Archive for Thursday, December 13, 2007

Meadowlark III preliminary plat gets approval

December 13, 2007

The Eudora Planning Commission approved Wednesday the preliminary plat for the third phase of the Meadowlark subdivision.

Bill Fritzel's Clearwater L.L.C overcame the opposition of commissioner Ken Adkinson and vice chairman Glenn Bartlett to earn the planning commission's approval. However, five conditions were attached to the proposal for the new neighborhood south of Kansas Highway 10 and next to Eudora middle and high school campus.

The conditions were:

  • Street names can change prior to the final plat.
  • A pond discharge needs to be addressed during design.
  • Stream setbacks for all lots adjacent to drainage channels be adequate to prevent channel flow within the proposed property lines of lots and proposed erosion should be sufficiently identified.
  • Homeowner's association documents need to be provided to the city for review.
  • All utility easements must be labeled on the plat.

The commission also discussed changing the manner in which future zoning violations should be handled.

City Administrator Cheryl Beatty suggested that violations be sent to municipal court much in the same manner in which a traffic violation is ticketed and a fine assessed.

At this time, the city's zoning code is unclear as to whether or not violations should be sent to the board of zoning appeals or municipal court.

"In the past, they (the city) had been sending everything to BZA," Beatty said. "Our city attorney said that it's not

appropriate to send violations to BZA because they can only interpret the current code, but they can't prosecute violators. They have no power to make violators comply, but the municipal court does."

Beatty said going through municipal court could speed up the process of correcting zoning violations, but also would allow the city to recoup its money more quickly than if it were to attach fines to a consumer's taxes.

Chairman Kurt von Achen said sending all violators to court makes sense, but needs to be worded in a clear manner that is consistent in clarifying the difference between the administrative decisions that can be taken to the court of appeals versus the inarguable zoning violations that are sent to municipal court.

The board asked that the language in the code be clarified and brought to the next planning commission meeting.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.