PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16A: A TO RS-2; 8.7 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY & K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
Z-01-05-05: A to RS-2; 8.7 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16B: A TO RM-2; 40 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLONTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY
Z-01-06-05: A to RM-2; 40 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16C: A TO RM-D; 4.6 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY
Z-01-07-05: A to RM-D; 4.6 acres; northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction) (Windover at Lawrence). This item was tabled at the 2/23/05 meeting.
PC Meeting 05/25/05
ITEM NO. 16D: ANNEXATION OF 54 ACRES; NORTHWEST OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND K-10 HIGHWAY (NORTH OF JUDY’S JUNCTION) (SLD)
A-01-01-05: Annexation request for approximately 54 acres, located northwest of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway (north of Judy’s Junction). Submitted by Bob Voth for Windover Community at Lawrence, LLC, property owners of record. The Commission considered this item at the 2/23/05 meeting, and forwarded it to the City Commission with no recommendation.
Items 16A – 16D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day reminded the Commission that they considered these items in February, tabling the rezonings and forwarding the annexation to the City Commission with no recommendation. The City Commission returned the annexation to the Planning Commission with specific direction to provide a recommendation. The Planning Commission was provided with the original Staff Reports and the minutes from previous discussions of the annexation and the three related rezoning requests.
Staff said the City Commission had been clear about their wish to have an area plan for the overall area before making finite land use decisions. Ms. Finger noted that this would actually involve a basin or sub-basin plan. The City Commission had also expressed concern about utilities, although it was acknowledged that services were not as far from this area as they had been when the development was initially discussed with Staff.
The applicant had indicated a wish to continue with the applications as presented. Staff’s position had not changed on any of the requests.
It was established that it would be approximately a year before Staff would be available to begin the watershed plan for this area. In response to Commission direction in February, Staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of privately funding an outside consultant to do the basin plan. The applicant had been receptive to this idea, but the City Commission was concerned about one individual paying for a study that would benefit many landowners and may be inconclusive or negatively impact the applicant’s proposal. It was further noted that hiring a consultant did not completely remove the burden from Planning Staff. The consultant would require many hours of background research and pubic involvement assistance. Hiring additional, temporary staff members (even at the applicant’s cost) to assist in these tasks would require extra training and supervision.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mark White spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the applicant’s wish to pursue the annexation request. He said the rezonings might be withdrawn rather than triggering the 12-month waiting period for resubmittal if denied.
Mr. White said the request was consistent with the HORZION 2020 policy of encouraging voluntary annexation. He added that the subject area was adjacent to the City boundaries and that services could be brought easily to this site. Eichhorn questioned this statement, verifying that the applicant was aware that services did not exist on that side of the road.
Mr. White said the applicant understood the conflicts facing this project (service delivery, delays in developing an area plan), but would like to continue his cooperative working relationship with the City. Mr. White said a number of area land owners had expressed interest in taking part in the needed basin study, and the applicant asked that the study be “put in line” to occur as soon as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that there was no submittal fee and no time restriction on resubmittal of the annexation if it were denied.
It was discussed that the development code required a City zoning designation be given to newly incorporated land upon annexation. This regulation had been bypassed on several occasions, allowing incorporated land to retain its County zoning designation for years, but this confusing practice was discouraged.
Ms. Finger commented that the City Commission had directed the Legal Department to collect information on the possible annexation of all land with Service Area 1 of the UGA. The subject property was located in Services Areas 3A & 3B.
Riordan suggested that the City Commission’s return of the annexation seemed to indicate that they (City Commission) were not interested in pursuing any kind of negotiations with this development. He said this did not reflect on the quality of the proposed project, but on the timing – the City was not able to approve this project at this time.
Burress spoke about the need for advance planning of inexpensive land to provide a place for significant amounts of moderate-income housing. He regretted that the City was not willing to work with the applicant, who had expressed willingness to help finance the needed basin plan, and the Planning Commission would likely have to deny the requests. It was recognized that low-cost land (outside the current development area) was not the only factor in being able to provide moderate-cost housing. It was noted that few developers pursued this type of development because the community continued to absorb new premium housing projects.
Lawson stated as a side note that one of the blockages to this proposal was the lack of Staff to complete the basin study. He suggested that the Commission keep this situation in mind when new research projects, etc. were assigned to Staff, saying it may be that the “mundane tasks we ask them to do are blocking other important issues.”
Staff noted that the new Development Code, when adopted, would provide several new rezoning options, including a “holding category” that would address some of the issues facing this proposal.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 16D
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the annexation of 54 acres northwest of Clinton Parkway & Highway K-10 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Item 16A
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 8.7 acres from A to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Item 16B
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 40 acres from A to RM-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Item 16C
Motioned by Riordan, seconded by Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 4.6 acres from A to RM-D and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.