LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION

DECEMBER 17, 2003

Vice-Chairman Burress called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.  Other Commissioners present:  Haase, Angino, Lawson, Jennings, Schachter, Schenewerk and Riordan.  

Staff present:  Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Dyer, Tully, Ahrens and Saker

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the November 2003 minutes as presented.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

ZAC:  The Committee did not meet.

TAC:  The Committee did not meet.

SPC:  The Committee did not meet.

CPC:  The Committee did not meet

RPC:  The Committee did not meet.

RFC:  The Committee did not meet. 

PCMM:  The Commission had continued their review of the proposed new Land Development Code.  This issue was on tonight’s agenda but the Commission had agreed to schedule an extra meeting on January 7^th, 2004 to continue this task.  It was believed that this extra meeting, along with the regularly scheduled January Mid-Month meeting, would allow the Commission to complete their review and forward the document to the City Commission on schedule in late January.                           

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:

Item 1 – Final Plat for Foxfire Addition No. 5

• Revised conditions per Study Session discussion, including provision for Homeowner’s Association maintenance of Tract A and Public Works approval of public improvement plans

Item 6 – CUP for Pine Family Tree Nursery

• Per Study Session direction, conditions applied to recent Seasonal Tree Sales CUP

Item 12 – Proposed alignments for east-west connection northwest of W. 6^th Street & Folks Road

• Memo outlining discussion with David Corliss regarding potential legal aspects of specific alignments

Miscellaneous Item 1a – UGA Text Amendment

• Copy of proposed Resolution

Miscellaneous Item 1b – Commercial Chapter Text Amendment

• Copy of proposed Resolution

Miscellaneous 3 – Other business

• Copy of letter to be sent to City Commission requesting the Planning Commission become involved in the City’s decision to accepted donated lands
• Study Session Summary
• Revised agenda noting Items 9 and 11 as “requested for deferral” and revising the wording of Miscellaneous Item 1c.

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRALS

· No ex parte communications were disclosed.

· No Commissioner indicated abstention from any of the agenda Items.

· Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to defer Item 11 for one month to January 2004

o Motion carried 7-1, with Comm. Haase voting in opposition

· Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to defer Item 9 two months to February 2004

o Motion carried unanimously, 8-0

The Commission agreed to add to their Parking Lot list a discussion about the policy regarding “last minute” deferral requests.

ITEM NO. 1:              FINAL PLAT FOR FOXFIRE ADDITION NO. 5; SOUTH OF 15^TH                                           STREET AND WEST OF RESEARCH PARK DRIVE (PGP)

PF-11-20-03:  Final Plat for Foxfire Addition No. 5, a replat of Lots 9 and 10, Block Two, Foxfire Addition No. 4 and an platted adjacent tract.  This proposed 25-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 20.644 acres and is located south of  W. 15^th Street and west of Research Park Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Alvamar Inc., Mabet #2, L.C., North Tank, L.C., and RLCC, Inc., property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Foxfire Addition No. 5 as presented by Staff, including the revised conditions distributed in tonight’s communications.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was clarified that the revised conditions addressed the concerns expressed regarding condition 4 and the maintenance of Tract A.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for Foxfire Addition No. 5 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions as revised by Staff:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

1. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing; and
2. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
1. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
4. Provision for Block One, Lot Nos. 1 and 2, and Block Two, Lot Nos. 18 and 19 to be included in the MEBO Table; and
5. Filing of the Homeowner’s Association for Tract “A” (Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation) immediately to follow the filing of the Final Plat for Foxfire Addition No. 5.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.

ITEM NO. 2:              FINAL PLAT FOR SEDLOCK ADDITION, A REPLAT OF LOT 22 AND                                               VACATED 11^TH STREET; 1101 WAGON WHEEL ROAD (SLD)

PF-11-21-03:  Final Plat for Sedlock Addition, a replat of Lot 22 and vacated 11^th Street in Western Hills Suburban Rancheros Subdivision.  This proposed two-lot residential subdivision contains 1.09 acre and is located at 1101 Wagon Wheel Road.  Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Charles M. and Leda C. Sedlock, property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to approve the Final Plat for Sedlock Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with section 21-302.2;
3. Submission of public improvement plans prior to recording of the final plat; and
4. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and

c. Provision of a master street tree plan.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.

Swearing in of witnesses

ITEM NO. 3:              PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HINES SUBDIVISION NO. 2; BETWEEN                                                1335 AND 1345 MAPLE LANE (PGP)

PP-10-13-03:  Preliminary Plat for Hines Subdivision No. 2.  This proposed one-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately .12 acres and is located between 1335 Maple Lane and 1345 Maple Lane.  Variances have been requested from lot area and lot width requirements in the RS-2 District.  Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for Hugh Hines, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson began by explaining the variance request for a reduced lot area.  The Code requires a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet, but the applicant was requesting a reduction to 5,200 square feet.  Staff recommended the variance be modified to 4,600 square feet to include the dedication of an additional 15’ of public right-of-way.

The applicant had requested an additional variance to eliminate the requirement for the additional right-of-way.

It was established that, if the lot were already platted, the variance request would have gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).  Without the variance, the lot could not be platted and therefore would be unbuildable, even though lots of the same size were platted and developed on the other side of the street (Belmont Addition, platted and developed prior to adoption of the Zoning Code). 

Per Study Session discussion, Staff had ascertained that the owner of the subject property did not own any of the adjacent properties.

Staff recommended the Commission uphold the requirement for an additional 15’ of public right-of-way.  Staff recommended approval of the lot width and lot area variances as revised and the Preliminary Plat as presented with conditions in the Staff Report. 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Werner said the variance was consistent with those that had been requested of and granted by the BZA for other properties in the area.

Mr. Werner understood the Public Works Department liked to obtain 60’ of right-of-way in these situations, but he pointed out that the additional 15’ on this property, combined with the required 25’ setback, would place the house significantly further back in the streetscape than the rest of the houses on the block.

Mr. Werner also addressed the condition regarding the extension of the sanitary sewer line, explaining that the rest of the west side of the block had sewer connections that ran underneath the street to the main on the east side.  The applicant hoped to locate and utilize the stubbed connection that had been used for the previous structure on this lot.  While the connection could be made as requested by Public Works, it would be costly and complicated and the applicant asked the Commission to consider removing or modifying this condition.

It was noted that the City’s policy was to encourage infill development and the creation of housing in this price range.

PUBLIC HEARING – variance only

Michael Hime, attorney and father of the adjacent property owner, said his daughter was concerned with how close the new structure would be to her own house if the smaller lot size were permitted.  Mr. Hime responded to questioning that a privacy fence or landscape screening might mitigate these concerns.

It was noted that Mr. Hime had submitted a letter to Staff that had been distributed as part of the Study Session communication.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Werner stated he had not received Mr. Hime’s letter and said the applicant would be willing to work with the adjacent property owner to address their concerns.  He indicated he would discuss the issue with Mr. Hime immediately after tonight’s meeting.  Comm. Angino expressed a desire that the applicant and the Hime’s could reach an amicable solution without the Commission’s involvement.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Acting Chair Burress asked for Staff’s opinion on the issue of hardship.  Staff replied that the lot would be unusable without the variance.  It was noted that a house had stood on the subject property until 1984 and the curb cut for that earlier structure still existed.

Staff was asked to outline the Commission’s ability to modify conditions 1a (extension of the sanitary sewer) and 1b (provision of an additional 15’ public right-of-way).  It was established that the Commission did not have the ability to remove the sewer line condition placed by the Public Works Department per City Code.

Regarding the additional right-of-way, Staff explained the intent was to ultimately obtain a full 60’ of right-of-way along the entire streetscape, requiring each lot to conform as they redeveloped/replatted.

Comm. Schachter stated he did not like to grant variances unless denial posed a significant hardship - a criteria he felt this case did meet.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to grant a variance to reduce the required lot width from 60’ to 40’.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to grant a variance to reduce the required lot area from 7,000 to 5,200 square feet.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Schachter said he also hoped the property owners could solve their proximity concerns amongst themselves. 

Regarding Condition 1a, Comm. Schachter said he would not want to preclude the applicant’s ability to reach an alternate solution with the City about the sewer line connection.  For Condition 1b, he said there was no hardship created by the condition since the property could still be developed and noted there was no variance requested for this issue.  He did not want to set a precedent of waiving the right-of-way requirements for smaller lots, since this description could apply to numerous other lots in the City.

Comm. Schenewerk was concerned about the future hardship created for other lots on the block and pointed out that, although the intent was to eventually obtain 60’ of right-of-way, it would not be centered on the street center line.  As the line created by this property was extended down the block, the existing houses would become non-conforming because their setbacks would no longer meet the 25’ minimum.

It was established that the off-centerline right-of-way was constructed prior to adoption of the Code.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hine’s Subdivision No. 2, subject to the following revised conditions:

1. Submission of a revised preliminary plat that provides:

a. Extension of the sanitary sewer main to the lot if an existing sewer line is not approved for use by the City; and

b. An additional 15’ of public right-of-way to Maple Lane.

2. Provision of an improvement plan which will include a 5’ width sidewalk along the east side of Maple Lane in front of this property; and
3. Provision of an agreement not to protest future benefit district for street improvements.

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to amend the original motion by eliminating condition 1b, based on the concern of future hardship for other property owners.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Staff responded to questioning that the legal notice had included the general location of this Preliminary Plat and that plat variances are not published in that notice. 

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to remove condition 1b.

          Motion carried 7-1, with Comm. Schachter voting in opposition.

Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hine’s Subdivision No. 2, subject to the following revised conditions:

1. Submission of a revised Preliminary Plat that provides:

a. Extension of the sanitary sewer main to the lot if an existing sewer line is not approved for use by the City.

2. Provision of an improvement plan which will include a 5’ width sidewalk along the east side of Maple Lane in front of this property; and
3. Provision of an agreement not to protest future benefit district for street improvements.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

ITEM NO. 4:              MINIMUM MAINTENANCE REQUEST FOR SEGMENT OF ROAD IN                                                 CLINTON TOWNSHIP (BA)                     

MM-10-02-03:  A request to declare minimum maintenance status on a segment of E 550 Road in Clinton Township between N 1200 Road and 1250N Road.  Requested by Douglas County Public Works for the Clinton Township Board.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Ahrens introduced the Item, explaining it had been initiated by Douglas County Public Works at the request of the Clinton Township Board.  The Township had discussed this issue at a public meeting and had received no negative comments.

Staff recommended approval of the request, with the understanding that the improved road was intended to provide farm field access - it was not in anticipation of future development.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Douglas County Public Works was the applicant in this Item, so there was no applicant presentation.

PUBLIC HEARING

Joe Lieber, property owner adjacent to the west of the subject section of E 550 Road, was concerned that the improvement of the road would have further negative impacts on his land. 

The existing E 550 Road had not been installed in a straight line, and lay partially on Mr. Lieber’s property.  Erosion had already taken place in this area and Mr. Lieber asked the Commission to consider conditioning a retaining wall or some other method of erosion prevention.

Mr. Lieber added that he did not understand why the road had to extend all the way back to the Corp of Engineers’ property, past the field access that was the stated intent of the road.

Mr. Lieber said he understood from discussions with various County employees that future development was a possibility if he would pay to gravel surface the road to that development.  Ms. Finger clarified that the County would not issue a building permit for any development while the road was designated as Minimum Maintenance. 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was discussed that the Commission did not have the ability to place conditions on their decision tonight.  Their charge was only to approve or deny the requested change in designation.

Staff responded to questioning that it was unlikely the subject road would ever connect to the Corps property.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the request to designate Minimum Maintenance Road status for the .48 mile portion of E 550 Road north of N 1200 Road in Clinton Township and forward this recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Comm. Riordan said he did not see the point in putting time, money and effort into what he felt was an “ill-conceived” project.  He asked if the motion could be modified to apply to the portion of the road “no further than is required to serve the fields”.

Comm. Schachter explained his motion was meant to allow the County Commission to determine the best length of the improved road.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the request to designate Minimum Maintenance Road status for the .48 mile portion of E 550 Road north of N 1200 Road in Clinton Township and forward this recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.

          Motion carried 7-1, with Comm. Riordan voting in opposition.

ITEM NO. 5A:           RS-2 TO RM-D; PORTIONS OF LOTS 7-11 & 20-22, BLOCK ONE,                                                 STONEGATE             SUBDIVISION (JLT)         

Z-10-34-03A:  A request to rezone portions of Lots 7-11 & 20-22, Block One, Stonegate Subdivision from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to RM-D (Duplex-Residential) District.  Initiated by the City Commission at the August 6, 2002, meeting.

ITEM NO. 5B:           RM-D TO RS-2;  A PORTION OF LOTS 35-44, BLOCK ONE,                                                             STONEGATE             SUBDIVISION (JLT)

Z-10-34-03B:  A request to rezone a portion of Lots 35-44, Block One, Stonegate Subdivision from RM-D (Duplex-Residential) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. Initiated by the City Commission at the August 6, 2002, meeting.

Items 5A & 5B were discussed simultaneously.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Tully introduced the Items, explaining the intent to “clean up” the situation created when a Final Plat was submitted that did not exactly conform to the published zoning boundaries.  In order to avoid this occurrence in the future, Staff now conditioned zoning upon the filing of the Final Plat to ensure the two documents matched.

Staff recommended approval of both rezonings.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

The City was the applicant in these Items, so there was no applicant presentation.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

ACTION TAKEN

Item 5A

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the rezoning of portions of Lots 7-11 & 20-22, Block One of Stonegate Subdivision from RS-2 to RM-D and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

Item 5B

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the rezoning of portions of Lots 35-44, Block One of Stonegate Subdivision from RM-D to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

ITEM NO. 6:              CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREE NURSERY; DIRECTLY EAST OF 1893 E 1500 ROAD (SLD)

CUP-10-08-03:  Conditional Use Permit Request for Pine Family Tree Nursery.  The property is on 23 acres located directly east of 1893 E 1500 Road.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Pine Family Investments, LC, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day introduced the Item, explaining the applicant’s desire to add retail sales of trees and bulk landscape  material to their allowed uses.  Unlike previous tree sales applications, this was intended to be a year-round operation – not only during the holiday season.

Comm. Schachter was concerned that allowing year-round retail sales would make it possible for the applicant to sell a variety of items that were not necessarily ancillary to the tree farm.  He gave the hypothetical example of a used car lot.

Staff responded that the CUP specifically described the allowable sales area, as well as the location of parking and storage areas, which would restrict the types of sales that could take place without violating the Site Plan.  Additionally, the application form clearly stated the intended use.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Alan VanGundy, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. VanGundy said there was no objection to the conditions of the Staff Report and that the applicant understood the uses that were being permitted.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a nursery (tree farm) operation which includes the retail sales of bulk landscape materials and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following condition:

1. Provision of a note on the face of the plan stating, “The Conditional Use Permit will be re-evaluated by the County Commission in December, 2008.  The CUP will expire in December, 2013.  Continuation of the use beyond November, 2013 will require rezoning or approval of a new CUP.”

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

ITEM NO. 7:              RM-2 TO C-5; APPROX. 5,000 SQ. FT. ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 1 AND 2, COLLEGE MOTEL ADDITION; 1703/1711 WEST 6^TH STREET (JLT)

Z-11-39-03:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 5,000 square feet from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District.  The property is described as being located along the southern property line of Lots 1 and 2, College Motel Addition; 1703/1711 W. 6^th Street.  Requested by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Harold Shephard, contract purchaser.  Cecil E. Sweeney and Colin P. Lindsey are property owners of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Tully explained that this was a “clean up” Item that had been found while processing another site plan in the vicinity.  It appeared that property line discrepancies existed between the subject property and the lot to the south.  This resulted in a strip of developed land - measuring approximately 5,000 square feet in area - that was zoned for residential use but used commercially.

Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, subject to the condition stated in the Staff Report.  It was noted that the lot split required by this condition had already been submitted to the Planning Department and would be processed administratively.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, said the applicant had no objections to the Staff Report and he was present to answer questions.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the rezoning of approximately 5,000 square feet along the south property line of Lots 1 & 2, College Motel Addition, from RM-2 to C-5 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:

1. Approval of a lot split for Lots 1 and 3, College Motel Addition and filing of the lot split at the Register of Deeds office.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

ITEM NO.  8A:          PCD-2 TO PCD-2; 1.05 ACRES; W. 6^th STREET & COMET LANE (JLT)

Z-10-35-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.05 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with restrictions) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with revised restrictions to include contractor or construction office/shop in Phase “O”).  The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6^th Street at the end of Comet Lane.   Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Hunt, Inc., property owner of record.

ITEM NO.  8B:          PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6^TH & MONTEREY WAY PCD; SOUTH OF W. 6^TH STREET AT THE END OF COMET LANE (JLT)

PDP-10-10-03:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for 6^th & Monterey PCD.  The revision proposes a contractor/construction shop and office area on approximately 1.10 acres.  The plan proposes construction of a contractor’s office/shop area.  The property is generally described as being located south of W. 6^th Street at the end of Comet Lane.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for P.A. for Hunt, Inc., Space Saver Storage 1, LC, David A. or Lisa L. Rueschhoff, Comet Corp., Lawrence Funeral Chapel, Inc., J-Ville Apartments, LLC, Canyon Court Apartments, Todd N. Thompson, and Robert J. or Beverly G. Morgan, property owners of record.

Items 8A & 8B were discussed simultaneously.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Tully introduced the Items(s), explaining the original (1987) Preliminary Development Plan had outlined specific uses for each Phase of the project.  The area described as Phase O was undeveloped and the applicant was requesting a revision in the allowable uses to include office uses, specifically a contractor’s office/shop area, in this Phase. 

Mr. Tully showed the Commission the applicant’s plan for the proposed building, including the square footage and the necessary cross-access easement to the north.  The square footage of the net public area had been reduced to meet off-street parking requirements.

The applicant was requesting a waiver from the 20’ sideyard setback along the east property line to a minimum of 12’.  In Staff’s opinion, this indicated the proposed building was too large for the subject lot and denial of the waiver was recommended.

Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the conditions presented in the Staff Report and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan without the requested waiver.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Angela Solberg, Landplan Engineering, addressed the waiver request on behalf of the applicant.  Ms. Solberg said the lot was unusually shaped and a significant portion of the buildable area had been used to provide the necessary stormwater detention area.  The remaining buildable land would not easily allow for the placement of the pre-fabricated building proposed while retaining the 20’ setback.

Ms. Solberg pointed out that reducing the setback as requested on the east side of the building resulted in an increased setback between the new building and the adjacent residential development to the west.

In response to Study Session discussion, Ms. Solberg described the amount, type and location of landscape screening proposed.

In response to questioning, Ms. Solberg said she had not discussed the issue with the property owner, but she did not think there would be significant opposition to the Commission requiring a fence for visual screening as well as safety issues.

It was clarified that the Commission may grant a waiver (as part of a PUD) at their discretion in order to improve a planned development without meeting any defined criteria.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Solberg pointed out that visibility would be further obstructed by topography, as the duplex development to the west was about 6’ below grade compared to the subject property.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed the possible condition for a fence to block visibility and restrict undesirable access to the subject property.  Ms. Finger pointed out the difficulty in placing the fence without disrupting the existing mature landscaping.  It was also noted that utility lines may lie in this area.

Comm. Lawson suggested that, if the Commission were going to make a practice of requiring fences, they should adopt a policy to require the two property owners to share the construction costs since they would share the benefits of the fence.  Comm. Angino asked how to ensure these fences were maintained.

Comm. Schachter pointed out that the proposal involved placing the higher intensity commercial use in the midst of lower intensity uses, but suggested that this was acceptable based on the location of previous and existing uses in the area.

ACTION TAKEN

Item 8A

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to amend the PDC-2 restrictions to include a contractor or construction office/shop in Phase O and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:

1. Approval of a Preliminary Development Plan.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Schachter verified that Staff was amenable to the justification given by the applicant’s representative regarding the need for the requested waiver.  Specifically, this involved the increased distance between the proposed new building and the residential development to the west.  Ms. Finger replied that this would be sufficient grounds for the waiver.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to grant a waiver to allow for a reduced side yard setback along the east property line from 20’ to 12’, based on the justification provided by the applicant.

          Motion carried unanimously, 8-0

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for 6^th & Monterey Way PCD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:

1. Separate cross access easements for subject property and lot immediately east of subject property must be filed;

2. Add note to the preliminary plat that restricts use of parking lot. Construction materials, trailers, recreational vehicles and/or boats, mechanical equipment and other miscellaneous objects shall not occupy any parking stall or paved area associated with the contractor or construction office/shop; and

3. A view-obstructing fence shall be placed somewhere on the west and south side of the building in coordination with landscaping.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Staff was asked to clarify the intent of the word “occupy” in condition 2.  Mr. Tully said this was meant to imply that the parking area could not be used for storage of vehicles or materials.

It was noted that the fence might end up being below grade, thus reducing its effectiveness as a view obstruction.  Comm. Schachter said the other objective of the fence was to limit access to the subject site, which would not be impacted by the grade difference.

Ms. Finger said the Commission had the option to remove the fencing condition when considering the Final Development Plan if it was found to be unfeasible due to landscaping, grading or easement concerns.

Comm. Lawson was concerned the Commission was applying their personal judgment to require a fence when it was not required by Code.  Comm. Schachter said the Code stated objectives and allowed that there were several different ways to accomplish those objectives.  The Commission had a charge to apply conditions as they saw fit to make a better planned development.

ACTIONS TAKEN

The motion was amended with unanimous consent to reword condition 3 to state:

“Fencing shall be located on the west and south sides of the building, in coordination with the landscape plan.  Such fence shall be view obstructing if the topography of the area makes it functional.”

It was understood that the Commission would review the appropriateness of this condition during consideration of the Final Development Plan.

Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to amend the motion by removing condition 4 entirely.

Motion failed to carry, 4-4, with Comm. Schachter, Burress, Haase and Schenewerk voting in opposition.

Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for 6^th & Monterey Way PCD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following re-revised conditions:

1. Separate cross access easements for subject property and lot immediately east of subject property must be filed;

2. Add note to the preliminary plat that restricts use of parking lot. Construction materials, trailers, recreational vehicles and/or boats, mechanical equipment and other miscellaneous objects shall not occupy any parking stall or paved area associated with the contractor or construction office/shop; and

3. Fencing shall be located on the west and south sides of the building, in coordination with the landscape plan.  Such fence shall be view obstructing if the topography of the area makes it functional.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

Acting Chair Burress called a 10 minute recess.

Meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.

ITEM NO. 9:              PCD-2 TO M-1; 12.3 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 15^TH STREET ON THE                                                 WEST SIDE OF RESEARCH PARK DRIVE (EXTENDED) (JLT)

Z-11-38-03:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.3 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 15^th Street on the west side of Research Park Drive (extended).  Alvamar, Inc., is the property owner of record.  Initiated by the City Commission at the November 4, 2003, meeting.

This Item was deferred at the beginning of the meeting for two months (February 2004).

ITEM NO. 10A:         PID-1 TO RO-1A; 15.504 ACRES NORTH OF W. 15^TH STREET AND                                               WEST             OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-10-36-03:   A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.504 acres from PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 15^th Street and west of Wakarusa Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for W. David Kimbrell (contract purchaser) and Artful Misers, LLC, Net Werks LLC, BG Lawrence LLC, Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, Hall Properties, Oread Development Corp., UMB Properties, Inc., Hi-Tech Facility Investors, and Oread West Office Park Owners Assn., Inc., property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 10B:         M-1 TO RO-1A; 3.880 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 15^TH STREET AND                                        WEST             OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

Z-10-37-03:   A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.880 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of W. 15^th Street and west of Wakarusa Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for W. David Kimbrell (contract purchaser) and Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, property owners of record.

Item 10A & 10B were discussed simultaneously.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson introduced the Items, explaining these were rezoning requests for portions of the Oread West Research Park.  To date, 1/3 of the buildable land had been developed with office/research industrial uses, and the applicant was requesting alternate zoning to allow for placement of other types of development in the subject areas.

Staff was concerned with how these requests met the Golden Factors, and outlined the following reasons behind Staff’s recommendation for deferral of both Items for further study:

• Granting the requests would allow placement of residential uses in the midst of light industrial/research uses
• The proposal would break apart an existing research industrial area
• The Code does not currently include a mixed-use zoning designation that would accommodate the applicant’s proposal
• Unknown impacts of the requested zoning on other undeveloped sections of the Research Park

Staff suggested deferral would be an appropriate action until a plan was created for the undeveloped sections of the Research Park.  The applicant had submitted a site plan but this, in Staff’s opinion, did not adequately address impact concerns.  It was noted that the site plan was not part of the Commission’s agenda Item consideration – the only issue before the Commission tonight was the requested zoning.

Mr. Patterson responded to questioning that comparison between this development and the recent Hobbs-Taylor Lofts was not a fair comparison, even though both were mixed-use infill projects.  The Hobbs-Taylor project had been held to a number of other criteria and development standards because of its location in a Historic Preservation area and in the C-4A zoning district.  This resulted in different regulations, reviews and goals for Staff.

Ms. Finger stated Staff’s concern was with the loss of detail established by the existing PID and the Commission’s reduced control over design and use with the application of conventional zoning.

Comm. Angino said this “work where you live” type of development was becoming a national trend and asked how Lawrence could follow this trend if mixed-use development was counter to the Code.  Staff was of the opinion that mixed-use development was not counter to the Code.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

David Kimbrell, contract purchaser, described the genesis and development history of the Research Park.  He explained the original vision of the Park had been for a high-tech research center, but the area had not evolved in that manner.  Many of the existing buildings remained vacant, part of Lawrence’s overall office space excess.

Mr. Kimbrell said the intent was to provide the mixed-use type of development that was becoming a popular and high-demand use nationwide.  The developer hoped this addition be a catalyst to restart the development of research park uses in the area.

Mr. Kimbrell described the amenities of the proposed development that he said would “put the City on the cutting edge of progressive development and architecture.”

Regarding Staff’s concerns about future development west of Research Park Drive, Mr. Kimbrell explained he would rather wait to purchase that property until the subject property began its cash flow, but he had obtained the right of first refusal for property west of Research Park Drive.

Mr. Kimbrell closed by stating there was a lot of support in the community for this project, that extensive study had been done to ensure the success of the new development, and deferral would make the developer miss the “economic and financial window” currently open to the proposal.

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, added to the applicant presentation by describing the growth of a new urbanism project in Kansas City, Missouri – Briarcliff.  He explained this development had gone through many changes in response to economic trends and market demand, with the help of flexibility on the part of the City and Planning Staff.

Mr. Herndon said the engineer for the Briarcliff project stated the mixed-use aspect had been an invaluable asset and had resulted in a better land use of the property as a whole.

Mr. Herndon said the submitted Site Plan and accompanying drainage study should provide adequate assurance to address Staff’s concerns.  Comm. Schachter said Mr. Kimbrell’s right of first refusal for the adjacent property to the west did not provide any assurance about the future development of or transition to that area.

While he thought the plans presented this evening would make a fine development, Comm. Schachter pointed out that, with conventional zoning, there was no way to guarantee the final development would match the pictures seen tonight.  He suggested a planned development zoning category - possibly a combination of PRD and POD - would provide this guarantee.

Mr. Herndon asked if this would constitute spot zoning and explained there had been an original submission for PID zoning that had been revised on the advice of Staff.  He replied to questioning that the applicant would be willing to work with a combination PID/PRD, although it would be an expensive modification at this stage.

PUBLIC HEARING

Dan Harden, BG Consultants, explained his company was a new resident in the Oread West area, and they (the company) also believed this project would “provide economic energy to the sluggish development” of the area. 

Betty Lichtwardt, 2131 Terrace Road, stated her support for Staff’s recommendation for additional study.  She believed a planned development was the best choice for the subject property.

Alan Cowles, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the Association’s steering committee felt this was a desirable and imaginative type of development that would constitute a small part of the overall area and would enhance the neighborhood as a whole.

Sam Campbell, owner of several properties in the area, supported the drive to bring research/science businesses to this area and thought this project would help recruit employees to those businesses. 

Comm. Schachter asked if there was any concern about depleting the already short supply of industrial land, acknowledging that this project involved a fairly small amount of property.  Mr. Campbell replied he was not concerned about the impact of this project, especially since this land was slated for light industrial uses and the shortage referred more to heavy industrial lands.

Tom Knight, owner of the Lawrence Office Center on the property adjacent to the east, said he fully supported the project as a stimulus for the entire area.

Don Zimmer, managing partner of the adjacent properties to the east, agreed with the support of previous speakers and said this project “encompassed new urbanism”.

Dan Ranjbar, owner of several properties in the area, said he was confident this project would be tastefully done and would answer two issues associated with the “glut of empty offices”:

1. Provide needed residential property
2. “Take offline” office property that could be more usefully developed

Dean Palos, Lawrence resident, explained his long association with Mr. Kimbrell and listed several points in favor of the project:

• New urbaninization is supported by many national planning organizations
• The design is “classy yet distinctive, not faddish or modern”
• The project is responsive to changing market demands and conditions
• This is an infill project, rather than sprawl

Mr. Palos was asked if he understood the Commission’s concern that there was no guarantee the final development would match the pictures shown tonight.  He responded that he understood the dilemma of Staff in applying the Code to new situations, but that Mr. Kimbrell had a “track record of doing what he says”.

Comm. Schachter asked if Mr. Palos had any concern about the placement of residential development surrounded by research and office zoning, isolated from other residential areas.  Mr. Palos said he though that design could work in this location. 

Mr. Palos said it seemed the Commission was saying it would be “nice” if the Code included a mixed-use zoning category.  Unfortunately, this was not the case and it would take a long time to make that addition.

Comm. Angino asked where on the internet the public could obtain further information about new urbanism and what demographics typically inhabited this type of development.  He was interested in what kinds of reuse would be possible if the current project were not successful.  Mr. Palos said the location and quality of the new construction would have the potential for a number of reuses.

APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Kimbrell explained this project was proposed as a phased development in which ground would not be broken on any phase until that section was over half sold.  This would prevent the construction of new buildings that would then stand empty.  He stated that the drawings shown tonight were not simply pictures, the project was “designed and ready to go”.

Acting Chair Burress asked if the project could be delayed 60 days to return as a PUD, if that change were found to be possible.  Mr. Kimbrell replied that a 60-day delay would pose a “tremendous financial problem” due to existing buying commitments and lease agreements. 

Mr. Herndon asked if there was any way to get the project, if returned as a planned development, on the January agenda, with a moderate degree of assurance the Commission would give their approval. Ms. Finger pointed out that there were already 31 Items on the Planning Commission agenda for January 2004, and the submission deadline for non-public hearing Items was yet to come.  The project could be placed on the agenda, but there was no guarantee the issue would be heard, even with a meeting extension.

Mr. Kimbrell asked if the Commission’s design concerns could be addressed with a signed affidavit that the final project would match the pictures shown tonight.  It was established that the Commission did not have the legal authority to make this kind of arrangement.  Comm. Lawson added that he felt the Commission had given a lot of latitude in this matter and he did not think it would be appropriate to negotiate a special arrangement.  Mr. Kimbrell said he was not asking for any “special treatment”, he was only trying to get his project underway.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was clarified that the applicant had initially requested PID zoning, which Staff had determined inappropriate because the PID category allowed residential development only as an accessory use.  Likewise, POD zoning allows residential uses but requires a minimum of 50% office space. 

Mr. Patterson explained how the project could be split into a mixed-zoning (POD-2 & PRD-1) planned development, but noted the Commission would have to deal with a number of variances and waivers with this proposal.

It was established the Commission could not approve the zoning based on the presented Site Plan in case, for some unpredicted reason, Mr. Kimbrell was not able to go through with his project.

Comm. Schachter said that trust based on the applicant’s history was not an issue.  Approving the zoning would allow for a revised Site Plan and the project, as currently designed, set a precedent for spot zoning.  He said the project needed PUD zoning and he would be wiling to attend additional meetings in January if needed to address the issue.

Staff noted the Commission’s recent direction to place Items on the agenda based on their potential for controversy or lengthy discussion.  The Commission discussed placing this Item, if returned as a PUD, early in the January agenda.  Ms. Finger obtained the Commission’s permission to present a single development plan for the two zoning categories when that part of the process came about.

It was pointed out that the public hearing was closed for this proposal, but a new hearing would have to be held related to the revised, mixed PUD design.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to table Items 10A & 10B for one month to allow the applicant to bring forward a rezoning request for the appropriate PUD categories in conjunction with a Preliminary Development Plan for the subject properties.

Motion carried unanimously 9-0.

ITEM NO. 11:           A TO I-2; 154.9 ACRES; NORTH OF N 1800 ROAD AND WEST OF E                                              900 ROAD (JLT)

Z-09-30-03:  A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 154.9 acres from A (Agricultural) District to I-2 (Light Industrial) District.  The property is generally described as being located north of N 1800 Road (Farmer’s Turnpike) and west of E 900 Road.  Submitted by 1800 Junction L.C. Property for Russell L. Tuckel, Jr., Penny J. Tuckel/Venture Properties, Inc. property owners of record.  This item was deferred from the November 19, 2003, Planning Commission meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Commission voted 7-1 (Comm. Haase in opposition) to defer Item 11 to the January 2004 meeting.

ITEM NO. 12:           PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS FOR EAST-WEST ARTERIALS (BA)

Receive staff report on proposed alternate alignments for East-West arterials north of W. 6^th Street and west of Folks Road.  The Planning Commission will discuss proposed amendments to draft document.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Ahrens explained this project was an analysis of potential alignments for an east-west arterial in the vicinity of W. 6^th Street and Folks Road.  The Lawrence Traffic Model had been used for the analysis, with the addition of future collectors approved by the Planning Commission (acting as the MPO) on the Major Thoroughfares Map.

The three possible alignments studied were:

1. Westward extension of Peterson Road from Folks Road to Queens Road;
2. Extension and improvement of Martin Park Road from Peterson Road north and west to Queens Road; and
3. Construction of a new east-west arterial between Folks Road and Wakarusa Drive, roughly equivalent to Stetson Drive.

A map had been provided that showed the positive and negative impacts of each alignment, as well as those of constructing no additional east-west connection.  A topographical map was also presented, showing the drainage and grading difficulties of each alignment.

Option 1 yielded the most positive effects in terms of service to land and development areas and relief to 6^th Street.  This alignment also resulted in the lowest increase in traffic for Monterey Way and Folks Road.  However, the proximity of Peterson Road – if extended – to City Park lands precluded the construction of this alignment due to a conservation easement agreement between the City and the former property owners.

Per Study Session direction, Staff had discussed with the Director of Legal Services the possibility of revising or reversing the land agreement.  Mr. Corliss had replied that this was not a viable option and should be removed from the list of considered possibilities.  Furthermore, neither the City Manager nor the City Commission would be amenable to considering a Peterson Road extension that touched property covered by the conservation easement.

Staff noted that a portion of the park property was not within the conservation district.  This meant Option 1 could be pursued without encroaching on the conservation easement, but diverting the road in this manner would bisect the overall park land.  Additionally, the entire amount of right-of-way would have to be taken from the south side of the road and would further reduce the amount of southern park space.

Option 2 offered the least relief to the existing congestion on 6^th Street and high impact on Monterey Way and Folks Road. This alignment also faced considerable drainage issues.

Option 3 was the least desirable in Staff’s opinion, based on many concerns including its abutment to Free State High School.  This option also generated an intense increase in traffic on Wakarusa Drive.

Comm. Haase was concerned the analysis did not consider the area outside the immediate vicinity or in the long-term future.  Acting Chair Burress asked if there was any way to estimate the environmental impacts of the three options.

Ms. Finger said one obvious effect would be on water quality, which was the purest in the subject area.  Also, existing wildlife areas would be divided.

The Commission discussed the potential increase in traffic in this area following the expansion of Highway K-10 as described by KDOT representatives at the November meeting.  This increase was expected to be significant and the Commission was concerned with how these additional vehicles could be dealt with, considering the results presented tonight.  Ms. Finger pointed out that carefully planned access management would help the situation greatly.

PUBLIC HEARING

Bob Lichtwardt, 2131 Terrace Road, said the proposed Option 1 would have a devastating environmental impact on the park land the City purposefully acquired.  He reminded the Commission that the conservation agreement would not allow a road or right-of-way for a road to be taken out of the conservation land.

Mr. Lichtwardt asked the Commission to remove Option 1 from their consideration, saying it was impractical and had many legal consequences.

Betty Lichtwardt, 2131 Terrace Road, told the Commission they should not forget to count the impact of alternate travel modes (particularly busses) when calculating traffic counts.  She said planning these alternate modes in conjunction with neighborhoods would significantly reduce the use of individual automobiles.

Ms. Lichtwardt asked the Commission to convey this idea of alternate transportation to KDOT for their (KDOT’s) future study of the K-10 expansion.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed tabling this issue as an ongoing concern with no immediate solution.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to table this Item to March 2004.

          Motion carried 7-1, with Comm. Haase voting in opposition.

ITEM NO. 13:           AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS (LMF)

Hold public hearing on proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code regarding new zoning regulations.

PUBLIC HEARING

Betty Lichtwardt, 2131 Terrace Road, explained she was loaning Staff a video entitled, Save Our Land, Save Our Towns.  She recommended viewing by the Commission and Staff.  Ms. Lichtwardt also provided 10 copies of a CD with examples and solutions for issues she had identified with the proposed new zoning regulations, including:

· Accessory dwelling units allowed in owner-occupied housing in targeted areas

· Carriage houses (units above separate rear garages with alley access) as part of a transit-oriented neighborhood development

· Definition of cluster development (affordable single-detached dwellings on smaller lots in combination with open space  - ZAC did not intend for this to apply to multi-family units or attached housing)

· Need for better definition of auto-related centers incorporated into the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan

Ms. Lichtwardt said one of her continued concerns with the new Code was the differentiation between large format retail and a mall.  As a member of ZAC, she said that body’s original interpretation was that large format retail implied a “stand-alone big, box use in one building and under one roof that exceeds the maximum floor area…that has been defined as 65,000 - 85,000 g.s.f.”  Ms. Lichtwardt suggested that, to prevent confusion, a mall should be defined as a separate use in a different definition.

Ms. Lichtwardt said the Land Use Committee of the League of Women Voter’s would appreciate the opportunity to continue reviewing the document as it progressed.

ACTION TAKEN

The public hearing was closed.  No action was required at this time.

_____________________________________________________________________________

MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS

MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS

1. Receive BOCC and CC approved UGA map and text amendments to Growth Management Chapter 4 in Horizon 2020 and take action to approve revisions.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Dyer explained the Planning Commission was being asked to consider superceding their November 2004 Resolution to approve the version of the UGA map as approved by the City and County Commissions.  He outlined the following differences:

• The City/County version retracts the southern boundary line from N 900 Road to N 950 Road.
• The City/County version extends the eastern boundary ½-mile east of E 1900 Road
• The City/County version extends the north boundary to the Jefferson and Leavenworth County lines.

Staff recommended approval of the revised UGA map as presented.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to adopt the Urban Growth Area map as presented as a Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan through a revised Resolution 2003-03 and forward it to the City and County Commission for their acknowledgement.

          Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

2. Receive CC approved Commercial Land Use Chapter 6 revisions to Horizon 2020 and receive BOCC comments regarding Chapter 6 revisions and take action to approve revised resolution to amend Comprehensive Plan.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Dyer explained the City Commission had approved a version the Commercial Chapter with significant changes from the document approved by the Planning Commission.  Those changes ran throughout the document, but were summarized on page one of the Staff Report as such:

1. Reduce the recommended gross square footage (gsf) for a Community Commercial Center from 500,000gsf to 350,000gsf.

2. Eliminate from the definition of “commercial uses” that a bank is allowable in non-commercial zoning districts.

3. Reduce the recommended gsf for a Neighborhood Center from 125,000gsf to 100,000gsf unless a grocery store is included in the Center.

4. Recommend that restaurants be an allowable use in an Inner-Neighborhood Center and increased the gsf for an Inner-Neighborhood Center from 750gsf to 3,000gsf.

5. Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive Community Commercial Center from 380,000gsf to 200,000gsf.

6. Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the US Hwy 59 and N1000 Rd Community Commercial Center from 350,000gsf to 200,000gsf.

7. Add to Policy 1.7 that the annual sales tax per square foot ratio will be done for sectors of the City.

8. Add language to the policy sections stating that Commercial Centers shall develop in a manner consistent with any City adopted design guidelines.

The County Commission had received and discussed both versions of the Commercial Chapter, deciding to take no action.  They forwarded the City Commission’s version to the Planning Commission with a request for input.

Staff recommended review and, if appropriate, approval of the alternate document and returning it to the City & County Commissions.

Comm. Lawson noted that the Comprehensive Plans Committee had worked diligently to arrive at the recommendations that had been forwarded and asked if those Commissioners who took part in that process felt differently about those conclusions. 

Comm. Schachter replied that he had been in the minority when the committee had voted on the issues that were outlined tonight.  Acting Vice-Chair Jennings said he would not support the City Commission’s changes because he felt the committee had given due deliberation to their recommendations.

Comm. Schenewerk said he thought the numbers were less than would ultimately be needed and the City Commission’s version was short-sighted.  He said the proposed revisions would “handcuff areas against future market flexibility”.

The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 20 minutes.

Comm. Haase made four arguments with respect to the upper limit of gsf for community shopping centers:

1. The Urban Land Institute (ULI – which he considered a pro-developer organization) regarded a 500,000 square foot center as a regional center or super regional center;

2. The Director of Planning had sent a memo to the Planning Commission expressing concern over the designation of  a 500,000 square foot community center (it was too large);

3. He did not believe population and population density projections supported the commercial retail growth anticipated by CC500 centers; and

4. A super majority of the City Commission supported a CC350 designation and he said the Lawrence City Commission should be recognized as the lead agency on this issue. 

Additionally, Comm. Haase suggested that smaller, more frequent centers would reduce drive distances and encourage forms of transportation apart from the automobile, which is consistent with Horizon 2020.

Regarding the idea of the City Commission as the “final say” in the matter, Staff pointed out the County Commission had the ability to adopt a different version if they chose.  It was noted that the document dealt primarily with City property, and it was undesirable to have the Governing Bodies adopt two different documents.

Comm. Angino expressed concern that failure to provide the large retail opportunities the public wanted would result in “customer leakage” to other areas.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve the City Commission version of the Commercial Chapter as presented.

          Motion was withdrawn in favor of a more detailed motion.

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve a portion of the City Commission’s changes to the Commercial Chapter as outlined on page one of the Staff Report.  This was described as such:

1. Recommend the size for a Community Commercial Center as 500,000 gsf (retain Planning Commission decision)

2. Eliminate from the definition of “commercial uses” that a bank is allowable in non-commercial zoning districts (approve City Commission change)

3. Recommend the size for a Neighborhood Center as 125,000 gsf (retain Planning Commission version)

4. Disallow restaurants from Inner-Neighborhood Centers and recommend the size of an Inner-Neighborhood Center as 750 gsf (retain Planning Commission decision)

5. Recommend the allowable size for the W. 6^th Street & Wakarusa Drive Community Commercial Center as 380,000 gsf (retain Planning Commission decision)

6. Recommend the allowable size for the Hwy 59 & N1000 Rd Community Commercial Center as 350,000 gsf (retain Planning Commission decision)

7. Add to Policy 1.7 that the annual sales tax per square foot ratio will be done for sectors of the City. (approve City Commission change)

8. Add language to the policy sections stating that Commercial Centers shall develop in a manner consistent with any City adopted design guidelines. (approve City Commission change)

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to allow a substitute motion to approve the City Commission version of the Commercial Chapter in its entirety as presented.

Motion failed to pass, 4-4, with Comm.’s Lawson, Jennings, Schenewerk and Angino voting in opposition.

Acting Chair Burress asked to split the motion on the floor into “approve” and “disapprove” Items with no opposition.

New motion on the floor was to approve the following City Commission changes to the Commercial Chapter:

2.  Eliminate from the definition of “commercial uses” that a bank is allowable in       

     non-commercial zoning districts.

7.  Add to Policy 1.7 that the annual sales tax per square foot ratio will be

     done for sectors of the City.

8.  Add language to the policy sections stating that Commercial Centers shall       

    develop in a manner consistent with any City adopted design guidelines.

                   Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

Motion on the floor was to disapprove the following City Commission changes to the Commercial Chapter:

1. Reduce the recommended gross square footage (gsf) for a Community Commercial Center from 500,000gsf to 350,000 gsf.

3.  Reduce the recommended gsf for a Neighborhood Center from 125,000 gsf to

    100,000 gsf unless a grocery store is included in the Center.

4. Recommend that restaurants be an allowable use in an Inner-Neighborhood Center and increased the gsf for an Inner-Neighborhood Center from 750 gsf to 3,000 gsf

5. Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the W. 6th Street & Wakarusa Drive Community Commercial Center from 380,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf

6. Reduced the recommended allowable gsf for the US Hwy 59 & N1000 Rd Community Commercial Center from 350,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to amend the previous motion to remove 3 & 4, thus approving those changes as approved by the City Commission.

          Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting 15 minutes.

Revised motion on the floor was to disapprove the following City Commission changes to the Commercial Chapter (thus retaining the Planning Commission’s original version):

1.  Reduce the recommended gross square footage (gsf) for a Community Commercial  

      Center from 500,000 gsf to 350,000 gsf.

5.  Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive

Community Commercial Center from 380,000 gsf to 200,000gsf.

6. Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the US Hwy 59 and N1000 Rd Community

         Commercial Center from 350,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Comm. Lawson said he feared taking a hard-line stance on these issues may result in the adoption of two different Commercial Chapters.  Comm. Haase said the City Commission version would be the one finally approved, but he would vote in opposition to make a statement.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to disapprove the following City Commission changes to the Commercial Chapter (thus retaining the Planning Commission’s original version):

1.  Reduce the recommended size of a Community Commercial Center from 500,000 gsf to 350,000 gsf.

5.  Reduce the recommended allowable size of the W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive

Community Commercial Center from 380,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf.

6.  Reduce the recommended allowable size of the US Hwy 59 and N1000 Rd Community

         Commercial Center from 350,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf.

Motion failed to carry, 4-4, with Comm.’s Schachter, Haase, Burress and Riordan voting in opposition.

SUMMARY

As a result of all motions made and acted upon, the Planning Commission accepted a revised CPA Resolution supporting five (5) of the changes that were approved by the City Commission, specifically:

2. Eliminate from the definition of “commercial uses” that a bank is allowable in non-commercial zoning districts.
3. Reduce the recommended gsf for a Neighborhood Center from 125,000 gsf to 100,000 gsf unless a grocery store is included in the Center.
4. Recommend that restaurants be an allowable use in an Inner-Neighborhood Center and increased the gsf for an Inner-Neighborhood Center from 750gsf to 3,000gsf.

7. Reduce the recommended allowable gsf for the W. 6th Street & Wakarusa Drive Community Commercial Center from 380,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf

8. Reduced the recommended allowable gsf for the US Hwy 59 & N1000 Rd Community Commercial Center from 350,000 gsf to 200,000 gsf

The Planning Commission failed to recommend disapproval of the City Commission’s modifications to the Commercial Chapter regarding three (3) points.  If this motion had passed, the Planning Commission would have been supporting retention of their own version of the following issues:

1.  Allowable gsf for a Community Commercial Center

5. Allowable gsf for the W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive Community Commercial Center

6.  Allowable gsf for the US Hwy 59 and N1000 Rd Community Commercial Center 

However, although the motion did not pass, KSA 12-747(b) states that the retention of the Planning Commission’s original version on these three points is automatic because there was a technical failure to act (tie vote).

3. Receive BOCC and CC approved Economic Development Chapter 12 revisions – no action is needed.

The Planning Commission received the document.

4. Revised Final Plat for The Sanctuary at Alvamar.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day explained that access problems for the subject property were found during review of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the property to the west.  KDOT had acknowledged these problems and was now willing to allow access revisions.  The TIS was submitted as a condition of plat approval.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to approve the revised Final Plat of The Sanctuary at Alvamar and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following condition:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;

b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and

c. Provision of a Master Street Plan.

Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

MISC. ITEM NO. 2: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT (LMF)

The Commission received this update as part of the packet materials.

MISC. ITEM NO. 3:     PC REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DONATED LANDS

a. The Commission discussed forwarding the letter as drafted by Staff to the City Commission regarding the Planning Commission’s desire to be involved in the City’s acquisition or acceptance of donated lands.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the letter as presented, authorize Acting Chair Burress to sign the document on behalf of the Commission and forward it to the City Commission for their consideration.

    Motion carried unanimously 8-0.

b. The Commission agreed to hold officer elections in January 2004 since Sue Pine had submitted her letter of resignation and directed Staff to add this to the January 2004 agenda.

ADJOURN – 11:30 p.m.

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.