LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 28, 2004
Chairman Burress called the meeting to order on April 28th at 6:32 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Angino, Schenewerk, Eichhorn, Lawson, Johnson, Jennings, Riordan, Schachter and Student Comm. Bittenbender
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Guntert, Patterson, Day, Tully and Saker
The Commission agreed unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 2004 meeting as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ZAC: The Committee did not meet.
TAC: The Committee met and approved minor revisions that the Commission was asked to approve this evening as an amendment to the Transportation Improvements Plan.
SPC: The Committee did not meet.
CPC: The Committee met April 20 and discussed how they would address the list of topics referred to this subcommittee from the Planning Commission’s Parking Lot list. The Committee met again on April 26th. Several things occurred at this meeting:
· Chair position changed from Comm. Lawson to Comm. Jennings
· Discussion of changing committee composition, possibly adding non-Commissioners
· Set a standard meeting date and time was set (12:15 – 1:30 every second Tuesday beginning May 4, 2004)
· Meeting topic set for May 4 – Staff presentation about development of Southeast Corridor
· Meeting topic set for May 18 – general neighborhood development issues, including design and policy
RPC: The Committee met on April 5 and discussed their goals, future meeting dates and possible joint meeting dates with the Lecompton Planning Commission. The next meeting date was scheduled for May 6th, 4:30 pm.
RFC: The Committee did not meet.
CDSC: The Committee met on to discuss their goals and objectives. Future meetings were intended to bring a finer level of detail to those objectives.
PCMM: The Mid-Month meeting was dedicated to organization of the Parking Lot list. Several topics were assigned to various subcommittees and the Commission addressed the following issues:
· Change in Study Session meeting time
· Policy to deal with last minute deferrals
· Cul-de-sac connectivity
· Lot access to arterials and collectors
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Miscellaneous
· Notes from April 5, 2004 meeting of the Rural Development Committee
Item 9 – Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Valley Estates
Item 12 – Rezoning at 14th & Massachusetts
· Summary of allowed uses in C-1, C-2, CN-1 and CN-2 zoning districts (existing and future respectively)
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE / DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS
· Comm. Schachter said the representative for the Lake Pointe Item had contacted him by phone and said – before Comm. Schachter could explain the Commission’s ex parte restrictions – that the applicant did not want his project deferred.
· Comm. Schenewerk said he had talked about general platting process questions with the applicant in the North Town Addition project. No new information regarding the project was discussed.
· No abstentions were indicated.
DEFERRAL REQUESTS
Mr. Tully explained the applicant in Items 9A & 9B had requested deferral of both items to allow him to develop an engineering study that he hoped would show the flood control possibilities the proposed lake for the benefit of county and area residents. It was verified with the applicant that this was his only basis for his deferral request and discussed if it was fair to allow the applicant to go to this expense without being certain if the Commission felt a subdivision in this area was even appropriate.
Mr. Nuffer, the applicant, stated that the County Public Works Director, Keith Browning, had “said emphatically that he would support this [project] if it did improve the existing [flood] problem”.
Chairman Burress explained the Commission’s procedure for dealing with deferral requests made after the Study Session. There are a number of criteria the Commission must feel the request meets, including hardship on the part of the applicant and/or in order to make significant changes to the application. Mr. Nuffer believed the information in the proposed study would constitute a significant change to the application.
Comm. Schenewerk said he would like to consider the application in light of the flood study, feeling a practical solution could be found if existing flood conditions could be improved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Angio to defer Items 9A & 9B for one month for the applicant to submit a flood control study.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Schachter pointed out Staff’s recommendation had nothing to do with drainage, but mentioned significant issues with spot-zoning and leap-frog development – both of which are restricted by the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Burress suggested it would not be appropriate to defer the Items based on the applicant’s stated reason unless it was found – after substantive discussion – that the appropriateness of the zoning depended upon drainage.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to defer Items 9A & 9B for one month for the applicant to submit a flood control study.
Motion failed, 2-7, with Comm.’s Schenewerk and Angino voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Schachter, Johnson, Eichhorn, Jennings, Riordan, Lawson and Student Commissioner Bittenbender voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR FALL CREEK FARMS 10TH PLAT; EAST OF MONTEREY WAY AND SOUTH OF PETERSON ROAD (PGP)
PF-03-09-04: Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 10th Plat. This proposed 51-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 20.202 acres and is located east of Monterey Way and south of Peterson Road, approximately 120 feet north of Stetson Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for William E. Fritzel, applicant, and Sojac Land Company, L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Final Plat for Fall Creek Farms 10th Plat 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:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH; S.W. CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY 40) & E 1000 ROAD (QUEENS ROAD) (JLT)
PP-03-09-04: Preliminary Plat for Seventh Day Adventist Church. This proposed church plat contains approximately 4.07 acres and is located south of W. 6th Street (Highway 40) and west of E 1000 Road (Queens Road/Branchwood Drive extended). Submitted by Williams Spurgeon Kuhl & Freshnock Architects, Inc., for Kansas/Nebraska Association of Seventh Day Adventist Inc, property owner of record.
This Item was deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: CONSIDER 2003-2007 TIP AMENDMENTS (WA)
Consider 2003-2007 TIP Amendments
KDOT has requested that one project be added to the 2003-2007 TIP, a traffic signal and intersection improvement on 7th and Kentucky. Lawrence Transit has requested that 1 project be added to reflect proposed federal-aid projects.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the amendments to the 2003-2007 Transportation Improvements Plan as presented by Staff and forward it to the Kansas Department of Transportation with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda and with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 4A: FINAL PLAT FOR OREAD WEST OFFICE PARK; NORTH OF 15TH STREET (BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY) AND WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)
PF-03-11-04: Final Plat for Oread West Office Park, a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Oread West No. 11, Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, University Corporate and Research Park Subdivision No. 2 (amended), and Lot 5, Block 3, Oread West No. 10. This proposed five-lot planned residential and planned industrial development contains approximately 16.893 acres and is located north of 15th Street (Bob Billings Parkway) and west of Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Artful Misers LLC, Net Werks LLC, BG Lawrence LLC, Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, Hall Properties, Oread Development Corporation, UMB Properties, Inc., and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Final Plat for Oread West Office Park 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:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda and with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 4B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OREAD WEST OFFICE PARK; NORTH OF 15TH STREET (BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY) AND WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)
FDP-03-02-04: Final Development Plan for Oread West Office Park. The applicant proposes a planned residential and industrial development on 16.893 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of 15th Street (Bob Billings Parkway) and west of Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Artful Misers LLC, Net Werks LLC, BG Lawrence LLC, Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, Hall Properties, Oread Development Corporation, UMB Properties, Inc., and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Final Development Plan for Oread West Office Park, including the three associated waivers, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following prior to the filing of the Oread West Office Park Final Development Plan:
a. Recording of the Oread West Office Park Final Plat (PF-03-11-04) with the Douglas County Register of Deeds Office.
b. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) submitted to and approved by the Stormwater Engineer. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
c. Submission of water line plans to the Utilities and Fire/Medical Departments.
d. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Addition of the following general notes:
a. “The residential buildings will include a 1st floor common breezeway through the building for passageway by the Fire Department.”
b. “As a phased project, parking, drives, trash receptacles and public utilities (including stormwater management systems) for a phase must be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that phase.”
3. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda and with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
SWEARING IN/AFFIRMATION OF SPEAKERS
ITEM NO. 5: NORTH TOWN ADDITION; WEST OF NORTH 2ND STREET NORTH OF LYON STREET (SLD)
PF-03-10-04: Final Plat for North Town Addition. This proposed one-lot industrial subdivision contains approximately 4.479 acres and is located west of North 2nd Street north of Lyon Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for North Town Development, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and P.D.O. Investors LLC, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, a plat to incorporate several sections of lots created with past right-of-way and easement dedications. The applicant was asked to provide documentation that the full amount of required right-of-way was provided. It appeared that this was the case, although that 100’ right-of-way was not measured from the centerline of the street.
It had been found in analysis that there was a need to create cross-access easements and close three existing curb cuts. This had been conceptually approved by KDOT and further details would be provided to complete the permit process through the State.
The Commission discussed the three access points shown here on an arterial street. Staff explained this was an unusual piece of ground, and the three curb cuts had been deemed necessary to accommodate circulation of large truck (service) traffic separate from regular vehicular (customer) traffic.
It was noted that, upon redevelopment, these three cuts might be incorporated and reduced into two access points. Staff pointed out the three access points proposed in this plan were a reduction from the number of existing curb cuts, however it was also noted that some of the existing cuts went to undeveloped lots and were therefore unused.
Ms. Finger mentioned that the draft Land Development Code specifically addressed the distance between cuts and recommended making the standards fit redevelopment and infill development as much as possible.
It was verified that the Staff Report reflected the access points as shown in the approved site plan.
Staff explained a variance was not needed for the off-set right-of-way because the Code does not specify centerline measurement.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
The applicant had no further information and expressed agreement with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
CLOSING COMMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter mentioned that the Planning Commission would prefer to see plats prior to City Commission consideration of site plans. He recognized that this plat was a “cleaning” project, but thought the Commission might have discussed access options if the site plan were not already approved.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for North Town Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:
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.
4. Provision of a note on the revised Final Plat to state that there shall be no more than three (3) access points to the subject property and that cross access shall be provided at the north and south boundaries of the subject property;
5. Removal of the note related to right of entry for planting street trees;
6. Provision of a revised final plat to correct the mayor’s signature block;
7. Provision of a revised final plat to label lot 21 at top of drawing for reference; and
8. Provision of a revised final plat to tie the point of beginning to section corners by distance and bearing.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 6: RECEIVE PROPOSALS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS (DRG)
Receive requests from the Public Works, Utilities Department, and City Manager’s Office for projects to be included in the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Guntert introduced the second half of the Capital Improvements Projects list for 2005 – 2010, outlining the total number of projects and how those were broken down by department.
Staff recommended the Commission find all projects in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as various Master Plans specific to each department.
Comm. Johnson said she did not know how to judge if the projects were in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and asked Staff to explain three ways in which the projects met the conformance criteria. Mr. Guntert replied that each of the CIP items was part of an adopted master plan and/or long-range plan for the department that recommended the item. Each of these long-range plans (Stormwater Master Plan, Water & Wastewater Master Plans, Transportation 2025) were in turn referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Comm. Johnson indicated that this was not enough supporting data.
Ms. Finger added that the CIP addressed the Comprehensive Plan intent for coordination of services and infrastructure improvements, many geared toward how to accommodate existing growth. The CIP included issues raised by the City Commission and the public about community facilities and commercial land use. Finally, the CIP provided additional support for downtown services, another stated intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comm. Angino asked when the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to express their frustration about the way items on the CIP were prioritized. Specifically, he wished to forward a comment to the City Commission that continued lack of action regarding Peterson Road (or other east-west connection) improvements would create a problematic traffic situation on 6th Street area similar to that faced on 23rd. He recommended all CIP items related to Peterson Road be moved to a position of high priority.
Chairman Burress explained his need for dynamic data in order to understand the sequence of events on the CIP list. Ms. Finger described how a sequence could be determined by examining the dependence of one project on another, particularly related to street improvements. Chairman Burress said it would be helpful if this dependence could be described in the CIP document, understanding that this did not dictate timing – as many projects were reliant upon outside funding.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was clarified that timing was not currently part of the Commission’s consideration, only conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Comm. Schachter said it was understood that the CIP system could be improved and that the Commission intended to discuss these improvements in the future. However, today’s consideration must be made with the system and the information at hand.
Comm. Angino commented that he did not hold Staff responsible for the inadequacy of the system.
Chairman Burress indicated he would vote against approval of the CIP because he did not feel the document provided enough data to make the decision the Commission was charged with.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Jennings to find the projects in the second half of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Plan in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and forward them to the City Commission with recommendation for approval and the comment that the City Commission consider giving top priority to finding a way to provide east-west connection north of 6th Street, between Iowa Street and the SLT/Hwy K-10.
Motion carried 7-2, with Comm.’s Schachter, Schenewerk, Johnson, Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings, and Riordan voting in favor and Comm.’s Burress and Lawson voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 7: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT CELL PHONE TOWER; 730 N 300 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-03-01-04: Conditional Use Permit request for a cell phone tower. The property is located at 730 N 300 Road (NE Corner of Hwy 56 and E 700 Road). Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for Cingular Wireless, applicant, and Leonard D. and Roxann Heffner, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, a request to construct a new 250’ cellular tower in the southwestern section of Douglas County, an area currently used for primarily agricultural purposes.
In response to Study Session discussion, Staff provided a map generated by the County a few years ago showing existing towers in the County. This map showed no existing towers for potential co-location within the applicant’s stated 1-mile radius requirement.
Ms. Day explained the request was complicated by the existence of a landing strip to the north of the subject property. The airstrip had been operating since 1979 but had never obtained a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Staff had asked the applicant to be prepared to discuss issues raised at the Study Session, including height, co-location possibilities and the search ring used for locating the proposed site.
Staff documentation agreed with the applicant’s that there was no existing tower or other structure suitable for co-location within the needed radius of the subject property.
Staff recommended approval of the CUP with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chase Simmons, legal counsel for the applicant, Cingular Wireless, described the proposed tower as 250’ in height, lattice with guy wires, with a thin, unobtrusive silhouette. He showed a map of the applicant’s current coverage area, noting the gap that would covered by the proposed tower.
A design with two towers, one in the east and one in the west, was considered, but a location in the east could not be obtained. The applicant decided at that time to proposed a single, taller, centrally-located tower to accommodate their coverage needs. This tower would be designed to accommodate two additional co-locations, per County regulations.
Mr. Simmons said he understood many new cell towers met with resistance from the community, but that these towers were a “fact of life, like utility boxes and phone lines”. He stated again that this tower would be designed for a minimum of visual impact.
Mr. Simmons said he was not qualified to address safety issues related to the landing strip, but explained the proposed tower had received approval from the FAA with no comment from the regulatory body about safety concerns.
The applicant agreed with Staff’s conditions and requested the Commission’s approval as presented.
Comm. Angino noted that the landing strip was not required to register with the FAA. Therefore, the FAA likely did not know about the airstrip’s existence and did not consider it in their study of the tower proposal. He asked if the FAA had the authority to shut down the operational landing strip based on safety issues. Ms. Simmons replied that he did not know the answer to this, but would leave the issue between the airstrip owner, the County and the FAA. He did believe the FAA allowed certain types of strips to operate “at their own risk”, without restricting other area land uses.
It was established that the tower would be equipped with several different types of lighting per FAA regulations.
Ms. Simmons discussed with the Commission that the applicant’s first preference would be to co-locate because it was much less expensive, but an appropriate structure had not been found in the needed coverage area. He explained the distance limitations from the subject property that would allow the same coverage area.
The applicant was asked if there was any objection to a requirement that more co-locations be possible on the proposed tower. Shawn Lierick of Cingular Wireless explained that a tower of this height could be designed to accommodate up to 6 providers, but with a significantly intrusive appearance. The engineering of the proposed tower limited the structure to three providers. The applicant would prefer not to make the proposed tower more intense and intrusive.
It was discussed that moving the tower further from the runway would move the tower’s coverage area away from that needed by the applicant.
Mr. Lierick responded to questioning that it was technically possible to cover the same coverage area with two short towers placed away from the airstrip, but the applicant would prefer not to go with this option. He also noted the existence of other airstrips in the surrounding area that would have to be considered in choosing the two alternative locations.
The applicant showed an image of the proposed tower and it was noted that the guy wires would extend outside the structure’s compound about 250’
Comm. Johnson felt that, if the taller tower were approved, it should be maximized for co-location possibilities. The applicant was not prepared to discuss how much larger the tower would have to be to accommodate more than the three providers required by Code.
It was verified that the proposed tower was designed to collapse in on itself.
Mr. Simmons responded to questioning that the applicant would like the Commission to deal with the proposal as soon as possible so they could deal with their service area issues, but was willing to deal with delays if the Commission felt additional information was needed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Darrell Norris spoke as the owner of the landing strip to the north. He showed an example of the proposed tower in relation to his airstrip and stated that, in ideal circumstances, it would be possible to avoid the tower when using the strip.
However, he explained, he often flew in less-than-ideal circumstances. When “flying on instruments” (using on-board instruments to judge plane position and location of outside structures in low-visibility conditions), a tower of any height in this location would pose a serious safety threat. Mr. Norris estimated the tower would have to be off-set to the east or west at least ½ mile to be safe.
It was suggested that the FAA should be aware of the landing strip because the pilot would have to communicate with them during take-off and landing. Mr. Norris said it was possible the FAA department he spoke with at these times was not cross-checked by the separate department looking at the tower.
The applicant had no further information about what criteria the FAA used in its considerations, saying only that approval for the tower had been given.
Mr. Norris responded to questioning that he flew as a hobby, for charity functions and in relation to his business as an electrical contractor. He explained that other airfields existed in the area but these were private and were not available for his use.
There was discussion about Mr. Norris’ intent to bring his own airstrip into compliance. He said he had been unaware of the CUP requirement and had not seen the need to register with the FAA since it was not required.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Simmons repeated that the applicant was not prepared to debate the airstrip issue and would like to leave that to the Commission, the County and the FAA. He did state that the applicant would ensure the FAA was made aware of the airstrip’s existence.
Mr. Simmons said that the tower could not be moved to the east. Although that was the applicant’s first preference, an existing co-location site had not been found and no property had been available to lease.
STAFF CLOSING
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter said the Commission could not judge the applicant’s ability to find alternate location possibilities. Therefore, they must either say the tower had to locate elsewhere or Mr. Norris must limit his flying time to “safe” circumstances.
Comm. Riordan agreed, noting that tower placement to the east would have provided better coverage, so he was inclined to believe the applicant had looked and been unable to find a location in that area. He added that he was hesitant to require more provider locations than required by Code and suggested the regulations should be changed if the Commission wanted to require more than three locations on towers over a certain height.
Comm. Schenewerk recommended the Commission defer the issue and allow the applicant to show due diligence in attempting to find an alternate location within their needed search ring. It was further suggested that, in that time, it should be verified whether the FAA had taken the airstrip into consideration when approving the proposed tower.
The Commission discussed the airstrip’s grandfather rights, with Staff pointing out this provision applied only to uses in place prior to adoption of the zoning code in 1966. The airstrip had been in use since 1979 and therefore was not eligible for the grandfather provision.
It was discussed that, with two shorter towers, there was a potential for six provider locations instead of three. However, other providers would need the same coverage areas in order for co-locations to work.
Regarding the CUP requirement for three providers, Chairman Burress commented that the CUP process would not be needed if the regulations were merely a checklist. The fact that the CUP process was created indicated a belief that additional conditions might be required.
Comm. Lawson said the application appeared to follow all the stated rules for the CUP and he did not want to change those rules “after the fact”.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 250’ communications towers located at 730 N 300 Road and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions presented in the Staff Report.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Johnson did not think the issue has anything to do with “changing the rules”. The Commission was responsible for considering the public safety and welfare and it was important to consider the existing airstrip. Comm. Schachter agreed that was a consideration, but indicated he would vote in favor of the tower approval because the airstrip owner had options.
The Commission discussed the applicant’s ability to find another appropriate location nearby, noting topography complications and the fact that it had been difficult to find this location. It was further noted that requiring two short towers would double this problem.
Comm. Angino also agreed that safety was a factor in this issue, but said it was for the FAA’s consideration, not the Commission’s. He suggested little would be lost if the issue were deferred until the FAA made that consideration. Comm. Schachter replied that the FAA was not going to provide any information the Commission did not already know – it was obvious that there was a conflict between the proposed tower and the existing airstrip.
It was clarified with Mr. Norris that it was generally not possible to take off from his airstrip in the opposite direction, as take-off had to occur into the prevailing wind.
It was suggested that the Board of County Commissions consider the cost to the applicant of engineering the 250’ tower to accommodate more than three providers.
Comm. Lawson called the question with no objection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 250’ communications towers located at 730 N 300 Road and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners 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. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:
a. Show location, fixture type, and mounting height of exterior lighting on the equipment building and provide a note that states lighting shall be shielded and directed downward;
b. Minimal lighting at the base shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Any lighting of the enclosure area shall be directed downward and shielded to prevent glare and light trespass;
c. Note existing trees along E. 700 Road are existing;
d. Provide general note on page three to summarize surrounding land use per section 19-4.31(b)2; and
e. Show or note the proposed height of the equipment building.
2. Provision of a copy of the letter sent to property owners within 1-mile of proposed tower site for file;
3. Provision of the following notes on the face of the site plan:
Motion carried 5-4, with Comm.’s Burress, Schachter, Eichhorn, Riordan and Lawson voting in favor and Comm.’s Johnson, Jennings, Schenewerk and Angino voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 8: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR DAYCARE CENTER; 3340 PETERSON ROAD (SLD)
UPR-03-01-04: Use Permitted upon Review request for a daycare center. The property is located at the Art Executive Office Park at 3340 Peterson Road (NW Corner of Peterson Road and Sterling Drive). Submitted by Greg A. Cromer, applicant. Cheer Pole, Ltd, c/o Art Executive Office Park, LLC, is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day described the outdoor layout of the proposed daycare facility, including landscaping, parking and fencing. She outlined possible buffering options and described the fencing, landscaping and buffering of other daycare uses in the area.
It was verified that there was sufficient parking for staff and customers (parents) to meet the requirement minimum.
Staff stated that a traffic study was done a few years ago and the applicant had provided an update. No street improvement needs were identified from the updated study.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Greg Cromer spoke on behalf of Art Executive Of fice Park and the Princeton Daycare Center, showing an example of where the play area would be located and where greenspace was proposed. He pointed out the parking lot, drop off area, fencing, tree line and emergency access from the play area.
Mr. Cromer responded to questioning that the applicant did not object to a 6’ fence, but 4’ had been chosen to allow parents to “hand over” their children, something that was very common in many day care facilities.
It was estimated that the facility would have 5 classrooms in addition to a nursery.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jerry Prichett, President of the neighborhood association, spoke on behalf of the adjacent residents. He said the neighborhood did not object to the proposed use and was pleased to see the primary entrance would be on the west.
Mr. Prichett asked the Commission to consider requiring a 6’ solid wood fence. The residents did not like losing the view, but felt this would reduce the amount of noise they heard from the playground.
Debbie Filkins, 3213 Sherwood Drive, said she had no problem with the current proposal but was concerned with the potential for on-street parking on Sherwood Drive and Sterling Drive when the other half of the building was leased. She did not support the suggestion that Public Works be asked to designate these streets as No Parking.
APPLICANT CLOSING
The applicant had no closing comments.
STAFF CLOSING
Ms. Day explained parking was analyzed based on full buildout. 270 parking spaces were provided for the entire center and, in Staff’s opinion, this was adequate for both uses, even during the day care’s busy drop-off and pick-up times.
Ms. Day commented that, during staff visits to other day care sites, it was apparent that the children in the play yard were under close adult supervision.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed requiring an increased fence height. It was noted that a child who climbed over a 4’ fence could be seen from the other side. This was not possible with a 6’ fence and it was suggested that this was an important safety issue, particularly at this location next to a busy street.
It was also suggested that a taller, solid fence might actually increase the amount of noise in this particular location, considering reverberation between walls and adjacent structures. Staff was asked to recommend a compromise that would block sound and provide safety. Ms. Day replied that other daycares appeared to be successful with a mix of shorter chain link fencing and substantial shrubbery.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for a day care center at 3340 Peterson Road, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Label contour lines;
b. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states: “This site has been designed to comply with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for buildings and facilities, appendix A to 28 CFR part 36;” and
c. Provision of additional shrubs along the fence between the fence and Sterling Drive, per Staff approval.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Angino to amend the motion on the floor to require a 6’ solid wood fence around the perimeter of the play area.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Angino noted that the applicant had indicated no objection to the taller, more substantial fence requested by the neighbors. Comm. Riordan repeated his safety concerns and Comm. Jennings added that a 6’ fence would prevent those supervising the children from seeing if other [potentially dangerous] individuals were “hanging around” outside the fence.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to amend the original motion to add a requirement for a 6’ solid wood fence around the play area.
Motion
carried 5-4, with Comm.’s Burress, Schachter, Johnson, Angino and Eichhorn
voting favor and Comm.’s Lawson, Jennings, Riordan and Schenewerk voting in
opposition. Student Commissioner Bittenbender voted in the
affirmative.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for a day care center at 3340 Peterson Road, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Label contour lines;
b. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states: “This site has been designed to comply with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for buildings and facilities, appendix A to 28 CFR part 36;” and
c. Provision of additional shrubs along the fence between the fence and Sterling Drive, per Staff approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0 with Student Commissioner Bittenbender also voting in the affirmative.
Chairman Burress called a 10-minutes recess, during which Student Commissioner Bittenbender left.
The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9A: A TO A-1; 219 ACRES; 837 E 675 ROAD (JLT)
Z-02-03-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 219 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at 837 E. 675 Road. Submitted by Michael Nuffer for Gene and Brenda Ackerman, property owners of record. This item was deferred by applicant request from the March PC meeting.
Items 9A & 9B were discussed separately, but some discussion points were relevant to both Items. Minutes for both should be referenced for each Item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully described the uses and layout of the area surrounding the subject property. He noted the subject property was outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) and was about 1.4 miles from the nearest platted subdivision, making the request non-compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The division of property would be permitted through the 5-acre exemption if the proposed development were not subject to the Subdivision Regulations. However, the proposed subdivision included the creation of a new road and was therefore not exempt from the regulations.
Staff recommended denial based on the following determinations:
· The project was inconsistent with the dominant agricultural land uses of the area and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
· This development poses a potential detriment to the area. Although the size of the property might reduce the impact of the development, the density would still be higher than that of the surrounding area.
· The land value would not decrease because of denial, because agricultural uses were still possible.
Staff, responding to questions, stated that residential lots could be developed with access to the existing road using the 5-acre exemption process, provided the individual lots met the 250’ minimum frontage and setback requirements.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Michael Nuffer, applicant, explained this development had been a dream of his for a long time – to create a nice place to raise his children in as natural an environment as possible – and he was surprised that others did not see the situation the same as he did.
Mr. Nuffer stated the subject property was not suitable for agricultural uses because it was rocky and heavily wooded. This meant denial would reduce the property’s value, leaving it with no permitted yet feasible use.
Noting Staff’s statement that the Comprehensive Plan did not support development outside the UGA, Mr. Nuffer said he could point to several statements to the contrary in HORIZON2020. One
such statement was the reference to Douglas County’s expectation that new non-farm applications would come forth in the future – Mr. Nuffer said this had nothing to do with the UGA.
Mr. Nuffer explained the possible benefit of this development to the County and the Lone Star area. It had been suggested by the County Engineer, Keith Browning, that the lake proposed as part of this development could reduce existing flood problems in the Lone Star area.
Mr. Nuffer said Mr. Browning had indicated his support of the project if additional studies proved flood reduction was possible. Mr. Nuffer asked the Commission to defer the rezoning and the Preliminary Plat to allow him to have these studies done. In response to questioning, he stated a friend of his would do the study at no charge, but assured the Commission that the County Engineer would find the study legitimate and adequate to make a determination.
The applicant discussed the proposed density of his project in comparison to that of the surrounding area at a 1-mile, 2-mile and 3-mile radius.
Mr. Nuffer suggested this project would help Willow Springs obtain a much-needed fire station, stating a station had not been built because the tax base was not yet wide enough.
Mr Nuffer was asked if he was aware of the HORIZON 2020 stipulation that subdivisions were only allowed when contiguous to other platted subdivisions. Mr. Nuffer answered that he had referred to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, which he said at that time allowed new subdivisions near clustered development. He had assumed the presence of single-family residential development in the area would be sufficient to meet this criteria, even though these homes were not on platted lots. He elaborated that he understood the concept of contiguous development, but had not believed it was an inflexible rule.
It was established that the applicant had gotten preliminary bids on the proposed lake, but was not able to go ahead with full engineering without knowing the project would be approved. It was discussed that the lake was intended for recreational uses, skiing, limited boating, fishing and swimming.
It was estimated that two square miles would drain into the proposed lake, which would be considered a high flood hazard and therefore would be inspected every three years and monitored by the Department of Water Resources.
PUBLIC HEARING
Karl Birns, 809 E 661 Diagonal Road, explained his property was immediately downstream from the proposed dam and asked if it was appropriate to discuss the lake and the dam during consideration of the zoning.
Mr. Birns presented a petition signed by area residents opposing the rezoning and the plat on the grounds that the proposal was inconsistent with the County’s plan for rural development.
Mr. Birns responded to questioning that he had no drainage problems because of the stream that ran behind his property. He was concerned the proposed dam would turn this stream into a ditch.
Scott Mesler, adjacent property owner at 657 E 775 Road, said a significant portion of the property to the south was in agricultural use. He said the subject area had been used for pasture land in the past and was still suitable for this use despite being overgrown at the present time.
Mr. Mesler pointed out that residents of the proposed development would have to deal with the effects of agricultural uses like field burning and pasture runoff into the lake. He said that Lone Star Lake provided all the recreational opportunities mentioned by the applicant and he did not see how a smaller lake would provide more flood control.
Mr. Mesler said his own dream had been to live on a farm in rural America and he wanted to keep the surrounding area rural.
Jim Calvet said he was likely the most recent landowner with the smallest property, an undeveloped 5 acres adjacent to another 5 acres where his daughter and son-in law lived. He asked the Commission to hold to the County Zoning requirements and maintain the rural nature of the area.
Mike Bates, property owner, spoke in support of the application, saying the current residents had increased traffic when they had moved in, and whatever developed on the subject property – now or later – would do so as well.
Mr. Bates said anything that would help the Lone Star community deal with their flooding issues should be given consideration and asked the Commission to give the applicant a chance to do the drainage study.
Maggie Lock, 643 N 750 Road, asked how the proposed development would obtain water, since there was already a waiting list for water meters in the area. She added that allowing this project to proceed would pull additional development out into the rural county before its time.
Gene Ackerman, 837 E 675 Road, explained he lived on 5 acres within the subject property. He stated that the creek behind Mr. Birns’ property dried up every summer already and that he had never seen any agricultural uses (grazing) on the property south of his own.
Mr. Ackerman suggested the lack of available water meters would slow development to an acceptable level.
Ron Wilson, area resident, said one of the main problems with Lone Star Lake was the amount of pesticide and manure runoff from the neighboring pasture, and that the reason Willow Springs had no fire department was not funding but because there were not enough volunteers.
Mr. Wilson showed the location of his property in relation to Lone Star Lake and discussed the noise problems he had with “college kids” out on the lake.
Harry Kanocke, area resident, showed his property location just south of the proposed lake. He said all of his concerns were addressed by other speakers except the environmental impact on area wildlife.
Mr. Kanocke said the Lone Star area had several types of wildlife and it was important to preserve existing habitat pockets.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Nuffer said he understood each individual had concerns specific and valid for him/herself, but suggested the existing residents would regret opposing his project when, in the future, another developer proposed a more intense, higher-density development.
STAFF CLOSING
Responding to Commission inquiry, Staff estimated that five (5) lots could potentially be developed along E 675 Road, based on the minimum 250’ frontage requirement in association with the 5-acre exemption.
Mr. Tully noted that the concept of a lake was not (mutually) exclusive to A-1 zoning, but was feasible in the current A zoning as well.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter suggested that making a zoning decision based on the possible positive effects of the lake was contract zoning and not appropriate. The Commission’s approval of development in rural areas had been rare and had only been given for contiguous property. Approving this project would set precedent for a new policy that he did not think the Commission wanted to support.
Comm. Angino said it was time everyone acknowledge that the county was being urbanized in a disorganized fashion because of existing development policies. It was noted that the Rural Planning Committee and the County Commission would soon begin studying the 5-acre exemption and subdivision policies within and beyond the UGA.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Riordan to deny the request to rezone 219 acres from A to A-1 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
ITEM NO. 9B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SYCAMORE VALLEY LAKE ESTATES; 837 E 675 ROAD (JLT)
PP-02-06-04: Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Valley Lake Estates, a rural subdivision. This proposed 24-lot single-family residential subdivision includes a proposal to construct a private lake. The subdivision contains approximately 219 acres and is located at 837 E 675 Road. Submitted by Michael Nuffer for Gene & Brenda Ackerman, property owners of record. This item was deferred by applicant request from the March PC meeting.
Items 9A & 9B were discussed separately, but some discussion points were relevant to both Items. Minutes for both should be referenced for each Item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully explained Staff’s recommendation for denial based on the following reasons:
· The Preliminary Plat met the technical criteria of the Subdivision Regulations, but did not meet the regulatory intent for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
· The plat was inconsistent with the zoning of the subject area, based on the Commission’s recent recommendation for denial of the rezoning request.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Nuffer had no additional comments, saying it was apparent from the Commission’s action in Item 9A that they were not in favor of this application at this time.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant of Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSON
The Commission had no further discussion.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Schachter to deny the Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Valley Estates, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
The public was encouraged to take part in the Rural Planning Committee’s future studies on rural development (referenced in Item 9A).
ITEM NO. 10: B-3 TO PCD-2; 11.5587 ACRES; NORTH OF CLINTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (SLD)
Z-02-06-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 11.5587 acres from B-3 (Limited Business) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with conditions). The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT). Initiated by the Planning Commission at their January meeting. Yankee Tank Investors, Yankee Tank Investors, L.C., and Alvamar, Inc., are the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, a rezoning initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a previous request for conventional C-5 zoning. The Planned Unit Development would allow additional control over the uses and design of the subject area. The property owner has development plans underway but has nothing to submit for consideration at this time.
The property owner indicated no opposition to the proposed zoning or Staff’s recommended use restrictions.
PROPERTY OWNER PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney spoke on behalf of the property owner, asking the commission to forgo the usual requirement for concurrent submission of a development plan with a request for PCD zoning. Deferral at this time would negatively impact purchase contracts currently under way.
It was clarified that the property owner had worked with Staff to create the proposed list of use restrictions.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was suggested an exception could be made regarding the policy of concurrent submission because the PCD zoning was, in this case, initiated by the Commission and the property owner was accommodating the City by creating a development plan to match.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Schachter to approve the rezoning of 11.5587 acres from B-3 to PCD-2 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 attached use restrictions:
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS | |||||
|
CP |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 | |
|
S |
S |
S |
|
S |
S |
|
|
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
P |
|
|
|
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
|
S |
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
|
S |
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 7. COMMUNITY FACILITIES & UTILITIES-RESIDENTIAL as set forth in Section 20-610.8, subject to "Special Conditions" reference set forth therein. |
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 8. TEMPORARY USES as set forth in Section 20-610.9, subject to "Special Conditions" reference set forth therein. |
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 9. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES as set forth in Section 20-610.10, subject to "Special Conditions" reference set forth therein. |
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 11. INNER NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES. These uses are limited in development, intensity and traffic-generating capacity to uses which are compatible with established residential neighborhoods. 1. Bicycle sales, rental or repair Book store, new or used Dry cleaning outlet store Food store, not including 24 hr. convenience store Hair care establishment Laundry, self-serve Professional Offices (excluding medical and veterinarian offices and clinics) Quick copy center Restaurant, not including one with drive-up facilities or service to automobiles Retail bakery Reverse vending machines (recycling) Shoe repair service Small collection facilities (recycling) Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts i.e. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc. 2. Accessory Uses |
|
ZONING DISTRICTS |
PERMITTED USE GROUPS | |||||
|
CP |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
C5 | |
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 12. RETAIL STORES - PERSONAL SERVICES. Certain types of retail stores and service establishments which: (a) Provide for a wide variety of local consumer and transient needs, and (b) Have a small service area and are, therefore, not distributed widely throughout the city. (1) Retail Stores and Service Establishments Altering, pressing, repairing of wearing apparel Antique sales Appliance, furniture, home furnishings, sales, rental repair Art supply sales Automobile service stations Bank, savings & loan and trust company Barber or beauty shop Bicycle sales, rental, repair Book sales
Camera or photographic supply sales Clothing sales Club or lodge, whose chief activity is carried on as a business Computer store; sales, service and equipment Confectionery store
Drug store Dry cleaning Eating place, enclosed, without dancing or entertainment and not providing service in automobiles Florist shop and greenhouse Food convenience store, including gasoline sales and single-bay auto wash (Ord. 6205) Food store, including retail bakery Furrier shop, including storage of furs Garden supply sales Gift, novelty, souvenir sales
Hat blocking and repair Hobby supply sales Ice vending machine Interior decorating shop Jewelry sales and repair Laundry pick-up station Laundry, self-service only Licensed premises Liquor, wine and beer sales, for consumption off the premises Loan office Locksmith, key shop Mail order agency Music, musical instrument and phonographic record sales Newsstand
Optical goods, sales Orthopedic or medical appliance sales Paint and wall paper sales
Photographic processing Photographic studio Post Office Quick copy or duplicating center
Reading room Sewing machine sales and repair Shoe repair and sales Sporting goods sales Surgical and dental supply sales
Video store, sale or rental of video equipment, movies and games parlor 2. Similar Uses Other uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic- generating capacity, and effects on other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group. 3. Accessory Uses |
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 13. AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; RETAIL SALES; OTHER. Primarily automotive service establishments and accessory uses, including consumer and non-consumer retail goods and services not appropriate for the neighborhood shopping district, including certain goods and services for agricultural, industrial, commercial, or institutional use. 1. Automotive Services and Retail Sales
Ambulance service
Auction room auctioneer
Automobile parts store; tires & accessories Automobile repair and services
Automobile service station Barber and beauty equipment sales
Blueprinting and similar reproduction processes
Bus passenger station Business machine rental, repair, sales Car or truck wash Carnival or circus
Caterer Eating establishment, enclosed, with dancing or entertainment Eating establishment, providing only drive-up service or no seating facilities Exterminator, pest Food convenience store, including gasoline sales
Free standing automated banking or dispensing facility
Garage or parking for common or public utility vehicles Glass sales and cutting shop
Home improvement center Hotel
Leather goods, sales and repair Linen supply, diaper service, uniform supply
Media Store (Ord. 7226)
Motel
Office equipment and supplies, sales and service, rental and repair Pet shop Photostatting Plumbing fixture sales Quick copy or duplicating center Recording studio School, commercial or trade, when not involving any danger of fire or explosion, nor of offensive odor, noise, dust, glare, heat, vibration or other objectionable factors Secretarial service
Studio for professional work or for the teaching of any form of fine arts, photography, music, drama, etc.
Taxidermist Telephone answering service
2. Similar Uses Other business services which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, and effects upon other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group.
Baked goods, candy, delicatessen, and ice cream, all for retail sales on the premises only Clothing: custom manufacturing or altering for retail, including custom dressmaking, millinery, or tailoring 4. Accessory Uses |
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
S |
S |
USE GROUP 15. AMUSEMENT, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES. Uses similar in nature and traffic-generating capacities that appeal to large groups of people or that provide uses with high density (people to space) ratios whose primary intent is one of amusement or recreational pursuits or cultural enrichment. 1. Indoor Recreational Amusement or Cultural Facilities Athletic club Auditorium
Game arcade, including video games Physical culture center and health services, including spas, gymnasiums, reducing salons, masseur/masseuse, or hot tubs
2.
4. Accessory Uses Uses which meet the requirements of the definition of accessory uses, Sections 20-2002(2) and 20-2002(3). |
|
|
|
|
S |
S |
|
THIS USE GROUP IS NOT PERMITTED IN PCD-2 DISTRICT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO. 11: M-3 TO RO-2; 1.01 ACRE; LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOCUST EAST OF 508 LOCUST TO N. 6TH STREET (PGP)
Z-02-04-04: A request to rezone a tract of land containing 16 original lots approximately 1.01 acre from M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to RO-2 (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as the following: Lot 231 - 512 Locust Street (Single-family Dwelling); Lot 233 - 514 Locust Street (Single-family Dwelling); Lots 235 & 237 (Vacant Parcel); Lots 239, 241 & 243 - 524 Locust Street (Single-family Dwelling); Lots 245, 247 & 249 (Vacant Parcel); Lots 251, 253 & 255 - 536 Locust Street (Single-family Dwelling); and Lots 257, 259 & 261 - 546 Locust Street (Single-family Dwelling). The Planning Commission initiated this rezoning at their January meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, a request to rezone the subject property from M-3 (Intense Industrial) to RO-2 (Residential-Office) and explained the original request had been for RMD zoning for a single property and the Commission initiated rezoning to RO-2 for the majority of the south side of the block.
Mr. Patterson described the existing uses on and around the subject area, stating the current M-3 zoning did not allow residential uses and was not appropriate for the existing uses in the subject area. RO-2 zoning would be more suitable, allowing professional offices, duplexes and single-family dwellings. RO-2 zoning would not allow multi-family uses.
The front page of the Staff Report summarized the opinions of the subject area residents to the proposed rezoning, and Mr. Patterson said the one landowner in opposition indicated a preference for single-family (RS) zoning.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item
STAFF CLOSING
Mr. Patterson said a letter was received from the North Lawrence Neighborhood Association after the communications deadline indicating the association’s opposition to the proposed RO-2 zoning and a preference for RS (single-family) zoning.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Although there was some opposition to the zoning, it was suggested that a comprehensive consideration of the proposal would show that the current M-3 was unsuitable and any change to a less-intense zoning classification would be a positive change.
It was also suggested that RO-2 zoning was more suitable than RS as a transitional zoning between the existing residential and industrial uses.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the rezoning of 1.01 acres from M-3 to RO-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.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO. 12: RM-3 TO C-2; 16,065 SQUARE FEET; 1401-1407 MASSACHUSETTS (JLT)
Z-02-05-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 16,065 sq. ft. from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence) District to C-2 (Neighborhood Shopping) District. The property is generally described as being located on the southwest corner of 14th & Massachusetts, and is known as 1401-1407 Massachusetts. Submitted by David Hamill, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully described the rezoning request, stating Staff’s recommendation for approval of zoning other than that requested. The applicant requested C-2, but Staff was of the opinion that C-1 zoning would be more suitable for the area.
Mr. Tully explained that HORIZON 2020 designated the subject area as inner-neighborhood commercial, which fit the C-1 zoning classification proposed by Staff. The area was surrounded on three sides by RM-3 zoning and had C-2 zoning on one side that was assigned at a time when C-1 zoning did not exist.
Staff provided examples of other C-1 districts, such as 11th & Indiana (Yello Sub) and 12th & Connecticut (Odessa’s Café).
In response to Study Session discussion, Mr. Tully provided a comparison of C-1 and C-2 zoning to their counterparts that would automatically apply with adoption of the new zoning code, CN1 and CN2.
Staff explained the main difference between C-1 and C-2 zoning was that C-2 allowed Use Groups 12 & 13, adding a significant number of allowable retail uses. When the CN1 and CN2 classifications were applied the difference between the two categories would be reduced, although C-2 would become more intense.
Staff recommended deferral of the request for one month to allow publishing of the alternative C-1 zoning request.
Staff was asked if CN1 zoning would impact the existing uses. It was discussed that the existing commercial uses were already non-conforming. This would change with approval of C-1 zoning (eventually CN1), but would make the residential uses non-conforming. C-2 (CN2) would allow both residential and commercial uses, but the property could not meet the lot size requirement for that district. The applicant had stated no interest in redevelopment because of these challenges.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
David Hamill, property owner, explained he opposed the C-1 zoning proposed by Staff because he wouldn’t “gain anything” – some of his existing uses would still be non-conforming. In his opinion, C-2 zoning was appropriate because it allowed both the residential and commercial uses. He understood the C-2 size requirements would make redevelopment problematic, but said he was not interested in redevelopment.
Mr. Hamill addressed the parking issue, saying he was seeking uses that would not require a significant amount of parking.
The applicant responded to questioning that the C-2 zoning, allowing both residential and commercial uses, gave him better leverage with banks and insurance companies. These institutions were less concerned with lot size issues than with nonconforming uses.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Johnson said she was still confused abut how C-1 and CN1 compared to C-2 and CN2. Staff provided more overview on how the different categories compared and explained how, no matter what zoning was applied, some portion of the subject area would be somehow non-conforming.
It was established that none of the mixed-use zoning categories proposed in the new Zoning Code would fit this property.
Comm. Schachter commented that he was concerned about the broad range of uses allowed when C-2 zoning converted to CN-2, but noted that many of the “objectionable” uses would be precluded because of location and/or size.
It was discussed that the Commission’s information on the impact of rezoning was sketchy, and perhaps deferring would allow gathering of additional information.
Mr. Hamill responded to questioning that he did not support the proposed deferral or the potential change to C-1 zoning.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Lawson to initiate a rezoning for 16,065 square feet located at 1401-1407 Massachusetts from RM-3 to C-1 and schedule a public hearing in May 2004.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Johnson to postpone until May 2004 the rezoning of 16,065 square feet located at 1401-1407 Massachusetts from RM-3 to C-2, with the intent of co-consideration with the rezoning initiated by the Planning Commission for the subject property.
Motion carried 7-1-1, with Comm. Eichhorn voting in opposition and Comm. Jennings absent from the room during the vote.
DISCUSSION ON THE ACTION
Staff was asked to provide in May a table outlining the impact of both proposed zonings, including the future impact when those zonings were modified with adoption of the new zoning code.
Staff was also asked to gather information from loan and insurance companies about how those institutions would view the various non-conformities possible in this case. Ms. Finger said Staff would try to get this information, the applicant requested that his property not be specifically mentioned in these discussions and it was unknown whether the companies would provide general information without a specific property to consider.
ITEM NO. 13: TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TYPE 2 RURAL HOME BUSINESS OCCUPATION REGULATIONS (SLD)
TA-03-02-04: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations to add an additional use to Type 2 Rural Home Business Occupation Regulations. Initiated by the Board of County Commissioners in March 2004.
The Commission agreed to postpone this Item to the May 2004 meeting.
ITEM NO. 14: A TO I-2; 4.65 ACRES; 1452 EAST 1 ROAD (PGP/WBH)
Z-03-12-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.65 acres from A (Agricultural) District to I-2 (Light Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located at 1452 East 1 Road. Submitted by Robin L. Edmonds for Shirley Edmonds, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the request, a rezoning to bring an existing excavation business into conformance. With adoption of the Home Occupations text amendment to the County Zoning Code in February 2001, the existing use was given a sunset of May 1, 2006 to come into conformance. It currently did not meet Type 3 Home Occupation regulations because it exceeded the allowable number of on-site employees.
It was noted that roadways north of this area were narrow and might be submerged in high water events.
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning, based on a determination that some uses allowed in I-2 zoning were inappropriate for the subject area. However, Staff suggested that, if the Commission did not oppose the existing use, they could initiate a Text Amendment to the County Zoning Regulations to allow the excavation use through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The Commission agreed to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Robin Edmonds explained his excavation business had been in operation since 1970. Its primary purpose was the installation and repair of rural water mains and services. The business had expanded and now the majority of his customers were Rural Water Districts, many of which opposed the potential relocation of Mr. Edmond’s business.
Mr. Edmonds said he understood the Commission did not want to create an industrial park in the area of his property. He therefore kept his request to 4.5 acres, less than the size of his entire property. Mr. Edmonds responded to questioning that he had approximately nine employees. A maximum number of 12 would be adequate if the Commission wanted to restrict the number of employees with a future CUP.
Mr. Edmonds said a site plan (as part of a CUP) restricting the business to its current use and design would also be acceptable to him and would allow adequately for future expansion.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rich Hays spoke on behalf of adjacent property owner and brother of the applicant, Jerry Edmonds, showing the location of Mr. J. Edmond’s property on a higher elevation that overlooked the subject area.
Mr. J. Edmond’s had no desire to impinge on his brother’s ability to operate his business, but was concerned with future uses that would be possible with I-2 zoning. He asked for creation of a site plan defining the line between his property and the subject area. He also requested visual screening between the two properties.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff noted that many letters of support were received from the public and various Rural Water Districts for this request and that this level of public support was unusual for zoning requests.
The applicant had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter said the request was obviously spot-zoning and that there were other, more appropriate options to consider that would allow the applicant to continue his business.
The Commission discussed a possible Text Amendment that would allow the operation to continue through approval of a CUP. They also discussed what conditions and criteria should be applied to the CUP, including size, number of employees, design and a time limit.
Staff recommended the Commission initiate Text Amendment to Article 19 (CUP’s) to add excavation uses with specific use restrictions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Schenewerk to initiate and schedule a public hearing in May 2004 for a Text Amendment to the County Zoning Regulations to make an excavation use allowable with approval of a Conditional Use Permit, provided the operation had no more than 12 nonresidential employees [Re: Article 19 definition of nonresidential employees].
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Lawson to deny the request to rezone 4.65 acres from A to I-2 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
ITEM NO. 15A: A TO RM-1; 2.73 ACRES; SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND EAST OF E 1000 (QUEENS ROAD) (PGP)
Z-03-13-04: A request to rezone approximately 2.73 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multi-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of Overland Drive and east of E 1000 (Queens) Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, for C.F.M., L.L.C., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 15B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OVERLAND POINTE; SOUTH OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND EAST OF E 1000 (QUEENS ROAD) (PGP)
PP-03-08-04: Preliminary Plat for Overland Pointe. This proposed multi-family residential subdivision contains approximately 2.73 acres and is located south of Overland Drive and east of E 1000 (Queens) Road. Submitted by The Peridian Group, for C.F.M., L.L.C., property owner of record.
Items 15 A & 15B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Items, a rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Overland Pointe subdivision. He described access to the property, noting it was restricted to Overland Drive.
Staff recommended approval of both Items, with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney spoke on behalf of the applicant, describing the intent for development including 27 units, all 2-story owner-occupied condominiums.
The applicant agreed with Staff’s recommendations and conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING – rezoning only
No member of the public spoke on this Item
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed timing of the proposed development related to road improvements. It was established that the project only had access to Overland Drive, and those improvements were already complete.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 2.73 acres from A 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 condition:
1. Approval of a Final Plat for the subject property.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Schachter to approve the Preliminary Plat for Overland Pointe subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
2. Provision of the following correction to the Preliminary Plat:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Finger told the Commission about a joint study session on May 5, 2004 between the City and County Commissions to discuss the Southeast Area Plan.
It was not known if the Planning Commission or members of the public would be allowed an opportunity to speak at this meeting, but the information presented would be valuable for future Planning Commission considerations.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT (LMF)
The Commission received this report as part of the regular packet information.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3:
There was no additional information to come before the Commission.
ADJOURN - 11:25 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.