MINUTES FOR THE

SPRINGFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Date: October 9, 2008
Time: 7:00 P.M.

The regular meeting and public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on the above date and time in City Council Chambers, third floor of City Hall with the following members and personnel in attendance: Phyllis Ferguson, Peggy Hedrick, Jack Wheeler, Edwin Alden, Ray Shermer, King Coltrin, Shelby Lawhon, Jay McClelland, Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, Ralph Rognstad, Director, Planning and Development, Duke McDonald, Assistant City Attorney. ABSENT: None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          

The minutes of September 11, 2008 were approved unanimously.
                                                                             
COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. MacPherson said staff is requesting Item 1, Planned Development 02 Final Development Plan and Item 2, Planned Development 165 Final Development Plan be removed from the Consent Agenda and a public hearing held following Item 13. 

Mr. MacPherson said Item 10, Vacation 726 has been tabled at the request of the applicant.

FINALIZATION AND APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS:
(These consent cases will be approved by Commission unless a Commissioner or someone else wishes to speak to them.  If so, those cases will be moved to the appropriate place on the agenda and they may be spoken to, and voted on, at that time.)  

Alden made the motion to approve Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the Consent Agenda. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Hedrick, Wheeler, Alden, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

HEARINGS:

VACATIONS:

9.         Vacation 724                                                                                        City Utilities
(200 block West Locust)

Mr. MacPherson said City Utilities owns all of the property within that quadrant and they wish to redevelop the property.  They would like to hire a consultant to do a development plan for that section of property and would like approval of the vacation before money is spent on that consultant.  Conditions on the vacation include replacing all utility easements, provide fire apparatus access, add right-of-way along Division except where buildings exist and provide new sight triangles.  Another condition would be a lot combination of all parcels of property and all conditions must be completed within four years or the vacation would be null and void. 

Billy Hunt, 1661 North Boonville, said he is an attorney for the Assemblies of God Financial Group and board member for the Assemblies of God Credit Union.  He said they do not object to the vacation of the alley but do object to the vacation of Locust Street.  He said their drive-thru exit is at the intersection of Locust and Campbell.  Customers typically go down Locust to Boonville and back out into the city.  It creates a challenge to the business to have the traffic flow altered.  They have about 12,000 transactions per month and about 4,000 are drive-thru transactions.  They feel it would be detrimental to vacate Locust without any options other than to travel north on Campbell.  They would like Campbell to become a two-way access between Division and Commercial because it would solve their access issues.  It would also allow CU to fully develop the two blocks they are requesting. 

Mr. Rognstad said they have looked at two-lane Campbell but because of several issues it is on hold.  The property owners were split on whether to keep it a one-way street or change it to two-way.  He said there was also the cost to consider.

Mr. Hutchison said in discussions regarding one-way traffic on Campbell and Jefferson it was addressed that there was a natural break point at Division and Chestnut Expressway.  He would have to discuss with staff whether they would support two-way traffic at Campbell.  The current project at Commercial and Campbell is removing the traffic signal and doing street improvements.  In order to make the change at this location, the primary impact would be a southbound signal head as well as other possible improvements. 

Ms Hedrick asked if this is the first time he has heard this request or has it been considered before.  Mr. Hutchison said there has been a long standing request to have Jefferson and Campbell be a two-way street and it was also included in Vision 20/20.  A study was conducted about six years ago and it found 1/3 of residents and businesses were in favor of two-way, 1/3 one way and 1/3 had no preference.  Based on that survey there was not an overwhelming need.  The biggest issue was the Park Central area and the cost for the entire project at that time was estimated at $4 million. 

Ms. Ferguson asked if the reason they want to close Locust is to expand the bus barn and have the bus traffic use Locust.  Mr. MacPherson said that is part of it but since CU owns all of the property they want to redevelop to maximize the usage of the property.  That may include more than the bus barn.  Ms. Ferguson said she had heard that because of an increase in ridership they would like to replace the 30-foot buses with 35 to 40 foot buses however, she thought ridership had decreased when the fares increased.  She wondered if there was actually no immediate plan for using Locust.  Mr. MacPherson said that would unfold through the consultant and design.  Mr. Rognstad said if the city is not willing to vacant they would come up with a different plan.  There are utilities so they would have to provide an easement if they do not relocate them and the structures cannot be within the easement.  There would be no public thoroughfare but there may still be a private drive if it is vacated.  Because there are conditions and someone claims there is a public use it would have to go to Council for the ultimate decision.  Commission would just be making a recommendation on the vacation. 

Mr. Hutchison said Chris Haller with City Utilities is present for questions.

Mr. Haller said he cannot speak for transit regarding ridership but the fare increase did have a slight impact.  However, for many years, ridership has increased and they have routes where people are turned away.  When the buses are staged to go in and out they basically occupy Locust because there is not enough room.  Having this area vacated would increase their options.  He said they would be happy to address the concern that has been raised.

Mr. McClelland asked Mr. Haller to indicate on the map the properties they have acquired. 

Ms. Ferguson asked if Assemblies of God had contacted either Traffic or Planning prior to tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Rognstad said they did not speak to Planning.  He said it could be voted on tonight or it could be tabled to the first meeting in November to allow for further discussions. 

Ms. Ferguson asked if addressing this issue would possibly be part of their plans.  Mr. Haller said the focus for the consultant would concentrate within the boundaries of the property and how they would access the street system.  Even though they anticipate replacing buses with larger ones, they are not generating more or less trips to and from the property.  That would stay constant but bigger buses would be coming in and out. 

Ms. Hedrick said it sounds like Assemblies of God has a valid concern and it would not be unreasonable for further discussions to take place.  She would be voting against the proposal.

Ms. Ferguson asked Commission if they should table the case to allow for further discussions. 

Mr. Lawhon said the concern was just raised tonight so he would be in favor of tabling.

Ms. Hedrick said she felt it was worthwhile to table the case.

Mr. Haller and Mr. Hunt said they could meet with staff regarding the case and come back at a later meeting.

Alden made the motion to table Vacation 724 to the November 6, 2008 meeting. Lawhon seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Hedrick, Alden, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

10.       Vacation 726                                                                       REBCOL Corporation
(1900 block North Nias)

            See previous request to table.

11.       Vacation 727                                                                      Paul Mueller Company
(1600 block West Phelps)

Mr. MacPherson said this section of Phelps Street is bordered by Paul Mueller who uses it for employee and truck parking.  The purpose of the request is to allow them to create a secured parking area.  He said conditions on the vacation include that it not become effective until the applicant has submitted the necessary replacement utility, sanitary sewer, drainage and emergency access easements and that the applicant shall maintain the private street to public standards.  Any modifications to the private street must be approved by the Director of Public Works.  Until the replacement easements are submitted and accepted, the request would not meet the approval criteria for the vacation of a public street.  When replacement easements have been submitted and approved, the request would then meet the approval criteria.  Private ownership, control and maintenance of the street right-of-way are integral to the design and function of the applicant’s business.  Provisions have been made for the continuing and adequate maintenance of such streets in that the applicant will own the private street and be responsible for maintaining it to public street standards.  The applicant’s property rights, including access, are safeguarded to the degree they would be protected if Phelps remained a public street.  The public interest and welfare is not jeopardized. Mr. MacPherson said a key element in the vacation deals with the ingress and egress access from the public street to Kansas Expressway.  That is one of the reasons staff has suggested it be converted from public to private. 

Geoffrey Butler is present representing the applicant.  He said the conversion of this to a private street would allow Paul Mueller to secure their property and minimize the potential hazards of cross traffic.  He said they feel it is an improvement to the safety and welfare of the community.

No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed.

Shermer made the motion to approve Vacation 727. Hedrick seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Hedrick, Alden, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

ZONING:      

12.       Zoning Case Z-25-2008                                        Jordan Valley Properties, Inc.
(200 block West Phelps north side)

Mr. MacPherson said this case was previously before Commission and when it was forwarded to Council the applicant determined they could not meet the conditions stated in the case within the required one year.  They have since asked for an extension to two years, which was considered a substantial change, and it was remanded back to Commission.  The conditions on this proposal are that they provide a survey of Phelps Street from Boonville to Campbell and provide an urban design for Phelps Street to meet the needs of property owners on the street with approval by the city.  They also must construct curb and gutter and sidewalk from the existing sidewalk west of the property to the east property line in accordance with the street design.  If these conditions are not completed within two years the approval would be null and void and it would stay zoned HM. 

Ms. Ferguson said normally they are allowed one year and she asked if that would set a precedent for future cases.  Mr. Rognstad said staff has had cases that allow two or three years.  It is a matter of how long it may take them to get the work done on the more complicated cases.  It is addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Lori Young, 301½ Park Central West, is present to answer any questions.

No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Coltrin said he does not believe two years is unreasonable.

Coltrin made the motion to approve Zoning Case Z-25-2008.  Wheeler seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

13.       Zoning Case Z-26-2008/Conditional Overlay 23    Ward Branch Ent, LLC etal
(4833 South Campbell)

Mr. MacPherson said this case was tabled at the last meeting to allow for some further discussions.  He provided Commission with a review of traffic and stormwater improvements that were detailed at the previous meeting.  The issue at the previous meeting was the bufferyard requirements and the screening of the property from the properties in the Wellington Hills Subdivision.  He said the Zoning Ordinance requirements for a bufferyard between GR and residential property is 20 feet of separation.  In this case the applicant has offered a 50 foot undisturbed buffer, which exceeds design standards of the ordinance by 150%.  There are other factors such as the existing foliage and the site elevation between the project and Wellington Hills.  The issue at hand seems to be the bufferyard requirement. 

Kevin Lowe, 1525 East Republic Road, said they held another neighborhood meeting and met with Wellington Hills.  He said Mr. Shermer asked at the previous meeting why there was no step-down zoning.  He said in a perfect world they would have multi-family and townhouse zoning before you went into the residential but if he brought in townhouse zoning against the residential the neighbors would be upset.  Mr. Lowe provided Commission with a Power Point presentation showing pictures of area bufferyards, instances where there was retail backed up against residential zoning and bulk plane.  The presentation also showed pictures of the property they are proposing to rezone and the Wellington Hills Subdivision.  They show the vegetation and sight lines from those residences and the subject property.  He said he understands the way the neighbors feel, especially the one closest to the development but he believes they can make it right for her. 

Mr. Coltrin asked if he felt he could get into the creek area and grade to within 50 feet of the back fence line.  Mr. Lowe indicated on the overhead the areas he could get within 50 feet of but there is another area they cannot get within 100 feet.  The last thing they want to do is take the big trees downs because they are a very good buffer.

Mr. Shermer asked if there had been a change to the exterior siding on the rear since the first presentation.  Mr. Lowe said they talked extensively but they are asking Commission to leave the developers options open at this time.  He said big boxes are made nicer every day and they would like the options to remain open. 

Ms. Ferguson reminded the audience that if they spoke at the last meeting, what they speak about tonight needs to be different information.

Jeff Johns, 4818 South Wellington, said he does not have an issue with the proposed O-1 zoning on the northern portion because it provides step-down to the Quail Creek Subdivision.  Mr. Johns said he does oppose the retail zoning so close to their residential area.  The staff report states the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but that is not entirely correct.  In the section titled Community Physical Image and Character element it states the goal is to improve the visual appearance of the urban area.  It says Springfield should avoid new development that is out of character with its surroundings.  He said putting high intensity retail within 100 feet of a neighborhood is out of character.  In the Growth Management and Land Use Plan of the document, Objective 14 states Springfield and Greene County should promote public and private reinvestment to ensure established neighborhoods remain attractive places to live.  It also talks about neighborhood protection, which is what the people depend on Commission and the Planning Department to do.  Public or private investments should strengthen the neighborhoods and established areas.  He said this type of zoning does not provide step-down zoning that is adjacent to many residential areas near the Wellington Hills Subdivision.  He said the developer is not giving Wellington Hills the same consideration he is giving his own development, Quail Creek, or any of their others.  The large box stores can be open 24 hours a day and that is not compatible with the residential area.  Mr. Johns said that 25 feet of the proposed bufferyard is a creek bed.  He showed Commission pictures of his backyard and how the proposed development would look from his house. 

Lisa Langley, 902 Brookshire Drive is representing the Wellington Hills Homeowners Association Board.  She said they met and discussed the proposal extensively.  She said she appreciated Mr. Stenger’s efforts in meeting with them but they unanimously oppose the change of zoning.  They believe it would devalue all homes within the subdivision.  She said she asked Mr. Stenger if he would be in favor of this development if it backed up to his home and he stated no.  They have stated many times that to get a return on their investment they had to locate a big box store on the property and they feel they should not have to pay for his investment.  She said it is possibly not a feasible project because of the topography and the investment it would take to get it ready to be developed. 

Mr. Wheeler said as a practical matter, no one would want to build a single-family home on Campbell.  He asked if the board made a recommendation on appropriate zoning for the property.  She said office such as others they have located at their developments and to an extent, nice townhomes. 

Mr. Rognstad said there was some miscommunication between the applicant and staff regarding the design requirements.  The applicant would like to remove Item 1 on Page B-7 under Design Requirements.  Typically in the GR district there are no design requirements but it was discussed at the last meeting. 

Linda Johns showed Commission pictures indicating how close big box style stores are when they are located 50 to 100 feet away.  She does not believe this is in line with the residential property in Wellington Hills and opposes the retail development.

Aleta Dyer, 4926 Wellington Drive, said on the drainage report it indicates it cannot increase the flow from the 1982 aerial photo and that they must meet current requirements.  She said she is concerned about the creek and asked if the word current was from the time the permit was pulled or current from the time the document was made.  She said there is a new stormwater criteria document that would be considered soon and hoped this case would come under the new document.  She said she would like an exemption from the commercial zoning for that part of the property on the west side of the creek so it would not be developed.  Mr. Lowe had indicated to her that the property could be developed even though they stated they would not. 

Mr. Short said the word current refers to the time they submit plans for either public improvements or for a building permit.  He said in reference to the new land disturbance permit, it is scheduled to go to Council in two weeks.  The effective date of that document depends on Council and it creates a permit that is issued by the city.  Currently DNR issues land disturbance permits and this permitting program would be more extensive in the requirements that would have to be followed before they start clearing the site.  He said regarding the development of the property on the west side of the creek, it would be difficult to develop.  It is a blue line stream so it is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and there would have to be a permit issued by them to get a crossing.  It is also in the floodplain and the ordinance mandates that you cannot fill in the floodplain and increase the water on someone else. 

Ms. Dyer asked if they could omit that area from the GR zoning.  Mr. Rognstad said it could be excluded but it would have to be zoned something.  He said if it were zoned single-family the bufferyard would not be required.  The other option is to have a no build easement through the conditional overlay.

Paul Phillips, 4980 Buckingham Lane, said he is concerned about the sounds.  He said the library has bands during the summer and the noise is quite loud.  With the larger trees being cleared he is concerned about running refrigeration trucks and traffic coming and going. 

Connie Harmon said she is a member of the Ward family.  She said this farm has been in their family since the 1850’s and it was a difficult decision to sell the property.  She said it is not feasible to leave the land as is or to put in a park.  She said they decided to work with the Stenger’s because of their reputation and because they work with the neighborhoods.  She said they want something that would look nice and she believes the Stenger’s will do a great job.  She asked Commission to approve the case.

Stephanie Montgomery, 5051 South National, said they take pride in their developments so they try to listen to everyone’s concerns but they cannot satisfy everyone.  Tonight they are focusing on if this is an appropriate land use for this piece of property.  The zoning staff has determined that it is and finds that it does meet the Comprehensive Plan.  She said it is hard for any development to meet every single part of the Comprehensive Plan.  You have to consider which elements are most important, which is what staff has done, and they found the use meets that plan.  Because the land is located on an expressway, the land is very expensive.  There is no way to put anything other than GR on that expressway.  The restrictions on the phasing of this property are extreme and the restriction on the amount of development on the land without extensive infrastructure off-site makes it not feasible without a big box retailer. After the last hearing they contacted the retailers that were interested and they stated they could not accept the architectural restrictions discussed at the last hearing.  She said they take pride in standing by their word so she regrets saying they cannot do what they agreed to at the previous meeting.  The 50 yard buffer should take care of the sight and sound because of the trees and will be appropriate.  She said it is complicated to take out the area west of the creek and they could not agree to that but it is almost impossible to develop and unlikely.  Ms. Montgomery said there are 80 acres to the north of this development that has been approved for residential next to GR, which is the same as this proposal.  She does not believe they are treating Wellington Hills any different than they would one of their own subdivisions.  She said it is an appropriate land use and they are asking for Commission approval.

With no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.  

Mr. Shermer said this is one of the more difficult cases they have had.  He said they have had several cases lately where there is single-family close to a major collector street which usually has GR.  In the past they have tried to mitigate negative influences on the homes and there are four houses that would be close to the development and the rest are in full view of it.  He said he was leaning toward approval until Mr. Lowe said they wanted to do what they wanted to do.  He said that removed the aesthetic portion he was counting on.  A less intense use like a strip center or shopping center would have more aesthetic appeal and be more amenable to the neighbors.  He believes a big box store is out of character and would be voting against it unless they add more aesthetic appeal.

Mr. Wheeler said they have heard a lot of talk about big box stores and many do not like them but you really cannot prohibit one.  You can have floor area, height and bulk plane limits but you cannot say a big box store cannot be built.  In zoning the property you cannot state a strip center can be located there but not a big box store.  He said he was also pushing the architectural standards but the excessive bufferyard mitigates the concept of design standards on the back of the buildings.  The buffers are well in excess of what is required.  Mr. Wheeler said the developer has made a sincere effort to go beyond what is required.

Mr. Coltrin asked if the Weaver and Campbell intersection was considered an activity center.  Mr. MacPherson said yes, for quite some time.  Mr. Coltrin said you can make an argument for anything and you can read the Vision 20/20 to go either direction.  It clearly states in all planning documents that activity centers are to be developed to their highest use and development goes around it.  It appears the activity center was developed after everything else.  He said it is an activity center, there is a proximity problem with four homes and the developer has done more than required to mitigate the unfortunate geographic feature.  They are here to do what is best for the city and the citizens in total.  He said he frequents a big box store quite often so he feels they are a necessary thing in today’s economy.  He said he would be supporting the development.

Ms. Ferguson said she appreciates Ms. Montgomery’s statement saying she cannot control the design of the back of a big box.  She said she knows Campbell is going to develop and that it is good for our city because it generates more tax revenue and business for the area.  She said she wishes there were more small businesses but she also frequents big boxes.  It is difficult because she would not want to see the back of a Lowes and asked if there was a way to require plantings in the bufferyard that would be a better screen than what is there now. 

Mr. Rognstad said Page B8 states the bufferyard requires one additional evergreen tree every 30 feet along the west property line north of the floodplain.  He said it could be reduced to 15 or 20 feet to get a denser screen.  Mr. Rognstad suggested it be on the east side of the 50 foot bufferyard so it does not disturb existing trees and it would go down to the floodplain.  Ms. Montgomery said they were agreeable. 

Wheeler made the motion to approve Zoning Case Z-26-2008/Conditional Overlay District 23 with the change to delete B-7, Item C 1a and 1b and include a requirement for an evergreen tree to be planted every 15 feet on the east side of the bufferyard north of the floodplain.  Hedrick seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Hedrick, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: Shermer; ABSTAIN: Alden; ABSENT: None.

 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

1.         Planned Development 02 FDP-ASC/MOB      Lester E. Cox Medical Centers
(3525 South National)

Mr. MacPherson said staff could not approve the development due to its lack of substantial conformity to the ordinance.  He said staff feels Commission can find that it is in adherence with the approved planned development ordinance.  He said this would be the final bit of development on the camps and would complete the entire project.  He said three areas that were of concern to staff includes whether or not the development of the campus complied with the allotment of the types of uses permitted on the facility.  He said the final hospital use under the PD is 220,815 square feet and 149,414 square feet of office use.  Both of those are in conformance and meets that particular test.  The second portion is whether there would be enough parking to accommodate what was listed in the PD and would comply.  The total spaces provided are 1,101 and the total spaces required was 1,100.  Staff also feels this complies.  The impervious surface area ratio is also in existence.  The only exception to what was presented in the plan from 1981 is the location of the building.  This particular layout improves fire safety because it gives the opportunity for fire apparatus to work its way around the entire facility.  Staff feels Commission can find the plan is in substantial conformance with the original PD. 

Rod Schaffer said he would answer any questions.  He said changes have occurred since 1981 and they did not own the property when the original plat was approved.  The original configuration of the lot is not conducive to the way they deliver patient care today.  They try to make it more convenient by having easy access and access to parking. 

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. 

Mr. Coltrin said it is remarkable that they are this close from the original plan.  He said one of his concerns as a Commissioner is when they require items to be in specific locations and 20 years later one thing is changed and they have to come back before Commission.  They should consider does it meet the original intent and concept.  He said he feels this case does. 

Mr. Wheeler asked if they were approving the case or declare it is in conformance.  Mr. MacPherson said they have to approve it and find it is in substantial conformance.  
           
Hedrick made the motion to approve Planned Development 02-Final Development Plan – ASC/MOB and finds it is in substantial conformance with the Planned Development ordinance and merits approval. Lawhon seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Hedrick, Alden, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

Mr. Rognstad said because they found it was in substantial conformance it was actually approved and it would not go on to Council.

2.         Planned Development 165 FDP                 Gen Council of Assemblies of God
(304 West Bethany)

Mr. MacPherson said this case deals with the landscaping of Maranatha Village.  This case has been before Commission at a previous meeting with a staff recommendation of denial.  Staff made that recommendation because there was not pedestrian access and internal circulation as had been provided in the original development plan.  That has now been added and staff is recommending it is in substantial conformance.  Staff is recommending approval. 

Derek Lee, Lee Engineering, said they have submitted a new site plan that shows the sidewalks and the city felt it met the connectivity issues. 

No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed.

Hedrick made the motion to approve Planned Development 165-Final Development Plan – Phase 3 and finds it is in substantial conformance with the Planned Development ordinance and merits approval. Alden seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Hedrick, Alden, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:

14.       Pedestrian Connections to Linear Park Trails                                       City Staff

Andy Furedy, Planning Department, said right now there are no requirements for a subdivider to connect to a greenway trail if a subdivision is alongside that particular trail, however it is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.  First, if the easement for the greenway trail crosses the property that is being subdivided and it has not been dedicated this amendment would require that dedication.  It would also require a dedication from a public street within the property being subdivided to the easement for the greenway trail.  The developer would also be required to build the greenway trail if the trail exists within the easement.  In another instance, the park trail easement abuts the property to be subdivided.  There is no dedication of an easement for the linear park trail but the developer would be required to dedicate an easement for the connecting trail from a public street within the subdivision down to the greenway trail itself.  Mr. Furedy said he is using the term greenway trail and linear park trail interchangeably.  Greene County passed regulations similar to this proposal several years ago and referred to them as linear park trails.  Staff wishes to have this proposal similar to what they have approved.  He said the regulations being presented are similar to those regulations.  He said in another instance, the linear park trail easement does not abut the property being subdivided.  The developer would be required to dedicate the easement for the connecting trail but it would stop at the edge of his property.  If the linear park trail easement directly abuts the land to be subdivided and a public street abuts the edge of the property, there is no need to dedicate an easement but the developer would be required to make the trail connection between the public street and the linear park trail easement.  In a similar situation, the linear park trail does not abut the property and a public street is next to the edge of the property.  An easement would not be dedicated and the developer would not have to construct across the adjacent property.  Staff is recommending approval and DIIG has also recommended approval.  He said two developers on the DIIG committee assisted staff in preparing this amendment. 

Mr. Wheeler said in one instance you had to cross somebody else’s property that was not part of the subdivision.  Mr. Furedy said in that case only the connecting trail and the easement for the trail would have to be dedicated and built.  There would be nothing going across the adjacent property.  Mr. Wheeler asked at what distance they do not have to consider a connection.  Mr. Furedy said if there is another intervening property that could be subdivided.

Mr. Coltrin asked if there was a sidewalk extending from one of their streets would that be an acceptable connection.  Mr. Furedy stated yes.  Mr. Coltrin asked if there were terrain problems is there an exception that allows staff judgment on what is feasible to be constructed.  Mr. Furedy said yes.  Page 5, Item 6 in the staff report states Ozark Greenways, Incorporated, shall make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Director of Planning and Development regarding alternatives to requiring a neighborhood linear park connector in conformance with this Section where a connector is not feasible due to physical or natural barriers or where it creates an unsafe public use.  If it is a case that came before Commission, Commission would make the decision.  If it is an administrative subdivision the decision would be made by the Director.

Mr. Rognstad said even though he would be making the decision on an administrative subdivision, they can appeal it to Commission. 

Mr. Alden said if a parcel of property is going to be developed and a boundary of the property adjoins the easement or park property in which a greenway trail exists, will exist or both an easement must be provided no matter the distance from the street.  Mr. Furedy said that was correct.  There is the variance process that can come before Commission in that instance.  Mr. Alden asked what the size of the easement would be.  Mr. Furedy said the easement for the greenway trail itself is 30 feet.  The easement on the property being subdivided is enough to handle the trail, any drainage or grading required.  There is no specific dimension unless the connecting trail is from a trailhead.  Mr. Alden asked how many situations require the developer to build the trail.  Mr. Furedy said on all instances except for the one indicated by Mr. Furedy on the overhead.  Mr. Rognstad clarified the connector is built but not the trail.  Mr. Alden said he does not like that it must be provided no matter the distance. 

Ms. Ferguson said if it is between a trailhead and a linear park trail, the staff report says the easement is 15 feet wide.  Mr. Furedy said that is the exception when it is between a trailhead and the greenway.  Ms. Ferguson said Item 4 states linear park connectors shall be a minimum of 6 feet wide.  Mr. Furedy said the connecting trail is 6 feet wide.  Ms. Ferguson said the developer would provide a 6 foot or 30 foot easement but have to put in a 6 foot connector.  Mr. Furedy said the 30 foot easement would only be for the linear park trail.  There is no requirement for the width of the easement.  It has to be able to contain the trail, any grading and any drainage that would result from the connecting trail.  Ms. Ferguson asked for the maximum that be provided for a connector.  Mr. Furedy said 6 feet. 

Mr. Alden said there is no maximum on the easement because the trail on the connector has to be a minimum of 6 feet.  Whoever decides the topography would decide how large the easement would be.  Mr. Furedy said yes.

Mr. Coltrin asked if there were six properties between his and a planned greenway trail, would he be required to build a connecting trail stub to his property line.  Mr. Furedy said no because the property between his and the Parks Department property could be subdivided. 

Mr. Wheeler said if there was phasing on the property being developed it could result in having a distance of several hundred feet from a certain phase to the linear park.  He asked if they could give the easement where a street ends and all likelihood the easement would become a dedicated street.  Mr. Furedy said they could do that.

Mr. Hutchison said in it was generally discussed that there would be a piece of property adjacent to the subdivision that the floodplain comes close enough to the property there is likely to be no other development beyond this particular subdivision.  The trail easement is not exactly on the property line or perhaps on the other side of the creek.  In those instances while staff is reviewing it with the developer they would recommend where the connector would be appropriate.

Mr. Alden said he thinks the linear parks are a great thing but it just does not meet the priority of the infrastructure of streets and sidewalks.  He said he does not believe any developer or property owner should have this undue burden on them because it is open ended.

Mr. Rognstad said Commission has the opportunity to review it when the plat is done or through an appeal.  If it has a steep slope and you cannot provide a safe access it should not be provided. 

Mr. Alden said if the developer disagrees how would it affect him going through the processes.  Mr. Furedy said it should be reviewed when the sketch plan is submitted and communicated to the developer about the need for the easement and connector.  If he disagrees with staff he could ask for a variance at no additional cost.  Mr. Alden said then you put the developer in the position to come before Commission and state they do not want to spend the money to make the connection.

Mr. Furedy said developers on the DIIG committee helped with this proposal.

No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed.   

Shermer made the motion to approve Subdivision Regulations Amendment – Pedestrian Connections to Linear Park Trails. Coltrin seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Ferguson, Wheeler, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: Alden, Hedrick; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.       

OTHER BUSINESS:         

Mr. Rognstad said the meeting on October 23 would be a workshop and begin at 6:00.  Discussions would be held regarding the proposed changes to the Development Review process, transitioning between different zoning districts and the Growth Management and Land Use Plan.  If anyone has any other topics they would like to discuss please contact staff prior to the meeting.

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION JURISDICTION:             

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m.