Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 13, 2022 <br />Page 2 of 13 <br />northwest of US 36 and Northwest Parkway and Southeast of S 88th <br />Street and Campus Drive. <br />Applicant: Sterling Bay <br />Case Manager: Rob Zuccaro, Director of Community Development <br />Hoefner excuses himself from discussion since he has a conflict of interest. <br />Staff Presentation: <br />Zuccaro reviews for the commission Section 16.12.075, which goes over the <br />action on preliminary and final plats. <br />Discussion by Commissioners: <br />Krantz says the proposed subdivision does not comply with ConocoPhillips GDP <br />for the following reasons: The type and character of the development, proposed <br />uses, and road network do not comply with those in the GDP document. <br />City Attorney Kelly says if you tie your deliberations back to the criteria, which <br />is going to be the most defensible action. She cannot give a legal opinion as to <br />whether or not your decision is correct or not. <br />Krantz says she looked at the four major components of a GDP. The type and <br />character falls under one of those four components. Another large component of <br />a GDP is the proposed location of the streets. The plat includes a street network <br />that differs significantly from the ConocoPhillips GDP. In review of the type and <br />character of the ConocoPhillips GDP, it is clear to her that it was used for a <br />single user corporate campus. This location would fit more of a commercial and <br />industrial zoning. Regarding the street network of the ConocoPhillips GDP, the <br />roads represent internal private drive. This GDP also has Campus Drive to be <br />routed through Paradise Lane. The application has Campus Drive exiting north of <br />the fire station. She would like these items to be added to the motion of denial. <br />Moline says he will not be voting for the motion of denial so he is not opposed to <br />changing it. <br />Osterman says that it seems that Krantz's comments were based on the GDP <br />and she is not sure if that is part of the criteria staff has shown from their <br />presentation. <br />Zuccaro says it should comply with the provisions of the adopted ConocoPhillips <br />GDP. We have received word that Commissioner Howe will not be able to make <br />it to the meeting. We will only four votes. It is possible of the vote being a tie. <br />Krantz mentions that it would be more beneficial to separate out the preliminary <br />and final plat so that it is more organized for City Council. <br />Brauneis points out that staff and the city attorney has said it is okay to have a <br />preliminary and plat be reviewed at once. How does that tie back into our <br />criteria? <br />Krantz says in the applicant's cover letter, they are asking for a modification for <br />the preliminary plat processing. This is an exception to the requirements of Title <br />16. Because they are asking for a modification, it should be the modification <br />criteria. <br />Osterman says she is included to use the findings from the city attorney. <br />