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, January 25, 2007
Commissioners absent: Mr. Day, Mr. Harpole, Mr. Roberts
Staff present: Spriggs, White
Purpose of Work session: To discuss Planned Development District Code
George Krennerich suggested that we change the language concerning streets and property line boundary to state: gross own area sq. area not to include surrounding streets.
Were the streets in the old PUD’s dedicated or private? Mr. Caldwell stated that it could be either. Mr. Krennerich asked, Why don’t we make that all streets within a PUD be built to city standards. But if you dedicate it you would have the property width (right-of-way).
Mr. Caldwell was asked if he usually planned to have the streets dedicated in a PUD? Mr. Caldwell stated that both would apply.
George Hamman stated that the Developer would not want 30’ wide streets in the PUD.
Mr. Sexton commented that after 15 years when the streets need maintenance, they come to the Council with that in hand asking the City to take over their streets. We shouldn’t say that the street needs to be built to standard without the width.
Mr. Halsey commented that if you are building the streets with tight setbacks there will not be adequate right of way to obtain. That is part of the PUD, to have flexibility.
Mr. Caldwell stated that the street code for a City street is 30 ft. curb to curb. If it lacks that, the City won’t accept them (e.g. Upper Duckwater Subdivision). Mr. Krennerich stated that we need to look into that. They should be able to be accepted.
Mr. Caldwell stated that 24 ft. is the norm for PUD drives and the width is not there for parking. Park Place was one example of this. Mr. Caldwell stated that they would not want to dedicate streets within a PUD and the streets would be to narrow. You cannot park in that 24 ft. area, because of the density.
Mr. Krennerich stated that you have to have a thoroughfare plan to designate the various widths for certain types of streets as the PUD develops: To identify through or connector streets.
Specific Uses on Page 2, 3rd paragraph- last sentence: Mr. Krennerich asked for an explanation pertaining to the list of permitted uses by right. The underlining zoning serves as a control list in which uses such as residential and commercial are not disturbed by health, noise or other detriments to the development.
Mr. Spriggs stated that certain uses you may want to discourage. It is ok as noted.
Mr. Halsey stated that the design would illustrate the general concept with the ins and outs of the PUD.
Mr. Sexton suggested we change it from permitted uses by right to neighborhood or commercial classification/type.
Otis Spriggs suggested that we coordinate with examples commercial types recommended by the Land Use Plan. Mr. Sexton suggested that we refer to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Caldwell used the Wal-Mart near Woodsprings area as an example. Mr. Hamman stated that the owner should be allowed to provide a refined list.
Mr. Caldwell recommended that we removed the “harmony” reference; Mr. Krennerich agreed. All concurred that we ended it with environment with stable character. Mr. Caldwell asked for examples of recreational area, passive vs. active recreation.
Mr. Krennerich asked about the Open Space section which called for transfer of area to HMA or if accepted by the City. Is this what we want? In a PUD you want to control all that. In a PUD, the developer or property owner may not want to do that. Mr. Spriggs stated that this is just an option, and not mandatory.
Mr. Thomas White stated that the Parks director stated a current concern now of upkeep by the City on current parks.
Mr. Halsey stated that as a developer he doesn’t want anything given to the City.
Mr. Spriggs stated that this was meant for green-space area or floodplain and drainage easement areas and undisturbed areas.
Mr. Krennerich stated that as a City once its dedicated the developer may mis-use the area. It should be dedicated by tract with non-transferable ownership. Mr. Spriggs stated that areas used as area detention, forest land, passive recreation, as an option only etc.
Dr. Beadles pointed out typographical errors such as Zoning Commission.
On Submission of Preliminary Development Plans section, Mr. Krennerich recommended a conceptual phase with a rough concept just get informal thoughts; less drawings with design thoughts. Too many developers do not do a PUD because of the strict requirements. Change the two-stage process to a three-step process. Staff will create an appendix A, for the Conceptual Phase- Pre-Application.
Pre-Application Conceptual Appendix A will include Items 1-10; Preliminary Appendix B will include Items 1-19.
Mr. Sexton asked can you bring up time limitations up for revocation? Mr. Halsey stated that sometimes it takes longer than 18 months. All concurred that 2 year limitation should be placed on the Preliminary approval. Mr. Sexton stated that the plan needs to be submitted to City Council for revocation to revert it back to the original Zoning District. We will coordinate that with legal counsel.
Mr. Caldwell discussed the exit strategy issue. 100 % consent was imposed on a previous case to vacate a PUD. He requested that Phillip Crego devise a paragraph for the exit strategy for the regulations which provides for completed phases. Section 4.5.3 public street improvements leading to the property.
Mr. Halsey stated that the Property owners bought into a plan, and there should be some protection.
Dr. Beadles suggest that Commissioners send all Fee Schedule changes to Staff and it will be considered in the next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM.