Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves final plat for The Retreat at Chapman Farms, 57 single-family lots
Summary
The Blue Springs Planning Commission on Aug. 11 approved the final plat for The Retreat at Chapman Farms, a 26.29-acre single-family subdivision of 57 lots, with six staff conditions. The development exceeds required open space and will connect to Public Water Supply District No. 13.
The Blue Springs Planning Commission approved the final plat for The Retreat at Chapman Farms, a 26.29-acre single-family subdivision of 57 lots, during its Aug. 11 meeting.
Staff recommended approval after determining the final plat substantially conformed to the previously approved PUD concept plan and preliminary plat and met the Unified Development Code standards, including lot sizes, setbacks and minimum livable floor area.
Planner Logan Dye told commissioners the site, east of Southwest 7 Highway and north of Southwest Mason School Road, is zoned single-family Planned Unit Development with a restricted overlay and will include two tracts of open space. “The required 10% open space equates to about 2.63 acres with this site including 8.34, 8.43 acres of open space, which exceeds the open space standards,” Dye said. He also said water service will be provided by Public Water Supply District No. 13 and that stormwater detention will be handled by modifications to an existing pond.
Dye said the final plat shows 57 single-family neighborhood lots, two open-space tracts (Tract A as a landscape buffer and Tract B containing a pocket park, playground and trails), sidewalks on one side of all streets, and two access points from Southwest Chapman Farms Drive and Southwest Mason School Road. He added the minimum livable floor area is Class H, or 1,300 square feet, consistent with nearby developments such as Edgewater at Chapman Farms.
An applicant representative declined to add to Dye’s presentation, saying, “No. Logan did a great job. He has nothing to add.” Chairperson Henning then called for a motion; commissioners approved the final plat by voice vote. The motion passed “with 6 staff conditions,” according to the meeting record.
Discussion versus decision: staff’s presentation and the applicant’s brief comment comprised the substantive discussion recorded in the transcript; no public comments or substantive objections were recorded. The commission’s action was a formal approval of the final plat with the stated six conditions.
The transcript includes references to compliance with the city’s Unified Development Code and to the earlier approved PUD concept plan and preliminary plat; the meeting record did not specify a schedule for recording the plat or the exact content of the six conditions.
