Non-public Hearing item:

LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION

JANUARY 28 & 30, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Chairman Burress called the meeting to order on January 28^th at 6:40 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Haase, Angino, Lawson, Johnson, Schachter, Schenewerk, Riordan and Eichhorn. Attendance at reconvened sessions noted in those sections.

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

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the December 2004 minutes as presented.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0-1, with Comm. Eichhorn abstaining because he was not present at the December meeting.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

ZAC: The Committee did not meet.

TAC: The Committee met on January 8 to receive and discuss various reports. There was also discussion with KDOT representatives about future transportation planning efforts.

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 held two mid-month meetings, both dedicated to a continued review of the proposed new Land Development Code. This issue was on tonight’s agenda and it was presumed that the Commission would complete their deliberations and forward the document to the City Commission for that body’s consideration in early February.

COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:

Item 6 – Monterey Subdivision No. 8

Response from City Stormwater Engineer to questions about drainage issues

Items 7A & 7B

Information from consultant study showing amount of occupied and vacant office space per Study Session discussion

Item 12 – Rezoning at E900 Road and the Farmers’ Turnpike

List of permitted uses in B-1, B-2 and I-2 zoning districts

Item 14 – Proposed Zoning Code revisions

Additional draft language regarding transitions and Traffic Impact studies per Study Session discussion

Items 15A–15E – Annexation, rezonings and Preliminary Plat for Lake Pointe Addition

Comparison of allowed uses for C-2 vs. C-5
Preliminary Plat of Yankee Tank showing approved road connections
Ms. Finger explained a verbal request from an adjacent property owner for deferral of Items 15A – 15E had been submitted to Staff due to a death in the immediate family. The wake was being held this evening and this property owner, along with the most of the adjacent property owners (also immediate family), were not able to give this matter their full attention.

Item 17 – Rezoning on NW corner 6^th & Wakarusa Drive

Replacement page 17-10 of Staff Report revising typographical error in condition 2 as discussed at Study Session

Item 21 – By-Law revisions

Replacement page 7 of proposed By-Laws, reflecting additional wording as discussed at Study Session

Miscellaneous No. 3 – request for concurrent submission

Preliminary Plat currently approved for Stonegate No. 4 Addition
Revised Preliminary Plat with proposed changes to road configuration

General Miscellaneous

Study session summary
Summary of actions taken by the City Commission on 1/27/04 on the Commercial Chapter of Horizon 2020

The Commission considered the property owner’s written request to defer Item 17 from the Friday meeting. Comm. Haase explained that the Commission had tentatively agreed at the Study Session that they would not grant this request. However, after considerable thought, he had revised his decision and felt this issue was important and unusual enough that a significant number of the Commission should be present. Since it was established that there would be only a quorum in attendance on Friday, Comm. Haase felt it would be appropriate to defer Item 17 as requested.

Motioned by Comm. Haase and seconded to defer Item 17 to the February 2004 meeting.

It was discussed and agreed with unanimous consent to include Items 18 & 19 in the motion, since these projects were closely related. It was understood that the property owner for Item 18 was not requesting deferral.

Revised motion on the floor was to defer Items 17 – 19 for one month to the February 2004 meeting.

Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter and Johnson voting in opposition.

The Commission did not deal with the requested deferral for Items 15A – 15E at this time.

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS / ABSTENTIONS / DEFERRALS

· Comm.’s Haase, Angino and Lawson all reported phone discussions with Todd Thompson, representative for the applicant in Item 12. Comm. Haase believed there was no part of his discussion that would not be brought up in tonight’s meeting, but stated he would bring it to the Commission’s attention if any information was omitted.

· Comm. Haase explained he resided near the subject property in Item 12, but he did not feel this would impact his judgment in the Item. However, he said he would be willing to recuse himself from this Item if the Commission believed it would be appropriate.

ELECTION OF INTERIM OFFICER FOR REMAINDER OF 2003-2004 TERM

It was clarified that tonight’s election was to fill the position of Vice-Chair for the remainder of the 2003–2004 term (through May 2004). At that time, regular elections would be held for both the Vice-Chair and Chair positions for the full 2004-2005 term.

When nominations were opened, Comm. Schachter nominated Comm. Haase for the Vice-Chair position. There were no other nominations and it was motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to close the nominations.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to elect Comm. Haase as the interim Vice-Chair for the remainder of the 2003-2004 term.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Chairman Burress requested the Commission and the public to be succinct and avoid repeating the points of other speakers in recognition of the evening’s long agenda. He then proposed a temporary (for tonight’s meeting only) change to the usual policy that would allow the applicant 10 minutes for their introductory presentation instead of the usual 15.

If the applicant had multiple related Items, an additional 5 minutes would be allowed for a combined presentation time if the second Item was a different type of application (Ex. rezoning + plat = 15 minutes). Each type of Item would be allowed another 5 minutes of presentation time with a cap of 20 minutes.

It was suggested that there was already a perception on the part of the applicant that they were not given adequate time to present important information, particularly considering the amount of extra detail being requested by the Commission.

It was noted that this proposal would only apply to two Items (7 & 15) on tonight’s agenda.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to limit applicant presentation at the January 28, 2004 meeting to 10 minutes per Item. Associated Items could be presented simultaneously, with their 10-minute allotments combined, but with a cap of 25 minutes total.

Motion carried unanimously 9-0.

Ms. Finger introduced Comm. Grant Eichhorn, the new County appointee.

Swearing in of witnesses.

ITEM NO. 1: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIDGE AT ALVAMAR; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND WEST OF LAKE ALVAMAR (SLD)

FDP-10-12-03: Final Development Plan for “The Ridge at Alvamar.” This single-family residential development contains approximately 24.6487 acres and is located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately one-half mile west of Sport to Sport and west of Lake Alvamar. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Alvamar and Yankee Tank Investors, property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve the Final Development Plan for the Ridge at Alvamar as part of the Consent Agenda, subject to the following conditions:

Provision of a utility plan prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit;
Recording of the final plat with the Register of Deeds Office prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of a building permit;
Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include a detail of the ornamental fence and any gates associated with the fence at the intersection of the private and public sidewalks;
Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to specify that interior pedestrian paths shall be concrete;
Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street improvements for “Yankee Tank Lake Court and the intersection of Yankee Tank Court and Clinton Parkway”;
Submission of public improvement plans to the Department of Public Works for private streets, water, stormwater and sanitary sewer prior to release of the Final Development Plan for issuance of building permits;
Provision of a landscape plan per approval of staff that conforms with the master street tree plan to be approved per the Final Plat;
Execution of a site plan performance agreement; and
Provision of a note on the face of the Final Development Plan that states: “No occupancy until public improvements to Clinton Parkway/Yankee Tank Court intersection are completed and accepted.”

ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR THE RIDGE AT ALVAMAR; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND WEST OF LAKE ALVAMAR (SLD)

PF-10-19-03: Final Plat for “The Ridge at Alvamar.” This proposed 85-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 24.6487 acres and is located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately one-half mile west of Sport to Sport and west of Lake Alvamar. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Alvamar and Yankee Tank Investors, property owners of record.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve the Final Plat for The Ridge at Alvamar as part of the Consent Agenda and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:

Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Yankee Tank Court;
Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Clinton Parkway geometric improvements;
Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following changes:

a. Label utility easement along south side of Lot 48, Block 1;

b. Provision of the book and page reference regarding the Homeowners’ Association; and

c. Revise Planning Commission Chair name.

Filing of the Homeowners’ Association for Tracts “A, B, C and D” (Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation) to immediately follow the filing of the Final Plat for The Ridge at Alvamar Addition;
Pinning of the lots in accordance with section 21-302.2;
Submission of the following public improvement plans prior to recording of the Final Plat:

a. Clinton Parkway Improvements, per the City Engineer’s approval;

b. Stormwater improvement plans, per the City Stormwater Engineer’s approval; and

c. Street plans or sufficient documentation to demonstrate the private streets shall be constructed to minimum City Standards per the City Engineer’s approval.

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.

ITEM NO. 3: FINAL PLAT OF TENANTS TO HOMEOWNERS ADDITION, A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF LOT 1, BREWSTER SUBDIVISION AND AN ADJACENT TRACT; EAST SIDE OF HASKELL AVENUE NORTH OF 19^TH STREET (JLT)

PF-12-22-03: Final Plat of Tenants to Homeowners Addition, a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Brewster Subdivision and an adjacent unplatted parcel. This proposed single-family subdivision contains approximately .339 acre and is located on the east side of Haskell Avenue, north of 19^th Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Tenants to Homeowners, property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve the Final Plat of Tenants to Homeowners Addition as part of the Consent Agenda and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.

Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
Revise name of Planning Commission Chair on face of plat.

ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR ALDI SUBDIVISION; A REPLAT OF LOT 9, LAWRENCE AUTO PLAZA; 3025 IOWA STREET (JLT)

PF-12-24-03: Final Plat for ALDI Subdivision, a replat of Lot 9, Lawrence Auto Plaza. This proposed two-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 3.061 acres and is located north of 31^st Street and west of Iowa Street. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for ALDI, Inc., property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve the Final Plat for ALDI Subdivision as part of the Consent Agenda and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.

Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
Submittal of public improvement plans (for sanitary sewer plans) to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
Filing of a cross access easement providing access to Lot 2;
Provision of a note on the face of the plat that provides a Book and Page reference to filed cross access easement between Lots 1 and 2; and
Revise name of Planning Commission Chair on face of plat.

ITEM NO. 5: FINAL PLAT FOR LRM EAST ADDITION NO. 3; NORTH OF N 1360 ROAD (FRANKLIN ROAD) AND EAST OF E 1700 ROAD EXTENDED) (JLT)

PF-12-26-03: Final Plat for LRM East Addition No. 3. This proposed one-lot industrial subdivision contains approximately 11.23 acres and is located north of N 1360 Road (Franklin Road) and east of E 1700 Road (if extended to north). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for Stephen E. Glass, President, LRM Industries, Inc., property owner of record.

ACTION TAKEN

The Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to approve the Final Plat for LRM East Addition No. 3 as part of the Consent Agenda and forward it to the County Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing; and
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.

Execution of an agreement not to protest formation of future benefit district for E. 25^th Street;

3. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2; and

4. Revise name of County Commission Chairman to Charles Jones.

REGULAR AGENDA:

ITEM NO. 6: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MONTEREY SUBDIVISION NO. 8; WEST OF MONTEREY WAY AND NORTH OF STETSON DRIVE (SLD)

PP-01-01-03: Preliminary Plat for Monterey Subdivision No. 8. This proposed 33-lot residential subdivision contains 11.7 acres and is located west of Monterey Way and north of Stetson Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A. for M. S. Construction, Inc., property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day explained there had originally been a request for duplex zoning associated with this plat to allow both single-family and duplex development. That rezoning request had been withdrawn and the plat currently involved only single-family lots. She noted that some review comments, as well as public concerns, were related to the abandoned request.

Ms. Day gave an overview of the reply received from the City Stormwater Engineer to questions raised at the Study Session. In summary, Mr. Voigt said this project met the City’s stormwater requirements. The sloped street did not raise flood concerns for Mr. Voigt because the improvements to be made with the development were sized adequately to deal with the anticipated runoff.

A variance was requested to allow this development to provide less than 40’ of right-of-way on Monterey Way (offsetting the street to the east), although the full amount of right-of-way (80’) would ultimately be provided.

Comm. Johnson asked how buyers would be made aware that the cul-de-sac on Aspen Lane was temporary and that this street was intended to extend in the future. Ms. Day said this was an ongoing problem with no good solution. A note to this effect could be required on the Final Plat, but there was no guarantee potential home buyers would look at that plat before purchasing property.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, requesting that conditions 2 & 3 be removed. These conditions dealt with a requirement that lots 32 & 33 share an access drive onto Monterey Way. Mr. Herndon explained that both lots were estate-sized and the existing home on lot 33 already had a circular driveway in place.

Mr. Herndon showed two examples of how the driveway for Lot 32 could be designed so that ‘nose-in’ movements on to Monterey Way would be possible. He asked the Commission to remove the two conditions to eliminate the need for complicated legal agreements between the two property owners of these lots.

Mr. Herndon responded to questioning that the property owner with the circular drive would be willing to give up one of those points in exchange for individual access but he (Mr. Herndon) did not see a significant advantage to the City in this arrangement. It was pointed out that this would retain only two curb cuts on the collector in this area instead of increasing them to three.

Ms. Day noted that the existing circular drive did not meet the City’s required turning radius and that the separate access design had been discussed with Staff but had not been reviewed as an actual proposal.

Comm. Angino asked if there was any way to limit the driveway for Lot 32 to a design similar to that shown by the applicant. Mr. Herndon showed the Commission proposed language of this nature that the applicant was willing to place on the plat. Ms. Finger said the applicant could voluntarily include such language, but the Commission did not have the authority to make this design requirement.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke regarding the variance associated with this Item.

CLOSING COMMENTS

There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Mr. Herndon was asked what problems would face the applicant if the shared driveway were required. He replied that the property owners of Lots 32 & 33 would have to deal with complicated legal agreements for shared access, easements, etc. This might also impact the future sale of those homes.

It was discussed that this project was adding 33 homes in an area already facing significant traffic issues and it would set an undesirable precedent to allow an additional curb cut on this collector.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to grant the variance to allow for a reduced amount of right-of-way dedicated on Monterey Way from 40’ to 20’ on the north end of the property.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

COMMISISSION DISCUSSION

Chairman Burress discussed the relative monetary cost/value to the public at large of a single curb cut on this particular collector. His assessment was that a curb cut on an arterial street had a value of approximately $100,000. Since this was not an arterial but a collector approaching an arterial, the estimated value would be somewhat less but still a significant and unjustified cost the community.

It was suggested that the new regulations would provide a better way to deal with this problem, but that this was a unique situation involving an existing home.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Monterey Subdivision No. 8, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

Provide MEBO’s for Lots adjacent to all drainage easements;
Provision of a note that states Lots 32 and 33 shall have direct access to Monterey Way via no more than two access drives;
Provision of a note on the preliminary plat that states, “Submittal and approval of public improvement plans for Monterey Way to the City Public Works Department shall be provided prior to filing of the final plat”;
Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states, “No building permits will be issued for lots in this subdivision until Monterey Way, south of Peterson Road is completed and accepted by the City”;
Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states the landscape island shall be maintained by the homeowners association;
Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states the cul-de-sac shown at the north end of Aspen Lane is temporary; and
Provision of a revised preliminary plat to note the dimension of the proposed right-of-way dedication for Monterey Way.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

ITEM NO. 7A: PID-1 AND M-1 TO PRD-2; 8.83 ACRES; EAST OF RESEARCH

PARK DRIVE AND NORTH OF W. 15^TH STREET (PGP)

Z-12-51-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.83 acres from PID-1 (Planned Industrial Development) District and M-1 (Research Industrial) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally located north of W. 15^th Street and east of Research Park Drive. Initiated by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2003. W. David Kimbrell (contract purchaser) and Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, are property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 7B: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OREAD WEST OFFICE PARK; NORTH OF W. 15^TH STREET WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

PDP-12-13-03: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Office and a new Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Residential Park. This property contains 16.893 acres and the proposal is for eight office buildings, five residential buildings containing 65 dwelling units, and a clubhouse. The property is generally located north of W. 15^th Street and east of Research Park Drive. Initiated by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2003. W. David Kimbrell (contract purchaser) and Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, are property owners of record.

Items 7A & 7B were discussed simultaneously

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson explained the rezoning had been deferred from the December 2003 meeting to allow the developer to modify the request and submit a revised development plan.

Staff recommended approval of the revised rezoning and development plan, subject to several conditions, including a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre in the residential sections of the development.

Mr. Patterson pointed out a typographical error in the Preliminary Development Plan Staff Report and asked the Commission to revise condition 2f to read “…and 1/200 Net Square Feet for financial institutions.”

Mr. Patterson explained the information provided on the impact of removing the proposed amount of light industrial (office-type uses) space from the City’s inventory. It was established that the City’s desire for more industrial property was geared toward heavy industrial and, given the City’s vacancy rates for light industrial/office uses, the conversion of a portion of the subject area from light industrial to residential use would not pose a significant negative impact.

Staff outlined the three waivers associated with the project and responded to questioning that these waivers would allow for a better development:

1. Reduction to the peripheral boundary setback from 35’ to 0’ for the existing parking lot/existing driveway access (Phase I) on the west side of Lot 1, Final Plat of Oread West No. 11, adjacent to Bob Billings Parkway (W. 15^th Street).

2. Remove requirements for peripheral setbacks between the industrial (35’) and residential (30’) components within the development, as these setbacks would technically be peripheral since the two components are part of the same integrated Development Plan.

3. Allow the retention of the existing access drive to Lot 3, Block 3, University Corporate and Research Park which is located within the northern peripheral setback area.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. He had no comments beyond agreement with the Staff Report(s).

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on either of these Items.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Patterson reminded the Commission that there were two pending rezonings still tabled from the December agenda for the subject property [Z-10-36-03 & Z-10-37-03]. Mr. Herndon said the applicant would withdraw those applications in acceptance of the current proposal as initiated by the Commission.

Comm. Schachter brought up the issue of spot zoning, since this proposal placed residential uses in the middle of industrial ones. In his opinion, this was not an issue because the residential use was part of an overall PUD and was an acceptable development pattern given the size of the project.

It was clarified that a separate action was not needed to approve the requested waivers.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 7A

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the rezoning of 8.83 acres from PID-1 & M-1 to PRD-2 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 conditions:

1. Approval of the Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Office Park; and

2. Maximum residential density of 10 dwelling units per net residential acre.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Item 7B

Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Office Park, including the three requested waivers, 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 conditions:

Provision of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future signalization and geometric improvements for the intersection of Research Park Drive and Bob Billings Parkway (W. 15^th Street);

Provision of the following revisions to the Preliminary Development Plan:

a. Note No. 9, delete “Use Group 1- Agriculture – Animal Husbandry, Use Group 2 – Agriculture – Field Crop”, as they are not allowed in the PID-1 District per Section 20-1004(c)(1)(A);

b. For Note No. 22, per Section 20-1008.5(B) include “odor” as one of the restrictions of offensives not allowed to be detectable from the property line;

c. Include, “Planned Residential Development” after Planned Industrial Development in the Title;

d. Show W. 15^th as Bob Billings Parkway;

e. Include a minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces within the residential Phase III area;

f. Revise the parking ratios to incorporate required parking for medical and related offices of 1/100 net square feet, and 1/200 net square feet for financial institutions;

g. Include an ownership note for the residential condominium loft units similar to Note No. 18 for the office buildings; and

Addition of the following notes:

· “A revised final plat of the property will be accomplished to relocate utilities which otherwise would be under proposed new structures, relocate or dissolve property lines, and provide for the appropriate location and dedication of utility and drainage easements.”

· “Public improvement plans for waterline, storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be submitted to Public Works before the Final Development Plan is filed at the Register of Deeds.”

3. Provision of the following requirements of the Stormwater Engineer:

a. Label the detention outlet control structure per the approved drainage study;

b. Submit public improvement plans for the public storm sewer system to the Public Works Department for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;

c. Record the proposed drainage easements and provide copies with the engineering plans;

Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be submitted and approved for this project prior to any construction activity, including soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, and any release of building permits; and
Provision of a revised Final Plat of the property to relocate utilities which would be under proposed new structures, relocate or dissolve property lines, and provide for the appropriate location and dedication of utility and drainage easements.

Within 15 days after approval of the Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission, the landowner shall file with the Douglas County Register of Deeds a statement concerning the Preliminary Development Plan per Section 20-1012; and
The maximum residential density will be 10 dwelling units per net residential acre.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

ITEM NO. 8: A TO RS-1; 41 ACRES; EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY AT HARVARD ROAD (SLD)

Z-11-40-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 41 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located east of George Williams Way at Harvard Road. Initiated by the Planning Commission at the November 19, 2003, meeting. The City of Lawrence is the property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Day explained this was a “housekeeping” issue initiated by the Commission in order to bring the subject area into conformance by assigning it a City zoning designation.

Staff had received many calls from area residents who were concerned that the RS-1 zoning indicated at intent to develop the subject property with dwelling units. Ms. Day had explained to these callers that this was not the case, that there was no development proposal for this City-owned property.

RS-1 zoning was commonly used as a ‘placeholder’ zoning for public space. With the eventual adoption of the new zoning code, the OS – Open Space designation would take over for these areas.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

Motioned by Comm. Johnson and seconded to approve rezoning approximately 41 acres from A to RS-2 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. Execution and recording of a plat of survey for the subject property prior to publication of the zoning ordinance.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

ITEM NO. 9: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR CELL TOWER; 2300 WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)

UPR-12-07-03: Use Permitted upon Review request for placement of a cell tower. The applicant proposes a 150’ monopole tower. The property is located at the Clinton Water Treatment Plant facility at 2300 Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Faulk & Foster for T-Mobile. The City of Lawrence is the property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, which involved the placement of a second 150’ cell tower on a large parcel (119 acres) of City property zoned RS-1 for public space. The existing monopole had several co-locations and had reached capacity. The second tower was requested to provide space for more provider antennas.

It was established that, although the height and size of the pole restricted the number of available co-locations, the City did not have height restrictions for the poles other than how the UPR was conditioned. The City also did not have regulations regarding the placement of multiple poles in one area.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Brian Smith, Cavanaugh, Smith & Lemon, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Smith reiterated that the existing tower had reached capacity. A 150’ pole was able to accommodate four providers. For more than four, the pole must be both taller and wider. Poles over 199’ in height were subject to FAA registration and lighting standards.

Mr. Smith showed a photo simulation of the proposed tower in relation to the existing tower and viewed from the residential neighborhood. He described the visual impact of the proposed structure.

The applicant had sent a letter to property owners (beyond the radius of Staff’s notification letters) explaining the nature of the project. The applicant invited the area residents to a meeting on January 5^th and provided contact information for phone calls or written comment. Mr. Smith said that the only attendee was a City attorney and his office had received no calls or letters.

Mr. Smith responded to questioning that replacing the existing pole with a taller one would interrupt service for the customers of all the providers currently co-located on the existing tower and would depend on the applicant’s willingness to finance the removal and replacement of the new, taller tower.

Mr. Smith described the process by which the applicant considered alternate sites and came to the determination that the proposed location would best suit their coverage needs.

Mike Reed, Senior Engineering Manager for Nextel, explained that using “low profile” antennas reduced the coverage area for their frequency by 30-50%, making additional towers at smaller intervals necessary.

It was discussed that the towers were built in such a manner that other technologies (public safety services, wireless internet) could be co-located as well.

There was concern expressed that more towers would be requested in the same location, creating an “antenna farm”. Mr. Smith replied that he did not see that potential in this location. It was discussed that this antenna could be constructed to accommodate future expansion, but the applicant did not think the need would arise.

The applicant expressed no objection to providing the City with annual inspection reports regarding the structural integrity of the tower.

It was clarified that the proposed tower would accommodate four co-locations, including the applicant (Nextel), with multiple antennae for each provider.

PUBLIC HEARING

Steve Wheeler, 1992 Pecan Valley Court, expressed his concern with the visual impact of an additional tower near his home, showing photographs of the existing tower from his property.

Mr. Wheeler asked if the Commission could condition how many towers could be placed at a single site and suggested towers should be spread, rather than concentrated. He also suggested the applicant could construct a smaller tower, 70’-100’ to provide service for only their own customers.

Mr. Wheeler presented pictures of damage done by maintenance vehicles driving across curbs and unimproved City property to access the existing tower.

Mr. Wheeler suggested a number of reasons for the non-attendance by the neighborhood at the meeting called by the applicant. January 5^th had been a Monday, the first day of school, with harsh weather conditions. Also the meeting had been held at an inconvenient time (5:00 p.m.).

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Smith explained the restricted access that was planned for the site with the addition of the new tower, which would eliminate the rear access problem discussed by the public speaker.

Mr. Smith responded to questioning that a 70’-100’ tower would not meet the applicant’s needs and that locating on the Corpus Christi Bell Tower would not provide the needed service range.

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was established that a condition on this UPR restricting the location of future towers would be ineffective unless the future towers were proposed by this same applicant. However, the Planning Commission could forward to the City Commission a comment that they (Planning Commission) recommended a minimum distance between towers (1/4 mile was suggested). This concept could also be initiated for inclusion in the new Development Code.

Comm. Johnson suggested steps should be taken - public hearing, survey, call for comments - to determine how the community felt about tower placement (concentrating vs. spreading).

It was noted that, although there may have been valid reasons for the neighborhood not attending the applicant’s meeting, there were no calls or written concerns directed to the applicant or Staff. It was suggested that this was an indicator of the community’s level of concern in this matter, but countered that the actions of one neighborhood could not be used to assume the opinions of the entire community.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Use Permitted upon Review 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 conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;

2. Execution of a tower space or land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;

3. Provision of a letter that summarizes the structural standards of the proposed tower;

4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:

a. Provision of a revised site plan to show the location of proposed utility service lines, and removal of the reference to the dedication of utility easements. These areas are to be specifically described in the lease agreement between the application and the City per staff approval;

b. Addition of a note: “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower”; and

c. Addition of a note: “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”

5. The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference UPR-12-07-03 in the letter); and

6. Applicant shall provide the City Planning Office with annual inspection reviews verifying the structural integrity of the tower.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was suggested that the Commission allow the applicant to construct a taller tower in anticipation of future demand. This would reduce the chance of a third application in this location.

It was discussed that the tower could be approved for a current height of 150’, but conditioned for construction that would allow future expansion if warranted. There was concern that this future expansion would require a new UPR and requiring expandable construction now would be interpreted as a “promise” to the applicant of future approval.

Comm. Angino and Chairman Burress debated the validity of a general assumption that people were not concerned about an issue if they did not attend meetings where that issue would be discussed.

Comm. Lawson asked to call the question with no objection.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review 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 conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;

2. Execution of a tower space or land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;

3. Provision of a letter that summarizes the structural standards of the proposed tower;

4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:

c. Addition of a note: “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”

6. Applicant shall provide the City Planning Office with annual inspection reviews verifying the structural integrity of the tower.

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

ITEM NO. 10: M-3 TO RMD; .19 ACRE; LOTS 245, 247, & 249 OF THE 500

BLOCK OF LOCUST STREET (PGP)

Z-11-41-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately .19 acres from M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to RMD (Duplex Residential) District. The property is located on the south side of the 500 block of Locust Street. Submitted by Stuart R. Doores for Doores Addition, Inc., property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, explaining the request for duplex zoning in relation to the surrounding area.

Staff was of the opinion that the subject area was too small for the medium-intensity industrial uses allowed with the current M-3 zoning, but duplex development would not be consistent with the existing single-family development in the area.

Staff recommended the Commission use the Lesser Change Table to approve a rezoning to RS-2, rather than RMD, to better suit the area.

It was established that, given the size of the subject area, RS-2 zoning would allow for the construction of one single-family home and RMD zoning would allow for one duplex unit.

It was noted that the project would result in a residence located in the midst of industrial zoning and suggested that the Commission should consider expanding the rezoning proposal to include most of the block.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Stuart Doores, property owner and applicant, explained he had received a variance in 2003 that would allow industrial development on the subject property. Based on neighborhood concern, he had decided the revise his intent and was now requesting rezoning that would permit a duplex unit instead of an industrial use. He felt this would be an appropriate match for the duplex development along the 600 block of Locust Street.

Mr. Doores pointed out that the change from M-3 to RMD was less of a “jump” than from M-3 to RS-2.

Mr. Doores explained that building a single-family home in this location was not financially reasonable, since the price of the home would make it less marketable in this location.

The applicant was not opposed to delaying this project for the Commission to initiate a more comprehensive rezoning.

PUBLIC HEARING

Jennifer Johnson, 536 Locust, said she had no objection to duplex development next door to her property. She said the rest of the street (600 Block) had been developed in this manner and that property values had increased.

Ms. Johnson expressed no objection to the idea of rezoning the entire area for duplex, with the understanding that this would still allow for retention, expansion or rebuilding of an existing single-family use.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Doores qualified his previous statement that he would not oppose comprehensive rezoning of the area with the comment that he did not want to lose his approval for industrial development without an assurance that the alternative would be financially feasible.

Mr. Patterson noted that the 600 block of Locust, despite its duplex development, was zoned RO-2. The expanded rezoning suggestion raised no immediate concerns for Staff but Mr. Patterson said more review would be needed before a recommendation was made.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission pinpointed the expanded area for which they were considering initiation of rezoning. It was suggested that a transitional zoning, such as RO-2, would be appropriate for the expanded area and would allow for duplex development.

It was established that this zoning designation would have a different name in the new Zoning Ordinance, but the same uses would be allowed.

It was suggested that, if the Commission felt duplex uses were appropriate for the entire area, they should approve Mr. Doores proposal tonight so he could begin his development process. Then rezoning for the expanded area could be initiated as a separate action without unnecessarily delaying the applicant. There was concern that this would create a precedent of spot-zoning, even if the eventual intent was to match the entire neighborhood.

There was a countering concern that, after consideration, the Commission would decide not to pursue RMD zoning and create problems for the applicant, who had been so accommodating in delaying his own request.

It was suggested that basing approval for Mr. Doores project on the initiation of similar zoning for the entire area would protect against precedent concerns.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to approve the rezoning of .19 acres from M-3 to RMD and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Comm. Schachter stated that the motion might be practical, but was not legally permissible because it constituted spot-zoning. RS-2 zoning as recommended by Staff would not be spot-zoning because it would match the existing zoning to the south.

Comm. Johnson agreed with Comm. Schachter’s statement that approving Mr. Doores in advance of the proposed comprehensive rezoning was the wrong process and said she would rather use legal methods to reach the same outcome.

Staff was asked to comment on the legality of the motion on the floor. Ms. Finger said she was not qualified to give a legal opinion, but in the opinion of Planning Staff the motion as stated was spot-zoning and would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. She also pointed out that the Staff’s findings of fact were based on RS-2 zoning and could not be used in support of the motion on the floor.

There was continued concern by some Commissioners that the body would follow through with its intent with regards to Mr. Doores’ property. Chairman Burress said he thought the Commission could be trusted to do so.

Comm. Schenewerk proposed the following findings of fact in support of the motion on the floor:

The RMD zoning is a reasonable and suitable transition between the existing M-3 and RS-2 districts and the RO-2 district to the east.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of .19 acres from M-3 to RMD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact as stated.

Motion failed, 2-7, with Comm.’s Johnson, Riordan, Angino, Burress, Schachter, Eichhorn and Haase voting in opposition.

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to table the rezoning request to the regular April 2004 meeting.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to initiate a rezoning from M-3 to RO-2 for the property described as: the 500 block of Locust Street from the C-4 property to the RO-2 property to the east. A public hearing was to be scheduled for the Item for April 28, 2004 meeting.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Chairman Burress called a 10-minutes recess.

Meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m.

ITEM NO. 11: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REPLACEMENT BOOSTER PUMP STATION; WEST OF U.S. 59 AND NORTH OF N 900 ROAD (PGP)

CUP-12-09-03: Conditional Use Permit request for a replacement booster pump station. The property is generally located west of U.S. 59 and north of N 900. Submitted by Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., for Rural Water District No. 2. Wakarusa Township is the property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson explained the request for construction of a booster pump station, describing dimensions, building materials and the surrounding area. It was clarified that there would be no on-site staff at the pump station.

Staff recommended approval of the project as requested, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Brad Lindstrom, Bartlett & West Engineers, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom explained a verbal agreement for the pump station to locate on an alternate site had fallen through, resulting in the repeated request tonight.

Mr. Lindstrom was asked if there was any way to locate the pump station outside of the floodplain. He replied that the station must be at this elevation for engineering reasons.

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this Item.

CLOSING COMMENTS

There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Lawson and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a booster pump station and forward it to the County Commission with a recommendation fro approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

Obtain the signature of property owner or signed letter of agent consent for the Conditional Use Permit;
Revision of the site plan to include:

Legend showing what the curly connecting arcs and connecting T’s designate.
Limits of the Floodway (floodway areas in zone AE) and Flood Hazard area (special flood hazard area inundated by 100-year flood).

Obtain a development permit from Douglas County for placing a structure within the Flood Plain Management Area.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

ITEM NO. 12: A TO I-2; 154.9 ACRES; NORTH OF N 1800 ROAD (FARMER’S TURNPIKE) 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 December 2003 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the property owner.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Tully began by addressing concerns and questions the Commission raised during the Study Session. He provided an overview of regulations applying to lagoon systems for both industrial and small service uses. According to sources at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), lagoon variables included:

Different levels of review
Permitting processes
Types (discharging vs. non-discharging)
Minimum distances to residential development

In a very general sense, KDHE would permit a lagoon system here, with its size and type depending on design.

Staff had been asked to investigate the possibility of the City allocating additional water to RWD #6 so the District could supply the proposed development without reaching their own capacity. Mr. Tully explained that more information would be needed to answer this question and that the City would require a formal request from the Rural Water District.

The distance from the subject property to the City limits was approximately 1.4 miles in a direct line, or 3.3 miles following existing roadways.

Mr. Tully described the location of the subject area adjacent to, but outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA), noting the lack of industrial uses in the area and pointing out residential properties were scattered in what was mostly agricultural land.

Mr. Tully pointed out the purpose of the Agricultural District was to protect agricultural land from untimely urbanization. He then described the uses that would be permitted with the requested I-2 zoning, including the uses listed for B-1 & B-2 zoning.

It was established that no restrictions or covenants could be applied to restrict the uses in base zoning districts.

Mr. Tully explained the goals and principals of Horizon 2020 that were used in considering the request:

Policy 1.3 - limit premature development by discouraging “leapfrog” (non-contiguous) development.
Policy 2.3 - limit commercial development beyond the UGA
Goal 2 - conserve the character of Douglas County

Staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning based on the determination that the proposal did not meet the policy or intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was encouraged to pursue less intensive uses that would be more in character with the surrounding area.

Several points were established:

The requested I-2 zoning also permitted the uses allowed in B-1 & B-2 zoning, including large shopping centers, with no restrictions;
Depreciation of the character of the existing agricultural land was harder to define than monetary property value; and
Even if the subject property were inside the UGA, the proposal would be considered leapfrog development because of its distance from the current City limits.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, giving more detailed information on lagoon systems and how one would operate on this site. He said lagoon systems were common in the state and several existed in Douglas County without complaint.

Mr. Struble said the applicant intended to build streets to City/County standards in anticipation of future growth, as well as constructing adequate infrastructure for eventually connecting to City services.

The applicant felt the subject area was ideal for industrial uses because of its proximity to major transportation corridors. Mr. Struble explained that industrial uses took considerably longer (at least 20 years) to develop, so this project was timed correctly despite its distance from the City limits. Rezoning the property now was the only way to insure this prime industrial land would be reserved for this use.

Mr. Struble suggested that Staff was incorrect in characterizing the surrounding area according to existing uses. He felt existing and future traffic patterns would be a better indicator of the area’s best use.

Comm. Schachter pointed out the Comprehensive Plan policy that urban and industrial development should be contained within the UGA, he asked Mr. Struble to provide justification for approving this project outside of that boundary. Mr. Struble replied that the UGA was not and should not be a static line, at the risk of losing economic opportunities. Furthermore, the UGA was designed based on potential residential growth and he did not think this boundary should apply to industrial development.

Comm. Schachter said the Commission respected the applicant’s honorable intention to develop the site as being proposed, but asked what could be done to prevent alternate development if the property changed hands for some reason. Mr. Struble explained the property owner planned to self-impose use covenants. Additionally, uses would be self limiting because those that used more water would require a larger lagoon, which would result in less developable land.

Mr. Struble described the intended uses as similar to East Hills Business Park, possibly with a small convenience store on the southwest corner.

Mr. Struble said the City had clearly stated their intent to look for an additional 1000 acres of mid- to heavy industrial land, and scattered residents of the rural areas where these lands would be found would come to protest at every meeting.

It was clarified by Mr. Struble that the applicant had never had any intent to include a truck stop in the project, pointing out there were two truck stops within 10 miles of the subject property.

Comm. Johnson, pointing out Mr. Struble’s involvement in the recent UGA expansion process, asked why this “prime industrial land” was not brought to the Commission’s attention sooner. Mr. Struble said the applicant’s development restrictions – if this proposal were denied – would have been significantly altered if the property had been pulled into the UGA.

Comm. Haase addressed the excavation business that was currently located on adjacent property, noting this use was non-conforming and would soon be removed so should not be considered character-defining for the area.

The Commission, the applicant and Staff discussed various interpretations of “leapfrog development”. Ms. Finger provided the Horizon 2020 definition, which Comm. Angino found nebulous and Mr. Struble said should not apply to anything but residential development.

PUBLIC HEARING

Don Fuston, Chairman for RWD #6, was present to answer any questions about the letter sent from the District to the Commission. When asked about fire protection, Mr. Fuston said the RWD was not designed for this purpose. It was possible RWD #6 could provide for a portion of the new development’s fire protection needs, but he was doubtful the District could cover the full amount with their existing capacity.

Mr. Fuston said his district was already predicting rationing would be necessary before their current contract with the City expired in 2016. It was established that all the water in Clinton Lake reservoir had been allocated and available resources in Perry Lake were of poor quality.

Mr. Fuston responded to questioning that an estimated 5-7 million gallons of water might be used per year on the subject property, but this would vary depending on what uses were developed.

Price Banks, on behalf of the Scenic RiverWay Community Association (SRCA), read into the record a petition signed by 124 residents stating reasons for opposing the proposed rezoning including:

The development would have a profound negative impact on the one of the nicest rural developments in the area.
The proposal was leapfrog development and would promote urban sprawl, including “parasitic” uses to serve the primary anchor.
There was no way to guarantee the property would remain in the control of the current owner.
This would promote industrial development all along Framer’s Turnpike, leaving the door open to a variety of high nuisance and/or commercial uses.

Dave Ross stated he was the President of the SRCA but asked to speak only on his own behalf. He addressed the applicant’s claims that this location was ideal for industrial uses because of its proximity and access to multiple highways.

Mr. Ross said, in his experience, truck drivers were not as concerned with highway access as they were with maneuverability once inside the destination area. He also felt the access issues would become a moot point once the SLT bypass was completed.

Mr. Ross said the East Hills Business Park and Farmland areas were ideal for industrial clusters with little opportunity for residential uses. The subject property, on the other hand, was good land for residential development.

Lynn Parman, Vice-President of Economic Development for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, provided information about industrial park development.

Lawrence currently holds approximately 250 available acres of industrial land. Parcels of industrial land varied in size, with the majority ranging between 5-10 acres – the most frequently requested parcel size.

Ms. Parman explained the existing amount of vacant industrial land was considered a 5-10 year supply, and that it takes approximately 3- 5 years to put new industrial land into inventory. The more options a community could provide to prospective new businesses, the better.

Ms. Parman was asked how many development opportunities had been lost due to lack of larger sites. She replied that this information was tracked, but she did not have the data with her. Asked to estimate, she said approximately a dozen per year.

Asked about the job growth potential of industrial land per acre, Mr. Parman provided data about the estimated number of employees per acre in the East Hills Business Park. She pointed out that these numbers were skewed somewhat by the presence of one business in the Park that provided a significant portion of those jobs by itself.

Ms. Parman answered a number of other questions:

Municipal services such as water and sewer might play a role in attracting a business to Lawrence, but the importance of this factor would vary depending on the type of user.
The Chamber has recently begun tracking the number of people who commute to Lawrence. Numbers are not yet available.
Lawrence may have occasionally been eliminated from consideration based on access issues, but the City’s location between Topeka and Kansas City was appealing to many businesses.

Larry McElwain, Chairman of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, explained the Chamber’s purpose was to be the “primary advocate for the economic vitality of the city.”

Mr. McElwain said the Chamber did not want to lose this opportunity to be ready with inventory for the future. He added that this was a key opportunity because it was a private enterprise, not a publicly-financed (City initiated) one.

Asked about balance in accordance with Horizon 2020, Mr. McElwain stated the Comprehensive Plan was intended to be a dynamic document, moving and changing with opportunity and need.

It was verified that the Chamber, according to Mr. McElwain, supported private development of industrial lands in general and this proposal specifically.

Dr. Marguerite Ermeling, D.V.M. and member of the SRCA, spoke about the area as a gateway to the City as described in Transportation 2025. She said the City’s transportation plan did not propose this area for intense commercial and/or industrial traffic. Although the area could handle the immediate need, it would not be able to accommodate the potential “domino effect” of future development following this project.

Dr. Ermeling suggested the City resurrect the Eastern Bridge concept (providing a connection between K-10 and I-70 east of the City) instead of overburdening the subject area.

The Commission voted unanimously to extend the meeting 45 minutes.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to deal with Items 13, 14 and 15A-15E at the meeting extension, scheduled for Friday, January 30, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. Items 15A-15E would be heard first, Item 14 second and Item 13 third. The agenda would then continue as published.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

Greg Foley, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and member of the SRCA, gave additional information about lagoon systems. He described the size of lagoon that would be needed to serve an industrial site of this size and how much water would be needed to serve it, noting the existing shortage of the area’s water district.

As an area resident, it was suggested that Mr. Foley was somewhat biased. Mr. Foley said bias was unavoidable in any discussion, but the information he had presented was simply factual.

Louis Copt, landscape artist and member of the SCRA, spoke about retaining the aesthetic quality of the area and refuted the applicant’s claims that this project would not be a significant visual detriment.

In response to Mr. McElwain’s statement that the Chamber supported this project, Mr. Copt showed a printout of the Chamber’s home web page, pointing out its focus on the types of rural uses that this project would destroy.

Jim Bagget, treasurer of the SRCA, said he had repeatedly heard the words, “devaluation by negative connotation”, in discussions with various area realtors about the impact of the proposed project on existing and future development.

Mr. Bagget stated that all existing development had been done in conformance with the existing zoning.

Dr. Greg Burger, member of the SRCA, pointed out the City’s Parks & Recreation Department had bicycle and pedestrian paths planned fro this area and that these uses do not mix well with heavy truck traffic.

Dr. Burger also expressed concern about emergency vehicle response times to this remote area and the impact of potential uses (he gave the examples of truck stops, strip clubs and factories).

Dr. Burger said the area residents understood that growth was unavoidable and their neighborhood would eventually be annexed and developed. However the residents felt it was too soon for this kind of project and wanted more information on what the City thought this gateway to the City should look like.

Ron Willis, KU Professor and member of the SRCA, read into the record a letter of concern. He stated that this land, as part of a rural service area, should not be or expect to be subjected to urban uses.

Mr. Willis said this proposal was a spot-zoning deviation in direct violation of Horizon 2020 that leapt over zoning categories and set precedent for future applications.

Mr. Willis closed by commenting that even approving a Site Plan for the area did not guarantee the eventual development of the property.

Phil Hodson, farmer and member of the SRCA, spoke about farming concerns in relation to the proposal. He countered the previous statement that this area was not suitable for cultivation uses, saying the ground was idea for grazing and cattle operations. Mr. Hodson said the land was also well-suited for various crops such as barley, red wheat and sunflowers that were important to the agricultural economy of the state.

Mr. Hodson listed a number of State agricultural departments that did not support the “myth” being created that this project was the in the public interest.

Janette Funk, area resident, and member of the SRCA, spoke as a concerned parent, describing the events leading to her family’s relocation away from industrial development to a rural location.

The Funk’s had moved a year before away from the Farmland Industries area, where industrial pollutants had been found in the groundwater and soil.

Ms. Funk asked who would regulate this development for the air, water and soil pollutants that her family had moved to avoid.

Phyllis Copt, teacher and member of the SRCA, spoke about safety issues, particularly in relation to the students of Free State High School located four miles from the subject property.

Ms. Copt was concerned about the mix of heavy truck traffic with school busses and student drivers, as well as the negative influences possible with certain types of uses (she gave the example of drugs and prostitution associated with truck stops and sexually-oriented businesses).

Dr. David Faurot, KU Professor and member of the SRCA, analyzed the proposal in relation to the Golden Factors and per his discussions with local attorney, Jane Eldredge.

While East Hills Business Park had been given as an example of agricultural uses existing around industrial uses, it should be noted that there was no significant of residential development in that (EHBP) area. This subject area had a considerable amount of existing residential uses.

Dr. Faurot stated that this project was in conflict with the Industrial Land Use Goals of Horizon 2020 and the policies meant to ensure industrial development was concentrated in areas with similar uses.

Lance Logan, 1872 E. 850 Road (Lecompton, KS), explained he commuted daily to his job in the East Hills Business Park. He had purposely chosen to live in a rural setting and appreciated the existing character of the area.

Sonny Foley, 884 N. 1850 Road, explained he had a machinery/construction business that had been “grandfathered in” for his property. Mr. Foley said he had not resided and farmed his land for over 60 years to now see smokestacks and truck stops in his front yard.

The Commission voted unanimously to extend the meeting 30 minutes.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Todd Thompson gave closing comments on behalf of the applicant, beginning by pointing out the Horizon 2020 statement that industrial growth should be paced to match residential growth. He said aggressive marketing techniques were needed to make Lawrence a viable prospective location for new industrial users.

Mr. Thompson referenced the City’s recent direction to Staff to identify at least 1000 acres of new industrial land, and said the same issues and concerns would arise every time. He did not want to downplay the impact on individuals, but felt this was an unavoidable conflict.

Mr. Thompson pointed out that very few homes existed within 1000’ of the subject area, but this number would increase over time if identification of this property as industrial land was delayed. Mr. Thompson asked at what point the City would let the public know that this and/or other sites, were slated for eventual industrial uses, thereby reducing the number of homes built in these areas and the amount of future individual concerns.

Mr. Thompson agreed Horizon 2020 was not a static document and should be adjusted when appropriate.

Ms. Finger gave closing comments for Staff, stating the preliminary results of Staff’s search for new industrial land would be presented in March, 2004.

Ms. Finger responded to questioning that modifying all the City’s planning documents (Horizon 2020, Transportation 2025, Wastewater Master Plan, Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Adequate Public Facilities Plan) to match the approval of this project would be an extensive task, taking years to complete.

It was discussed that, logically, industrial areas of size would be located on the City’s outskirts, within the outer boundary of the UGA, and should have a service provision plan.

The information provided in March would begin to answer the question of how to dedicate and establish these areas in advance of residential development without “leapfrogging”. That research would look at a 20-50 year horizon of industrial land needs. In the meantime, it was verified as Staff’s opinion that this project did indeed constitute leapfrog development.

Chairman Burress asked to add to the Parking Lot list a discussion about whether the Commission’s 20-year overall planning horizon was adequate.

Mr. Thompson and Mr. Struble explained in response to questioning that the self-imposed covenants would be designed to create an industrial development similar to the Delaware Street industrial park. East Hills Business Park also had similar covenants to restrict uses. Parties to the covenants depended on which groups, interest or property owners wished to take part. Mr. Thompson was of the understanding that the governing bodies were not interested in taking part in these agreements.

Chairman Burress noted that the covenants proposed by the applicant could be changed by the property owner any time in the future and provided no assurances of appropriate land uses.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Johnson summarized her oppositions to the project. She said one purpose of the UGA was to warn residents that “the City is coming”, and this area was not included inside the boundary when the UGA was expanded only one month previous.

There was insufficient infrastructure to support development and Comm. Johnson could not believe it would be possible to attract quality businesses to an area with no water and a lagoon septic system.

Comm. Angino also expressed his opposition to the project, stating that “water is key”.

Comm. Schenewerk said he had no problem with the lagoon system, knowing there were several examples locally and statewide of this being a viable sanitation option. However, he acknowledged that water was a very real problem for the area.

Comm. Schenewerk said the site and traffic patterns were ideal for industrial use and, overall, he thought it would be visionary to set this land in reserve as an appropriate site for this type of development when there were better rules in place to control specific uses. He suggested the City would regret not taking this opportunity.

Comm. Riordan agreed with the leapfrogging and water concerns expressed by other Commissioners, stating he could not support the application at this time. However, he said the existing property owners needed to understand that development of some kind would occur, particularly after the interchange was built.

Comm. Schachter said the I-2 zoning was too broad in its list of permitted uses and a needed County-wide industrial plan was underway.

The Commission voted unanimously to extend the meeting 15 minutes.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Haase and seconded to deny the rezoning request for 154.9 acres from A to I-2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Comm. Schachter restated the City’s desire and need for additional industrial land. He supported future/comprehensive planning and regretted this had not been done sooner. However, he agreed the City had made a commitment by their recent approval of the expanded UGA boundary that there were areas that the City would not reach within 20 years.

Comm. Angino said he was sure the City would reach the subject area within 15 years. It was suggested that the City had “promised it wouldn’t” reach that far by approving the new UGA.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to deny the rezoning request for 154.9 acres from A to I-2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.

Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Lawson and Eichhorn in opposition.

The Commission voted unanimously to recess the meeting at 12:25 a.m. (1/29) and reconvene at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 30, 2004 in the City Commission Chambers. That meeting began with discussion of Item 15 – see that Item for attendance and other specifics.

ITEM NO. 13: TEXT AMENDMENT TO FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY (BPD)

TA-12-05-03: Text Amendment to Floodplain Regulations in the County. Consider amendments to Article 28 of the Douglas County Zoning regulations regarding Floodplain Management Regulations. Initiated by Planning Commissioners.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Dyer explained that both the County and City Commission had expressed a desire for more comprehensive and restrictive floodplain regulations when the new floodplain maps were adopted in 2001. The City Commission had approved revised City Regulations and the Planning Commission was now asked to consider making similar revisions to the County Regulations.

Mr. Dyer said the proposed changes in the regulations would only apply to property that was within the UGA and the actual ground within the floodplain. If a lot lay only partially within floodplain, the land outside the floodplain would not be regulated.

In order to subdivide, a property owner would have to do a hydrological and hydraulic (H & H) study to prove there would be no increase in the base flood elevation or in flood velocities. This was similar to language in the City’s new floodplain regulations.

No changes were proposed to the regulations governing floodplain property outside the UGA. These properties would only be required to elevate 1’ above base flood elevation (BFE), as current regulations state.

It was clarified that agricultural buildings are not subject to floodplain regulations whether in or out of the UGA because the County does not require a building permit for these structures so there is no way to track their completion with the floodplain regulations.

The Special Projects Committee supported the proposed revisions unanimously and Staff recommended approval as well. Staff additionally recommended initiation of a rezoning for all existing Valley Channel (VC) zoning districts to Agricultural zoning and an elimination of the VC category from the regulations.

Mr. Dyer explained the VC zoning district is the most restrictive County zoning district, allowing no development beyond recreational structures or a farm dwelling. A farm dwelling is not defined in the current Code. Property owners wishing to build in the VC generally request rezoning of their lot(s), creating spots of alternate zoning within the VC area.

It was discussed that there was little written documentation to support the location of the VC area.

The Commission discussed several aspects of agricultural buildings in the floodplain. It was established that:

Although they are not subject to floodplain regulations, these properties can participate in the floodplain insurance program but insurance rates are likely to be higher.
There has been some effort to change regulations to require building permits for agricultural buildings, which would provide a way to track and thus regulate these structures.
If regulated, it would be possible to create a specific exemption so agricultural buildings would not be required to submit an H & H study.

If the VC District were eliminated, the only change to the affected properties would be a possibility of higher density development using the 5-acre exemption. All structures would still have to be elevated 1’ above the BFE.

Comm. Schenewerk departed at 7:05 p.m., January 30, 2004.

PUBLIC HEARING

Joyce Wolfe spoke as President of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association and Chair of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods. She expressed concern that a significant portion of the southern UGA was in the floodplain. Piecemeal development allowed in this area by removal of the VC District would create a negative impact on the rest of the floodplain. Ms. Wolfe said this was an ideal location for much-needed open space.

Ms. Wolfe asked if the southern UGA could have a detailed stormwater study done, similar to that being developed for North Lawrence, to investigate the impact of development on that area.

Pat Ross, 1616 N. 1700 Road, explained his property lay in both the UGA and the floodway fringe. He had understood, following the November 19, 2003 County Commission meeting, that the only change that would be brought about by the expansion of the UGA would be that he would need to plat if the subject property were inside the expanded boundaries.

Mr. Ross was concerned that he was now being subjected to floodplain regulations and asked how this would impact his existing and potential new buildings, both agricultural and residential. He supported the suggestion that Ag buildings be exempt from the new floodplain regulations.

It was established that Mr. Ross could expand his existing buildings within the floodplain if he self-financed. Any lending institution would likely require him to carry flood insurance.

John Selk, member of the Special Projects Committee, was concerned about Section 28.9 requiring a Certificate of Elevation be recorded within 60 days of obtaining a building permit. He asked how this would be dealt with if the building permit expired (also a 60-day time period) before the concrete foundation could be poured.

Mr. Dyer responded that this Section was not changed from the existing Code, and expired permits would be dealt with in the same manner currently followed.

Mr. Selk was also concerned about the requirement for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMR) prior to issuance of a building permit for properties located in the floodway fringe. He suggested requiring a conditional LOMR instead, since the final LOMR could take up to a year to obtain. Mr. Dyer said the City’s new floodplain regulations stated that a floodplain development permit did not expire for 18 months and included a provision for a 6-month extension at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.

It was clarified that it was possible to obtain financing for structures in the floodway fringe without an elevation certificate, but flood insurance was required unless the property owner acquired a LOMA or LOMR (Letter of Map Revision). As a lender, Comm. Lawson testified that failure to require a LOMR for financing could detriment the lender’s lien on the property.

The Commission discussed language revisions regarding when a LOMR would be required. Staff pointed out the purpose of the language proposed was to protect the property owner, and Mr. Dyer suggested the LOMR be required prior to obtaining a building permit.

Comm. Schachter stated his intent to recommend deferral after the public hearing, feeling the Commission needed more time to discuss this issue than was available this evening.

JD Yanek, Builder/Realtor Coalition, supported the suggestion of deferral, since his Association would be meeting the following week to discuss the new regulations. He asked the Commission to consider inclusion of an appeal process to the 60-day expiration rule.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Dyer asked the Commission to provide Staff with more direction regarding agricultural buildings in the UGA if they chose not to act on this Item at this time.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Johnson spoke about the effect of piecemeal development in the floodplain. It was suggested that the best course would be to anticipate full urbanization of the watershed and have H & H study and platting requirements for all upstream development.

It was discussed that the VC zoning gave added protection against development for rural areas until those areas were planned. However, Mr. Dyer reminded the Commission, the location of the VC was not supported by any written data.

The Commission discussed tabling the issue for more discussion at a later date. Staff was asked to provide options for dealing with agricultural buildings.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to table the Item until the March 17, 2004 meeting.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Chairman Burress explained that tabling to a certain time was not correct procedure, and this motion should be to “postpone to a time specific”. Similar to deferral action in Item 15B.

ACTION TAKEN

Revised motion on the floor was to postpone the Item until the March 17, 2004 meeting.

Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.

Comm. Lawson departed at 7:45 p.m., January 30, 2004.

ITEM NO. 14: ZONING CODE REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20, CODE OF CITY OF LAWRENCE (LMF)

Final Public Hearing for Zoning Code Revisions to City of Lawrence Zoning Regulations, Chapter 20, Code of City of Lawrence.

At the January 28^th meeting the Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to deal with this Item at the meeting extension scheduled for January 30, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. It was agreed that this Item would be heard second on the extended agenda. At the beginning of the January 30^th extension, this agreement was revised and this Item was heard fourth on the agenda.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Finger directed the Commission’s attention to the multiple documents they had received regarding this issue. Four meetings were held to for Commission discussion of the new Code (in addition to numerous listening sessions) and most of the direction given to Staff from those meetings had been incorporated into the draft document. The remaining revisions were outlined in the summary documents distributed by Staff.

It was suggested the Commission open the public hearing for those in attendance tonight, although it was unlikely the Commission would take action this evening. The Commission would have the option to extend or reopen the public hearing for another meeting if they saw fit.

PUBLIC HEARING

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, read into the record a letter the group had sent to the Commission. She said many of the Association’s concerns had been addressed, but a few remained. These included:

Buffer yards – LAN felt 10-25’ between RS- and other districts was not adequate
Balconies – limiting balconies on taller apartment complexes to face away from low-density residential areas did not deal with the shading issues created by placing these uses adjacently
Notification of neighborhood associations – LAN suggested that when a development proposal arose for a planned development or commercial node (or part of such), all neighborhood associations with boundaries touching any part of the subject property, node, etc. should be notified.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Ms. Finger corrected an omission, asking the Commission to add to their information that some base zoning district boundaries included street access while others did not. She wanted the Commission to be aware that Staff had added this section to each of the district descriptions (Re: Article 2).

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was verified that, if additional discussion time was desired, the Commission could convert the scheduled February Mid-Month Meeting to an extension of this meeting. No action was taken at this time and the Commission agreed to pick up with discussion at the next meeting extension.

The Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recess the extension meeting (1/30) until February 11, 2004, 7:30 a.m. in the City Commission meeting room. Staff noted the presence of an applicant representative waiting for the Commission’s consideration of what was presumed would be a brief Item. The Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to reconsider their action to recess, then returned to session with unanimous consent to deal with Miscellaneous Item No. 3.

__________________

The third session of the January agenda meeting reconvened at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 in the City Commission Room. Members present: Burress, Angino, Schachter, Schenewerk, Johnson, Jennings, Riordan, Eichhorn and Haase.

Staff members present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Tully and Saker.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Issues raised by Comm. Schachter and Chairman Burress were discussed with Staff, establishing that most had been incorporated into the draft document or placed on the list of changes dated 02.06.04 and distributed this morning.

Remaining issues were considered substantive in nature and required direction by the Commission as a whole. It was suggested the Commission discuss and vote on these issues individually as needed.

Comm. Riordan arrived at 7:45 a.m. and Comm. Schenewerk at 7:55 a.m. during discussion.

It was noted that two members of the public, Betty Lichtwardt and Patricia Sinclair, had challenged the City’s recent approval of a text amendment to Section 20-1808 on successive petitions. Ms. Lichtwardt’s concerns were procedural, questioning the City’s ability to apply the regulations as approved. Ms. Sinclair’s concerns were more substantiative, suggesting the regulations were not appropriate as approved.

It was clarified that the regulations, as currently stated, required a 1-year waiting period before filing a successive petition if either of the following conditions were true:

The City Commission denied the original submission and protest petition was filed.
The new submission was not substantially different from the original, denied submission.

Staff explained the floodplain regulations, as approved, would be placed in their exact form into the Development Plan.

It was noted that a subsection related to Street Access had been included for each zoning district in Article 2.

Ms. Finger suggested the Commission add to their list of topics a consideration of the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement for cluster housing in multi-family zoning districts. The intent of allowing cluster housing was to make the process simpler, bypassing the replatting and development plan process, which was negated by adding the SUP requirement.

The Commission began their discussion of the remaining points:

1. Is it an unreasonable burden to require a Neighborhood Plan prior to requesting an Urban Conservation Overlay District?

The Code provided a simplified definition for the Neighborhood Plan, but it was suggested that this requirement would unnecessarily delay the development process. Staff pointed out that the plan requirement was only applicable under certain circumstances.

There was concern that individual Neighborhood Plans would be created in isolation, without consideration of adjacent neighborhoods or overall traffic patterns.

Speaking for the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, Chairman Burress said the Association favored neighborhood planning, but had found these plans were rarely completed without outside funding – usually from grant block programs (COBG). He suggested that requiring these plans without providing for the necessary funding would effectively eliminate the UC district.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Burress and seconded to strike the proposed requirement for a Neighborhood Plan prior to application for an Urban Conservation Overlay District. Section 20-307(b)(3)

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

2. Should the setback requirement be modified to deal with extreme topographical differences between single-family and multi-family developments?

Chairman Burress proposed the following language:

“…setback a distance at least equal to the height of the building, plus an additional amount equal to the vertical distance, if any, that the base of the building is above the mean level of the adjacent boundary of the nearest residential lot.”

The Commission discussed whether the language proposed by Chairman Burress would place an undue hardship on infill development by creating unbuildable lots. It was verified that existing multi-family uses on higher ground (Ex. Greek Houses on Sigma Nu Place) would not be allowed to rebuild if this restriction were added to the regulations.

It was suggested that creating unbuildable areas was inherent in the development regulations, but concern was expressed that the language as proposed could set the City up for litigation.

Chairman Burress said his language should be applied like the existing language, which allowed buildings up to two stories in any and all cases. Moreover, existing language could also keep Sigma Nu houses from rebuilding above two stories.

It was suggested that an applicant could request a variance from the increased setback requirement, but Staff was not certain there would be sufficient grounds to support a claim of undue hardship, which was needed to grant such a variance. The applicant would not be able to prove his property was different that any other steeply sloped property.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Burress and seconded to add the proposed language requiring additional setbacks for multi-family development on steeply-sloped property adjacent to single-family development.

Motion failed 2-7, with Comm.’s Burress and Schachter voting in favor and Comm.’s Haase, Schenewerk, Jennings, Riordan, Johnson, Angino and Eichhorn voting in opposition.

3. Should language be added regarding the protection of viewscapes?

The Commission had discussed this issue at several previous meetings but had failed to reach a consensus. Chairman Burress proposed language pulled directly from protection standards for residential properties.

“ …space needed to preserve views of significant features as seen from public property and rights-of-way.”

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Burress and seconded to include language regarding the protection of viewscapes. Article 11

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

The Commission discussed the ability to adequately define the term “viewscapes”, with some feeling this was largely a matter of opinion. It was asked if this element was not covered by existing language about mature trees and rocky outcroppings. Chairman Burress explained the viewscape language pertained to the view across the land, not elements on the land.

Comm. Haase said the intent was to not to apply a firm regulation, but to define a set of priorities to take into consideration. He thought this was a reasonable request and that it was possible to create an adequate definition.

Comm. Riordan said he supported the ideal, but felt there was no realistic way to achieve it.

It was clarified that the proposed language included the stipulation that the view be from the public right-of-way, implying ground-level.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to include the proposed language regarding the protection of viewscapes.

Motion failed, 2-7, with Comm.’s Burress and Lawson voting in favor and Comm.’s Schachter, Schenewerk, Jennings, Johnson, Angino, Riordan and Eichhorn voting in opposition.

4. Should there be a public notice requirement for Final Development Plans, even though this was a non-public hearing item that would not come before the Planning Commission and requiring only administrative review by the Planning Staff?

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Burress and seconded to require the same notification mailing process for Final Development Plans as is currently done for Preliminary Development Plans. Section 20-1301(a)

Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Burress, Jennings, Johnson, Schachter, Schenewerk, Haase and Lawson voting favor and Comm.’s Eichhorn and Angino voting in opposition.

5. Should the public notice include a statement of the public’s statutory rights?

Chairman Burress proposed the following language:

“State that the public has the right to make written submission that will become part of the public record, and indicate the deadline for submissions and the address to which submissions should be sent.”

and,

“State that affected parties have the right to appeal the action and indicate the deadline for any appeal.”

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to include language requiring a statement of the public’s statutory rights as part of the public notice. Section 20-1301(p)(1)

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

6. Adjacent non-conforming (too small) lots held under the same ownership will be automatically merged upon adoption of the new development code. Should there be a provision allowing these lots to “un-merge” with the approval of an Urban Conservation Overlay District?

It was discussed that this would allow development on lots even smaller that the 40’ currently allowed.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Chairman Burress and seconded to add proposed language providing for a separation of adjacent non-conforming lots under the same ownership that merged automatically upon adoption of the new development code.

Motion failed, 3-6, with Comm.’s Burress, Lawson and Johnson voting in favor and Comm.’s Schachter, Schenewerk, Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Riordan voting in opposition.

7. Does the Commission wish to retain the proposed 15-acre restriction for CN-2 zoning, or is the square footage restriction adequate and more consistent with the rest of the document?

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to remove the 15 acre restriction, retaining the square footage restriction to control the size of neighborhood commercial centers. Section 20-601(b) & 20-208(d)(1)

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

8. Should language be added to clarify the Site Requirements for Community Commercial Centers?

Comm. Schachter suggested adding the words, “…having more than 20,000 square feet of g.f.a…” to the Site Requirements sections for all Community Commercial Centers. This would clarify without changing the intent. Section 20-210(d)(1)

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to add language as proposed.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

9. Should language be added to clarify the floor area ratio for CC200’s & CC400’s applied to the entire node, not to an individual corner?

Comm. Schachter suggested adding the words, “for the entire node…” to the relevant Sections. This would also clarify without changing intent.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to add language as proposed. Section 20-210(d)(3)

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

10. Did the Commission want to retain the SUP requirement for cluster housing in multi-family zoning districts?

Various sections related to this issue were noted and it was established that cluster housing does not change the overall net density of the area.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk and seconded to remove all references to requiring a Special Use Permit to develop cluster housing in any multi-family zoning district. Section 20-402 Residential Districts Table

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

11. Should doctor’s offices be allowed in RSO (Residential-Office) zoning districts?

It was suggested that this type of use would generate more traffic than would be appropriate in low density and/or single-family residential areas.

The issue died for lack of a motion.

12. Should there be a maximum setback for the CD (Downtown) Zoning District?

Staff suggested making the zoning regulations match the Downtown Design Guidelines.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to direct Staff to make the CD zoning District requirements match those of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Section 20-601(b) and Table

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission extended thanks to Comm. Schachter and Ms. Finger for their extra effort in the development code process.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to forward to the City Commission a positive recommendation for approval of the draft zoning code, including the changes listed on Staff’s Revision Report dated 02.06.04 and with the changes approved at this meeting.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

The Commission proceeded at this point to Item 21.

The second session of the January agenda meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 30, 2004 in the City Commission Room. Members present: Burress, Angino, Riordan, Lawson, Schachter, Schenewerk, Eichhorn, Johnson and Haase.

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

The Commission voted unanimously to rearrange the agenda from the order agreed upon at the January 28^th meeting, beginning with Item 15.

ITEM NO. 15A: ANNEXATION OF 29.7271 ACRES; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)

A-12-15-03: Annexation request for approximately 29.7261 acres of land, located north of Clinton Parkway and east 926’ from K-10 Highway (SLT). Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 15B: B-3 TO C-5; 11.5587 ACRES; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)

Z-12-48-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 11.5587 acres from B-3 (Limited Business) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT). Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 15C: B-3 TO RM-2; 18.9332 ACRES; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)

Z-12-49-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.9332 acres from B-3 (Limited Business) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 15D: B-3 TO RM-1; 20.1626 ACRES; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)

Z-12-50-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 20.1626 acres from B-3 (Limited Business) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.

ITEM NO. 15E: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE POINTE ADDITION; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)

PP-12-15-03: Preliminary Plat for Lake Pointe Addition. This proposed multi-family residential and commercial subdivision contains approximately 29.7261 acres and is located north of Clinton Parkway and east 926’ from K-10 Highway (SLT). Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., property owners of record.

At the January 28^th meeting the Commission voted unanimously, 9-0, to deal with Items 15A – 15E at the meeting extension scheduled for January 30, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. after the applicant indicated deferral to February would create significant problems. It was agreed these Items would be heard first on the extended agenda.

Items 15A – 15E were considered simultaneously as the first Item on the agenda at the meeting extension on January 30, 2004.

STAFF PRESENTATION

In response to Study Session questions about the extension of services to the subject area, Ms. Day explained the Fire Department’s estimation that they would be able to supply the area, but this would maximize the department’s capacity.

The Fire Department had expressed a preference not to serve intensive commercial uses at this distance and it was noted that the development may be required to carry additional insurance to maintain the City’s ISO ratings. A new station was anticipated for completion in late 2006.

Ms. Day described the subject property and the surrounding area/uses, including a large area to the west that was developed but not yet annexed into the City.

In Staff’s opinion, now was the time to ensure north-south street connections by obtaining adequate right-of-way through the platting process. Due to topographical concerns, there were certain connections that would not be feasible, but the applicant was willing to dedicate right-of-way with this project for an eventual north-south route.

Ms. Day said the Comprehensive Plan identified this area as appropriate for single-family, low-density commercial and multi-family uses, all of which could be appropriate in the subject area.

It was noted that the acreages described in the zonings did not match that reflected in the plat because zoning boundaries were measured to the street centerlines.

Staff described traffic configurations that were considered and abandoned for various reasons.

It was noted that the property to the east of the subject property was intentionally isolated, with no vehicular connection to the north or to the subject property. This was due to topographic conditions and location of an existing gas line.

Ms. Day compared allowable uses in C-2 zoning to those that would be permitted in C-5 zoning, noting C-5 uses that would suit the subject area that would not be permitted in C-2 zoning.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, said the original owner of the property, Bob Billings, had wanted to develop the area as a hotel and convention center. This project had never come about and the property had been for sale for over 20 years. The new owner proposed a development of owner-occupied 4-plex condominiums.

Mr. Keeney said the land had been priced to reflect its commercial zoning, and the sale had been dependent upon Mrs. Billings (current owner following husband’s death) retaining considerable design control over the development.

The applicant did not think the property could develop enough rooftops to support the large commercial uses outlined for this area in Horizon 2020. However, the area did have aesthetic qualities that would make the area marketable for the smaller number of high-end dwelling units being proposed.

Mr. Keeney described the basic design of the 4-plex units, explaining the site plan for 27 units (7 units per acre) with a clubhouse would be submitted the following week. A bank and small two–sided strip center with no rear access were also proposed.

The applicant was not opposed to Staff’s recommendation for C-5 zoning for the western property instead of RM-2, since C-5 would still allow multi-family development, even with the new Code.

It was pointed out that the proposed development would be less intense than the commercial development that would be allowed by the current county zoning.

In response to questioning, Mr. Keeney provided examples of the design elements Mrs. Billings would control, including screening and building materials.

Comm. Schachter addressed the concern of potential uses if the current proposal did not develop. It was established that the only potential use that would be prohibited by C-2 zoning was a coffee-shop with a drive-up window. Drive-up food facilities were not allowed in C-2 districts.

Mr. Keeney expressed no objection to the suggestion of PCD zoning.

PUBLIC HEARING - on rezonings only

Doug Garber, 1445 E. 920 Road, said he would like Lake Pointe Drive connected to Clinton Parkway to integrate the subject area into the City, and to provide support for the proposed commercial uses.

George Paley, 1448 E. 920 Road, expressed the opposite opinion, being concerned that this connection would generate increased traffic in residential areas, particularly traffic associated with Clinton Lake (boats, trucks, etc.). Mr. Paley said the road was not suitable for heavier traffic.

Comm. Schachter commented that it would be difficult for traffic to get from Clinton Parkway to 15^th Street since the street system was so discontinuous.

Jeanne Bronoski, 1428 E. 950 Road, said she was speaking on behalf of multiple property owners, including several members of the Breithaupt family who resided on four adjacent properties on E. 950 Road. The Breithaupt’s mother had passed away and the funeral had taken place earlier that day.

Ms. Bronoski said the existing property owners had been told “from the beginning” that the subject area would be developed with office uses. This was described as ideal for their situation since this would be a half-day use, quiet and dark at night. Blueprints for the office complex had been shown at a neighborhood meeting years ago and the residents had acclimated themselves to eventually having office development next door.

Ms. Bronoski said she understood the concept of change for the benefit of the community but felt this area was already dealing with its share of problems with the existing truck stops, the trafficway and Clinton Lake traffic.

Other concerns included the proximity of a natural gas line, curb cuts on Clinton Parkway, reduction in property values, and trespassing on existing properties and tampering with agricultural machinery, chemicals, etc. by residents of the proposed apartment complex.

Mr. Bronoski closed by stating Mr. Garber’s desire to connect Lake Pointe Drive was driven by his desire to develop his own property and that she and other residents had located there specifically to be isolated. Nothing other than single-family development would be suitable for this area.

Comm. Riordan arrived at 4:50 p.m.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Keeney said the applicant had no opinion about the connection of Lake Pointe Drive, although it would make sense to obtain this connection now.

Mr. Keeney questioned Ms. Bronoski’s authority to speak on behalf of the Breithaupt family, pointing out no concerns had been communicated to the applicant or Staff at any time, including prior to the death of the Breithaupt’s mother. Furthermore, Nancy Breithaupt had been the realtor involved in selling the property to the current owner.

The applicant felt this proposal was a good compromise between the single-family development suggested previously and the heavy commercial uses allowed under the current zoning.

Staff had no closing comments.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed different types of traffic calming devises, as well as the process and timing for improving and connecting Lake Pointe Drive to the north.

It was suggested the area would become more suitable for increased commercial development, as determined in the Comprehensive Plan, as residential development grew to the north and west.

Staff was asked to comment on the process for possibly regaining the access that was lost in the approval of the Final Plat for the Yankee Tank property to the east. Staff explained the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that the City Commission pursue this through the condemnation process, but it was likely to become a complicated legal issue.

Comm. Schachter said he had been considering asking the applicant to return with a PUD, but he now felt it would be more appropriate to deal now with the “mess” created by previous actions. He suggested this project was an improvement over what would be possible under existing zoning and he agreed with the applicant that commercial opportunities were limited.

While there was no “good solution”, Comm. Schachter suggested using the Lesser Change Table to approve a PCD for the area’s commercial areas. The Code was not clear on whether the Lesser Change Table could be used when the original request was moving from a County to a City zoning.

Mr. Keeney did not object to a new rezoning request, but asked if the City would initiate this to avoid the cost of reapplication to the applicant.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Item 15A: A-12-15-03

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the annexation of 29.7271 acres located at the northeast corner of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

The Commission agreed unanimously to move to Item 15C.

Item 15C: Z-12-49-03

Motioned by Comm. Johnson and seconded to approve the rezoning of 18.9332 acres from B-3 to RM-2 and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the following findings of fact:

The subject property is located at the intersection of two arterial roads;
Multi-family uses are shown here to act as a buffer between the single-family residential and the commercial uses; and
The access is not adequate to support heavy commercial uses.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

The Commission agreed unanimously to initiate PCD-2 rezoning for the area involved in Item 15B.

Item 15B: 12-48-03

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to table Item 15B to the March 2004 meeting.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

Chairman Burress commented that “tabling” to a stated date and time was not correct. The issue should instead be “postponed to a time specific”.

ACTIONS TAKEN

Revised motion on the floor was to postpone Item 15B to March 17, 2004.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Item 15D: Z-12-50-03

Motioned by Comm. Johnson and seconded to approve the rezoning of 20.1626 acres from B-3 to RM-1 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 conditions:

Approval and publication of an annexation ordinance prior to publication of a rezoning ordinance; and
Approval of a final plat.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Item 15E: PP-12-15-03

Motioned by Comm. Angino and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lake Pointe Addition, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:

Provision of a revised preliminary plat that shows the entire boundary of the previously approved Revised Yankee Tank Preliminary Plat;
Provision of a revised preliminary plat to note and show centerline of adjacent public right-of-way of Clinton Parkway;
Provision of a revised preliminary plat to extend the collector street to the west property line, per staff approval;
Execute an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for geometric and intersection improvements for Lake Pointe Drive and Clinton Parkway;
Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states public improvement plan for streets, sewer and water will be required for submittal prior to recording the final plat;
Provision of a revised preliminary plat to show the dimension of Clinton Parkway ROW along the south property line; and
Execute an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements for Lake Pointe Drive.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to initiate rezoning and schedule a public hearing for March 17, 2004 for the tract described in Item 15B [Z-12-48-03] from A to PCD-2, with the following allowable uses:

Use Group 11 in entirety
Use Group 12 in entirety
Other specific uses: closed eating establishment, eating establishment with drive-up services, food convenience store including gasoline sales, free-standing automated banking, hotel/motel, leather goods sales, office equipment supply sales and service, pet shop, quick copy or duplicating center

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION

It was discussed that the Commission would consider the initiated rezoning without an accompanying revised Preliminary Development Plan, but the zoning would likely be conditioned upon approval of such a plan.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion on the floor was to initiate rezoning and schedule a public hearing for March 17, 2004 for the tract described in Item 15B [Z-12-48-03] from B-3 to PCD-2, with allowable uses as described above.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0

Chairman Burress called a 5-minute recess during which Comm. Angino departed.

Meeting reconvened at from a 5-minute recess at 5:45 p.m. on January 30, 2004.

ITEM NO. 16: preliminary development plan for 6wak apartments; north of w. 6^th Street and west of wakarusa drive (PDP/BPD)

PDP-04-08-03: Preliminary Development Plan for 6Wak Apartments. The applicant proposes a multiple-family residential development containing 236 apartments on 17.57 acres. The property is generally located north of W. 6^th Street and west of Congressional Drive. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for 6Wak, property owners of record.

This Item was dealt with second on the extended meeting agenda, January 30, 2004.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Patterson described the proposed development, which would involve 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom apartments. PRD zoning was approved for the subject area, pending approval of a Preliminary Development Plan.

This plan had been reviewed thoroughly by Staff, as it had been submitted several months ago but deferred by the applicant. Three waivers were requested for the project as follows:

Reduction of the peripheral setback from the south side of Lot 1, Block 3 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 0’ for access to the adjacent office lot;
Reduction of the peripheral setback from the south side of Lot 2, Block 2 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 15’ for placement of two 8-bay garages; and
Reduction of the peripheral setback from the east side of Lot 1, Block 3 of Wakarusa Place Addition from 35’ to 20’ for placement of a bus stop/postal cluster box area/kiosk.

Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the three waivers and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.

Upon request, Mr. Patterson discussed access in various directions to/from the subject area. In Staff’s opinion, the Traffic Impact Studies done for earlier, more intense development proposals were adequate to fulfill the TIS requirement for this project.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating the proposed development plan was based on the zoning approved in 2002. The applicant agreed with the recommendations of the Staff Report.

PUBLIC HEARING

Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, referencing the statement in the Wakarusa Place traffic study of 2001 that traffic generation potential at 6^th & Wakarusa Drive was significantly higher on the south side of the intersection than the north.

The neighborhood association was concerned with the potential of 1500+ additional trips per day this proposal could produce in an area already facing significant traffic problems (per the ITE). Ms. Klingenberg used this data to estimate traffic generation increases on nearby streets. Of particular concern was the increase of cut-through traffic on Congressional Drive as more travelers attempted to avoid the already congested intersection of 6^th & Wakarusa.

Ms. Klingenberg stated that Chris Huffman of the Kansas Department of Transportation had said the intersection (6^th & Wakarusa) would not be able to accommodate the traffic involved in the approved 6^th & K-10 Nodal Plan.

Paula Peppin, 1109 Stoneridge Drive, asked the Commission to consider the impact of traffic increases seeping into area neighborhoods with lots of children. She said the neighborhood had attended a meeting discussing traffic calming devices, but – to Ms. Peppin’s understanding – no such devices were currently proposed for Stoneridge, Branchwood or Harvard Road and no traffic study was being required for the proposal’s impact on those areas.

Ms. Peppin said she would like a pedestrian-friendly environment for the children and families living in the area.

Alan Cowles, President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, asked to speak only on his own behalf as an area resident. Mr. Cowles opposed this proposal, particularly in light of the potential for a big box store at the intersection of 6^th & Wakarusa Drive.

Mr. Cowles suggested the Commission should not consider this proposal until the court case involving other properties at this intersection was settled. He noted that, if the court allowed a large retailer to develop on this corner, it would present a negative visual impact on residents in the subject area.

Responding to questioning, Mr. Cowles said that multi-family development with lower density might be appropriate for the subject area, but that all development proposals in the vicinity should be deferred or otherwise delayed until litigation was complete.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Mr. Keeney reminded the Commission that previous traffic impact studies had been done under the assumption of 15 units per acre and had found the roadways adequate. He asked where else this project would be appropriate if not at the intersection of two collector streets.

The applicant felt this development would provide a desirable buffer between the existing single-family uses and whatever type of commercial uses were eventually created at the intersection.

Mr. Keeney said the land use issues were decided in the rezoning process, this discussion should be centering on plat issues like landscaping, placement of dumpsters, etc.

Bill Newsome, property co-owner, said he also lived and raised children in this neighborhood.

Mr. Newsome stated this was an appropriate transitional use within the approved Master Plan for the area. The proposed development plan had followed all the regulations, including traffic studies and review by City departments and KDOT. He asked the Commission to consider the “official” opinions of the review bodies, not individual statements.

The applicant felt this project had nothing to do with the current court cases.

Mr. Newsome responded to questioning that he was “very much against” the idea of developing with 12 units per acre.

It was determined that the existing traffic studies had not taken into account anything south of 6^th Street, but that this was appropriate and adequate according to the rules in place at the time. Since that time, an interim policy has been put into place that now requires the study to reach the next major intersection.

Mr. Patterson pointed out the recommended condition that the applicant be willing to take part in a benefit district for signalization and geometric improvements at 6^th & Congressional if that was later seen as a need.

Regarding the comment that future commercial uses would visually impact this development, Staff noted that the rear of this project - garages and landscaping - would face the commercial areas.

Mr. Patterson closed by repeating that Staff had found the proposed development plan in conformance with the 9 Criteria (for Preliminary Development Plan approval), with Horizon 2020 and with the approved Area Plan.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

It was established that the Director of Public Works was gathering information about Congressional Road in response to neighborhood requests, but no data was yet available. The Commission could condition the Preliminary Development Plan accordingly to consider this information during the Final Development Plan stage.

It was suggested the Commission could condition the development plan on a lower density than that approved in the rezoning, since the rezoning was made conditional upon the plan. New findings would have to be created for such an action.

Staff was asked to give an opinion on the idea that a significant amount of traffic would use Harvard Road as a “cut through”. Mr. Patterson replied that Congressional Drive and Overland Drive were adequately sized and had been planned with full development in mind, taking into account the eventual widening of 6^th Street. The City’s Traffic Engineer had considered cut through movements on Harvard an unreasonable choice for the majority of vehicular traffic.

The Commission asked what the target levels of service were for collectors and arterials. Ms. Finger responded that collector intersections were designed for a C level of service at peak hours and arterial intersections at a D level.

Comm. Schachter said this was a prime example of traffic patterns he did not like (collectors crossing arterials at close intervals) and he was personally concerned with the potential for cut through traffic. However, he acknowledged the Commission had approved PRD-2 zoning already and asked where mid-density development would be appropriate if not here.

Comm. Schachter suggested condition the Preliminary Development Plan so a traffic calming plan would be included in the Final Development Plan if the City Traffic Engineer determined that Congressional between 6^th Street and Harvard Road would be overburdened. The applicant was asked if there would be any objection to doing the extended traffic study that would be needed for the Traffic Engineer to make this determination.

Mr. Keeney replied that this would be fine, and Mr. Newsome said he was sensitive to traffic concerns and would meet this requirement if it was made. However, Mr. Newsome said “it does not sit well with me that the rules are constantly changing on us”. He considered the expanded traffic study the lesser of two evils in light of the fact that the Commission could simply lower the allowable density on the development plan.

The Commission discussed its ability to place more requirements on a project that had met all the existing regulations and had received support from Staff. Comm. Lawson expressed concern that the emotional testimony of the public was being allowed to overrun regulatory procedure. It was suggested that new concerns (public safety) rising from the public hearing were a reasonable basis for additional study requirements.

Comm. Haase said it was not fair to make the residents pay the price for the City’s mistake of placing these collectors so close. Ms. Finger explained that the street layout was not a mistake, but had been done intentionally. This was consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the adopted 6^th Street Access Management Plan, and was the only way to correlate proper access management. This issue was added to the Parking Lot list.

Chairman Burress stated his objection to the previous characterization by another Commissioner of public testimony as “emotional” and “non-factual”.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Preliminary Development Plan, with the three associated waivers, for 6Wak Apartments and forwarding 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 conditions:

Provision of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the geometric and signalization improvements for the intersection of W. 6^th Street and Congressional Drive;
Provision of the following revisions of the Preliminary Development Plan:

a. Update the Development Schedule on Sheet 3;

b. Update the total provided standard parking;

c. Provide concrete apron to access of Lot 2, Block 2;

d. Include the word reinforced concrete with the concrete aprons;

e. Configure bus drop-off to City Standard;

f. Confirm that all Utility Easements and Drainage Easements have been recorded (existing platted easements ok);

g. Express the “Existing drainage easement to be vacated” through what process; and

h. Mark the 21’ driveway aisle on Lot 2, Block 2 as one-way or increase aisle width to 25’.

Provision of the following items for the Stormwater Engineer:

Reference the 9-17-01 drainage study. Correct the overall system layout to work with the proposed basin and label the outlet structure to be implemented;
Correct layout, with labels of all required public drainage easements on the plan;
Public improvement plans for the storm drainage system must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector; and
Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Two copies must be submitted to the Stormwater Engineer for approval prior to release of building permits. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.

4. a. The applicant shall provide data and assumptions to planning Staff for review and approval by the City Engineer regarding the traffic impact to Congressional Drive between 6^th Street and Harvard Road.

If the City Engineer determines that traffic on Congressional Drive south of 6^th Street cannot perform at service level “C” or better, with the traffic projections based on the current and approved zoning for the area, then the applicant will present a plan for traffic calming measures for Congressional Drive south of 6^th Street with the submittal of their Final Development Plan.

Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Eichhorn voting in opposition.

ITEM NO. 17: PCD-2 (W/RESTRICTIONS) TO PCD-2 (W/RESTRICTIONS); 19.199 ACRES; NORTHWEST CORNER W. OF 6^TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (BPD)

Z-06-18-03: Consider rezoning of 19.199 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from PCD-2 with restrictions (Planned Commercial) District to PCD-2 with restrictions. The property is located at the northwest corner of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive intersection. 6Wak Land Investment, LLC, is the property owner of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003. The Planning Commission tabled this item on October 1, 2003.

At the January 28, 2004 meeting the Commission voted 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter and Johnson in opposition, to defer this Item to the February 2004 meeting.

ITEM NO. 18: A TO PCD-2 (W/RESTRICTIONS); 18.938 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER W. OF 6^TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (BPD)

Z-06-19-03: Consider rezoning of 18.938 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PCD-2 with restrictions (Planned Commercial) District. The property is located at the northeast corner of W. 6^th Street and Wakarusa Drive intersection. Carolena Ltd and Henrysflower LLC are the property owners of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003. The Planning Commission tabled this item on October 1, 2003.

At the January 28, 2004 meeting the Commission voted 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter and Johnson in opposition, to defer this Item to the February 2004 meeting.

ITEM NO. 19: A TO PRD-2; 25.214 ACRES; NORTHWEST CORNER W. OF 6^TH STREET AND FOLKS ROAD (BPD/BH)

Z-06-20-03: Consider rezoning of 25.214 acres and adjacent rights-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 with restrictions (Planned Residential) District. The property is located at the northwest corner of W. 6^th Street and Folks Road intersection. Carolena Ltd and Henrysflower LLC are the property owners of record. Initiated by the City Commission on June 3, 2003. The Planning Commission tabled this item on October 1, 2003.

At the January 28, 2004 meeting the Commission voted 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter and Johnson in opposition, to defer this Item to the February 2004 meeting.

Deferred ITEM NO. 20A: A TO PRD-2; 17.95 ACRES PLUS RIGHT OF WAY; SOUTH SIDE OF

K-10 AND WEST OF O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)

Z-12-52-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.95 acres plus right-of-way from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is generally described as being located on the south side of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisition, L.L.C., property owner of record.

Deferred ITEM NO. 20B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FARMLAND NORTHWEST ADDITION; 17.95 ACRES PLUS RIGHT OF WAY; SOUTH OF K-10 AND WEST OF O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)

PDP-12-12-03: Preliminary Development Plan for Farmland Northwest Addition. The applicant proposes a multiple-family residential subdivision containing 263-units on 17.96 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.C., property owners of record.

Deferred ITEM NO. 20C: FINAL PLAT FOR FARMLAND NORTHWEST ADDITION; SOUTH OF K-10 AND WEST OF O’CONNELL ROAD (SLD)

PF-12-23-03: Final Plat for Farmland Northwest Addition. This proposed residential and office subdivision contains approximately 53.8931 acres and is located south of K-10 Highway and west of O’Connell Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.

RESUME

ITEM NO. 21: REVISIONS TO PC BY-LAWS (LMF)

Consider revisions to the PC By-Laws: ex parte communications, agenda organization, and Chair's authority to manage agenda.

This Item was considered on February 11, 2004, at the third session (second extension) of the January 28, 2004 meeting.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff explained the Commission was now in possession of two draft versions of the proposed By-Laws. One included language proposed by Staff, while the other incorporated changes proposed by Chairman Burress.

Staff had no opposition to Chairman Burress’ language with the exception of the stamping of “first draft” or “second draft” on the Commission’s minutes prior to approval, depending on who would be receiving those minutes. Staff’s opinion was that this was an unneeded extra step. This language had not been incorporated into the second version of the By-Laws distributed tonight.

Chairman Burress explained his concern was that the word “draft” was being used in two different contexts. He agreed to discuss the matter with Staff at a different time.

The Commission discussed the proposed language regarding the presentation of new information. There was concern that information requested by the Commission at the regular meeting would not be admissible. Chairman Burress presented new language for Article V, Section 4B he felt would deal with this concern:

“The applicant may present new information at the regular meeting under three circumstances:

a) The information has been reviewed by Staff and Staff is prepared to respond;

b) The information is in direct response to recommendations on the Staff Report; or

c) The information is requested by a Commissioner in the course of the regular meeting.

In all other cases in which the applicant wished to introduce new information, the applicant should make a timely request for deferral of the Item in accordance with Article V, Section 2C. If the Item stays on the agenda, then Staff should notify the Commission if any attempt is made to introduce new information not complying with a), b) or c). In such a case, the Chair shall bar introduction of the new information, and the Commission shall consider the Item without consideration of the new information.”

It was verified that nothing in this language would preclude the Commission’s ability to say any piece of information required more review time.

The Commission discussed Chairman Burress’ proposed changes to Staff’s recommended language regarding ex parte communications, Article VII, Sections 2A – 2D. It was established that Chairman Burress’ language was more lenient regarding discussion of policy issues (Ex. Development Code).

It was noted that Staff’s version prohibited ex parte discussions of specific parcels even after the Planning Commission’s decision on the issue.

It was suggested that the word “attempted” should be removed from Article VII, Section 2C, meaning a Commissioner did not have to report an instance in which he or she refused an attempt to engage in ex parte communication.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to adopt the version of the revised By-Laws designated as “Proposed Revision 1/28/04 + Burress”, with the following changes:

Modify Article V, Section 4B to include the third option for acceptance of new information as presented today.
Strike the word “attempted” from the first sentence of Article VII, Section 2C.

Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.

At this point, on February 11, 2004, the January 28, 2004 meeting was adjourned. **

_____________________________________________________________________________

MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS

MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS

Z-10-36-03: PID-1 to RO-1A; 15.504 acres; northwest corner of 15^th Street & Wakarusa Drive - Tabled from Dec ‘03 meeting. Related to Item 7A WITHDRAWN

Z-10-37-03: M-1 to RO-1A; 3.88 acres; northwest corner of 15^th Street & Wakarusa Drive Tabled from Dec ‘03 meeting. Related to Item 7A WITHDRAWN

Z-11-38-03: PCD-2 to M-1; 12.3 acres north of W. 15^th Street on the west side of Research Park Drive (extended) - Tabled to February PC meeting – no action at this time

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

This Report was distributed to the Commission in the regular packet information

MISC. ITEM NO. 3:

A. Consider request to allow concurrent submission of a preliminary and Final Plat for Stonegate IV Subdivision.

The January 30, 2004 meeting was recessed, than called back into session in order to deal with this Item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff explained that, during the engineering process, it was determined that topography of the area would prohibit street configuration and access as approved. A reasonable configuration had been created, but with significant alteration to the Preliminary Plat.

The applicant was requesting the Commission allow for concurrent submission of the revised Preliminary Play with the Final Plat. In Staff’s opinion, the Code did not provide clear authority to approve this request.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

The Commission discussed various interpretations of the criteria, ultimately determining that a waiver in this instance would be appropriate.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to grant a waiver allowing for concurrent submission of the revised Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat for Stonegate IV Subdivision for consideration at the regular February Planning commission meeting.

The Commission re-recessed the January 30, 2004 extension meeting at 8:05 p.m., to reconvene at 7:30 a.m. in the City Commission meeting room on February 11, 2004.

**ADJOURN – 9:00 a.m., February 11, 2004.

Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.