LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 2004
Chairman Burress called the meeting to order on May 26th at 6:33 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Haase, Angino, Schenewerk, Eichhorn, Lawson, Johnson, Jennings, Riordan and Schachter
Staff present: Finger, Patterson, Tully, Day and Saker
The Commission agreed to pull Items 2A, 2B and 3 from the Consent Agenda.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Schenewerk to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
It was verified that changes had been made to the Mid-Month summary as directed at the Study Session.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ZAC: The Committee did not meet.
TAC: The Committee met for an informational presentation. The next meeting on June 10 may be moved to July, to occur after the Bicycle Advisory Committee’s June 15 meeting and action on the revised Bike Plan
SPC: The Committee did not meet.
CPC: The Committee met twice to continue work on the Southeast Area Plan
RPC: The Committee met twice and was roughing out the form of eventual policies.
RFC: The Committee did not meet.
CDSC: The Committee met to go over detailed standards. They had determined to use the format of the Overland Park ordinance for the Lawrence regulations.
PCMM: The Commission discussed time and workload management of both the Commission and Staff. They directed Staff to begin a number of research projects and outlines to find ways to increase communication effectiveness and cut down on work time.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Items 2A & 2B – Preliminary and Final Plat for R.L. Subdivision
· Memo from Staff responding to Study Session questions regarding various aspects of development
Item 4 – Rezoning RM-3 to C-1 (initiated by Planning Commission); and
Item 5 – Rezoning RM-3 to C-2 (withdrawn by applicant)
· Memo from Staff responding to Study Session questions about the potential impact of zoning on residential and commercial insurance rates
Item 10 – Text Amendment for Type II Rural Home Occupations
· Revised Staff Report per Study Session discussion
Miscellaneous
· Study Session summary
Ms. Finger stated for the benefit the public that the Kitsmiller property would not be discussed this evening.
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE / DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS
· No ex parte communications were disclosed.
· No abstentions were indicated.
DEFERRAL REQUESTS
Comm. Haase explained the body-of-the-whole (Study Session attendees) had taken action to recommend the Planning Commission defer Item 9 as requested by the applicant. The Commission agreed to do so unanimously, 10-0.
COMMISSIONER RECOGNITION
The Commission recognized the end of service for Comm.’s Pine, Schachter and Schenewerk, presenting each with a plaque and certificate.
Comm. Schachter said it had been a pleasure to work with this group, and that he thought they were doing a better job than ever at applying the regulations in a fair and equitable manner.
Comm. Schenewerk referenced his 20+ years of experience with the Commission, serving on both sides (Commissioner and developer), saying it was not getting easier to find a diverse group to serve in these positions. He asked the Commission to remember, respect and appreciate the work that went into the development process before a project came before them. Comm. Schenewerk stated his belief that the words written were not as important as the manner in which those words were practically implemented for the good of the community.
Ex-Comm. Pine spoke about her early experiences as a Commissioner when she had little to no experience with or understanding of the planning process. It had been though that she was not the type of person who should serve on the Commission - that members should have a good working knowledge of the code and the way development worked. She explained the importance of getting and keeping the “laymen” involved in the process, to educate and expand the circle of community involvement. She stated that what the Commission was doing was indeed important, but urged them not to lose sight of things in their own lives that were equally – if not more important. Finally, she advised the Commission to look for common ground between urban and rural planning and made a personal statement that, if agricultural uses were a wanted rural element, the planning process had to make deliberate room for them.
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR NORTH IOWA ADDITION; 601 N. IOWA (PGP)
PF-04-14-04: Final Plat for North Iowa Addition. This proposed industrial subdivision for future office development contains approximately 3.259 acres and is located at 601 N. Iowa (at the southwest corner of the intersection of N. Iowa Street and Kresge Road). Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Doug Compton, First Management Corp., contract purchaser and Unified School District #497, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Schenewerk to approve the Final Plat for North Iowa Addition 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, 10-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 2A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR R L SUBDIVISION; 1201 MONTEREY WAY (JLT)
PP-04-11-04: Preliminary Plat for R L Subdivision. This proposed three-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.78 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 1201 Monterey Way. Submitted by Randy Ham for Ron Lawrenz, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 2B: FINAL PLAT FOR R L SUBDIVISION; 1201 MONTEREY WAY (JLT)
PF-04-15-04: Final Plat for R L Subdivision. This proposed three-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.78 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 1201 Monterey Way. Submitted by Randy Ham for Ron Lawrenz, property owner of record.
Items 2A and 2B were discussed simultaneously. Both were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Comm. Angino explained he pulled this Item from the Consent Agenda to ask Staff if there was a way to protect the “ambiance” of this neighborhood, similar to the efforts being made in Brookcreek, Oread, Pinckney and other neighborhoods.
Mr. Tully responded that this would be possible through the application of a zoning district that would provide the restrictions the neighborhood needed to maintain the elements they wanted to protect. For example, if the neighborhood wanted to maintain larger lots – 1 acre or ½ acre – then the area should be rezoned RS-A or RS-E. This rezoning could be initiated by the neighborhood or the Commission, but it would be advisable to determine which zoning was wanted and how many of the area residents/property owners supported the rezoning.
It was suggested the Commission set a deadline for the neighborhood residents to “sign up”, stating their support of a particular zoning designation. The Commission would then have the ability to initiate the rezoning, thus waiving the application fee.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully showed a map of the subject area, noting which properties in the vicinity had recently split in a similar manner. Based on the number of lots still able to split or plat, the density of the area could increase from 70 to an estimated 120 dwelling units. The City Engineer had reviewed this number and stated in response to Study Session questions that the street system was adequate to handle the potential increase. It was verified that the sewer system built in 2001 touched all the lots and was designed to accommodate such an expansion as well.
It was also verified that the existing curb cut on Monterey Way would be relocated further south and the two new lots would take access only from W. 12th Street.
Staff responded to a Study Session question that only one tree would be lost with the project.
Mr. Tully had discussed with David Corliss the issue of using ‘conservation of neighborhood character’ (per Goal 3 of HORIZON 2020) as a basis for denial. Mr. Corliss indicated it was possible the property owner would have grounds for legal action if the subject property were not treated the same as other properties in the area. Since seven lots had been permitted to split/plat since 1997, including the adjacent property, it would be difficult to avoid a ‘takings’ claim.
It was suggested that, if the Commission felt this type of land use was inappropriate for the area, the zoning designation should be revised to reflect the importance of neighborhood character and a zoning with lower density should be initiated for the neighborhood. It was discussed that the area was already zoned for low density (6 or fewer dwelling units per acre), so a reduction would be to a very low density category (RS-E or RS-A) with a density of 2 or fewer dwelling units per acre.
In relation to the issue of blasting, it was estimated that a rock bed layer was approximately 5’ below the subject property. The developer indicted his intent to construct basements in the two new properties on W. 12th Street, but believed blasting would not be necessary.
No variances were requested or required for the project as proposed.
Staff was asked at the Study Session to estimate the cost savings to the community of allowing infill vs. fringe development. Mr. Tully explained this was not something the City tracked formally, and noted that the infrastructure – usually constructed at the developer’s expense – was already in place.
Comm. Lawson verified with Staff that the proposal was in accordance with all current regulations and asked if the Commission’s questions were relevant to the issue at hand.
It was established that none of the area properties would be made non-conforming with a rezoning to a very-low-density designation. It was noted that other lot splits or plats could be during this rezoning process.
Comm. Schachter thanked the neighbors for their interest and participation in the process, explaining that their written comments were taken seriously although they were not able to make verbal comment at the meeting. He noted Staff’s explanation that this was an administrative decision and the application should be approved if it met the code requirements.
Comm. Schachter believed the Commission agreed on the importance of recognizing areas that needed protection and referenced the conservation district that would be available in the new code. Until the new code was adopted, the neighbors had the option of initiating alternate (very-low-density) zoning for their own properties.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Commission that blasting restrictions be increased, although it was pointed out that these regulations were associated with the Fire Code, not the Building Code or Subdivision Regulations. The Commission asked that the minutes reflect their concern about this issue.
Comm. Haase said he would vote against the proposal for reasons that probably should not be considered in an administrative decision, such as blasting concerns and the Golden Factors reference to character of the area. He was concerned that approval for this project would send a message for other properties that the Commission supported splitting and blasting in this area. He closed by saying the Building Code was inadequate to deal with the cumulative effects of blasting.
Understanding a denial of the application would need to be based on administrative review criteria, Comm. Haase suggested the Commission deny the project based on the applicant’s desire to retain the curb cut on Monterey Way. He said the applicant could be advised to return with a revised plan platting the subject property into only two lots, both taking access from W. 12th Street. In that time, the neighborhood would have an opportunity to make their own rezoning application.
Comm. Schachter felt this was still an application of abstract criteria (the Golden Factors) to what should be an administrative decision. He noted that the Commission had set a precedent of allowing existing curb cuts to remain on collectors, even Monterey Way. Chairman Burress agreed with these comments, saying the Commission could not revise their previous interpretation(s) based only on neighborhood concern.
Comm. Angino countered that, in his opinion, Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan allowed the Commission to deny the application based on neighborhood character. He was also concerned about the effects of potential blasting with a rock bed 5’ under the subject property.
Comm. Schachter suggested this project serve as a “wake-up call” for the area residents to work together to change the rules for their neighborhood.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 2A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the Preliminary Plat for R L Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Plat that states, “Property owner will sign an agreement not to protest the formation of benefit district for W. 12th Street”; and
2. Label centerline of W. 12th Street on Preliminary Plat to show that 35’ is half of the total amount of right-of-way.
Motion carried 8-2, with Comm.’s Schachter, Johnson, Burress, Eichhorn, Lawson, Riordan, Jennings and Schenewerk voting in favor and Comm.’s Haase and Angino voting in opposition.
Item 2B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Final Plat for R.L. Subdivision 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
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans (water line and sanitary sewers) to Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
4. Label centerline of W. 12th Street on final plat to show that 35’ is half of the total amount of right-of-way; and
5. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for W. 12th Street.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to forward a recommendation to the City Commission that the City reevaluate the blasting code as soon as possible, considering stricter standards to ensure protection on the area and adjacent properties, especially in areas where significant amounts of rock were involved.
Comm. Lawson asked if anyone had read through the information on blasting that was provided at a recent Study Session. It was established that the current regulations required notification prior to blasting for all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. Additionally, property owners within 250’ of the site were able to have their foundation inspected at the developers’ expense before and after blasting.
It was discussed that the neighborhood property owners could develop a petition regarding rezoning the entire neighborhood and bring it to the Planning Commission. The Commission could then initiate the rezoning, thus avoiding the application fee. It was recommended the neighborhood determine an exact boundary for their request and get the approval (signatures) of as many property owners as possible within that boundary.
Ms. Finger offered to have Staff send a letter to the neighborhood residents outlining how to submit a petition and noting the submittal deadlines.
ITEM NO. 3: REVISED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WAKARUSA CROSSROADS; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET AND WAKARUSA DRIVE (SLD)
FDP-04-07-04: Revised Final Development Plan for Wakarusa Crossroads. The existing retail commercial development contains approximately 229,441 square feet and is located at the southwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. The proposed plan includes a new 4,500 square foot pad site and revisions to the parking lot. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Bristol Groupe, property owner of record.
This Item was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Comm. Schachter stated he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to discuss the appropriateness of allowing additional commercial square footage at this node, when an amount had been set and already exceeded.
The northwest corner was approved for 224,000 square feet of commercial space, but 229,000 square feet existed at this time. The proposed revision would increase the amount of approved commercial space to 444,500 square feet.
It was established that a Final Development Plan, regardless of its initial size, could be expanded by up to 10% and this increase would not be considered a significant change. The proposed revision involved an increase of 4%. However, the Commission could (through the Comprehensive Plan) set a cap on an appropriate maximum.
The issue was additionally complicated by the fact that there was not an approved Final Development Plan for the northeast corner of the node. This meant approval of the current proposal would either further reduce the northeast corner’s allowance of commercial space or require modification of the northeast corner’s allowance specifically and separately.
It was verified that the relocation of the existing 6th Street curb cut would occur regardless of this application.
Comm. Schachter reminded the Commission that they had set a cap of 420,000 square feet of commercial development for the entire node after a significant amount of discussion. The City Commission had increased this amount to 440,000 square feet to allow more space for the northeast corner. He was concerned that approval for this increase would set a precedent for the other corners, making it difficult to deny future expansion applications.
The Commission discussed the potential impact of this proposed increase, with the suggestion that this amount of (4%) would not have a significant impact on the development. It was countered that the impact as a precedent might be significant.
There was concern expressed about taking additional land development rights away form the other corners, which were still “unknowns”. It was suggested that a plan might come forward in the future that was worthy of allowing expansion and it was unwise to restricting quantity without knowing quality. It was noted that the cap was set based on potential traffic, not on development design.
Vice-Chairman Burress agreed with the idea that the corner was already bigger than had been deemed appropriate and additional increases – even incremental ones – should not be allowed.
Comm. Schachter asked the applicant’s representative to suggest a way the Commission could justify approving this proposal while not allowing future expansion of the northeast corner. Greg DiVilbiss explained the proposed expansion related to a pad site that had been intended from the beginning but was mistakenly dropped from the Preliminary Development Plan during a past revision. There was not definite intent to develop this specific piece of ground, and it was possible the street would be closed, making the property unusable.
It was established that Staff recommended approval of the proposed revision.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Schenewerk to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Wakarusa Crossroads, subject to the following conditions:
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Schachter expressed his strong opposition to the motion for approval, because the recently adopted nodal plan clearly stated what the Commission – after lengthy debate – determined an appropriate amount of commercial square footage. This number had already been increased by the City Commission and “incremental decisions make big mistakes”. He believed the Commission would find it difficult to deny expansion of the northeast corner in the future.
Comm. Schenewerk said this request had extenuating circumstances. KDOT had changed the street design after Final Development Plan approval, which created several hundred feet of “dysfunctional” land. He stated that practical application of the regulations would allow flexibility based on modifications that were not under the developer’s control.
Staff verified that KDOT negotiations had changed the street design from the original intent to keep the access in question as a right-in/right-out.
There was discussion about whether the changed access situation entitled the developer to some leeway. Comm. Schachter felt this was not the case, pointing out the Commission’s choice (after much debate) of the words “shall be no more than”. If this application were approved, he said the Nodal Plan should be amended to reflect the new “shall be” number. He added that HORIZON 2020 should also be amended, and asked if the Commission intended to do this every time this cap (or any other) was raised.
Several points were raised:
· The nodal plan did not assign specific commercial space allocations for each corner, but defined this as a “first come, first serve” issue for the corners deemed suitable for commercial development.
· The traffic impact study determined this proposal would have a negligible impact on the overall development.
· If the street were closed and the land became unusable (i.e. not able to develop), it would be highly suitable for greenspace.
· The developer had two previous opportunities to “fix” the situation by reviewing plans to ensure the pad site was shown.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Wakarusa Crossroads, subject to the following conditions:
Motion failed to carry, 3-7, with Comm.’s Angino, Schenewerk and Jennings voting in favor and Comm.’s Schachter, Burress, Eichhorn, Johnson, Haase, Lawson and Riordan voting in opposition.
SWEARING IN/AFFIRMATION OF SPEAKERS
ITEM NO. 4: RM-3 TO C-1; 16,065 SQUARE FEET; 1401-1407 MASSACHUSETTS (JLT)
Z-04-16-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 16,065 sq. ft. from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence) District to C-1 (Inner Neighborhood Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located at 1401-1407 Massachusetts. Submitted by David Hamill, property owner of record. This item was initiated by the Planning Commission at their April 28, 2004 meeting.
This Item was related to Item 5, which was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully provided an overview of the Commission’s initiation of this rezoning to C-1, stemming from an application from the property owner for C-2 rezoning.
The C-2 application was then withdrawn and the property owner strongly objected to the C-1 zoning, seeing no advantage to the C-1 and preferring to keep the existing RM-3 zoning.
It was noted that approval of the new zoning code would automatically revise the property to a new category (CN1, CN2 or RM32), and Mr. Tully outlined the development potentials of all those categories.
Staff’s recommended approval of the C-1 rezoning based on the HORIZON 2020 designation of the subject area as an inner-neighborhood center, which was held under the C-1 category.
In response to Commission direction, Staff described a number of other zoning options, explaining the non-conformance complications involved with each. Since any zoning category - even C-1 - left some portion of the existing development non-conforming, it was suggested that the property owner’s preferences should weigh heavily on the Commission’s decision.
It was verified with the property owner that the only reason he had sought C-2 zoning was that “professionals” had told him to seek commercial zoning. In retrospect, Mr. Hamill felt the existing RM-3 zoning was suitable and “worked fine for him”.
Staff was asked to comment on the possible retention of the existing RM-3 zoning. Mr. Tully replied that this designation had been in place for several years, but would not allow the owner to rebuild the existing development if it were destroyed. It was therefore in the property owner’s best interest to accept a zoning designation that would create the most conformity.
It was established that rebuilding would result in density lower than currently existed.
PROPERTY OWNER PRESENTATION
David Hamill, property owner, stated his strong opposition to the proposed C-1 zoning. He explained he had made his original application with the understanding that only C-2 zoning would accomplish his intent of bringing both commercial and residential structures into conformance.
Mr. Hamill had not known about C-1 zoning at that time and was later able to locate only two other small areas in town with that designation. He was unfamiliar with the new designations that would take affect with the new zoning regulations and was concerned about changing his property until that process was complete.
It was verified that Mr. Hamill understood the rebuilding implications of each zoning category (C-1/CN1, C-2/CN2 and RM-3/RM32). He pointed out that rebuilding the property would face significant issues beyond zoning, including setbacks, parking and greenspace.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from Staff or the property owner.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Several points were brought up:
· It was anticipated that the Smart Growth consultants would provide a template that would help the City create mixed-use zoning districts for areas like this.
· Applying C-1 zoning now, despite the property owner’s concerns, would put the property in a better position in the future.
· The subject property’s non-conformance was discussed in previous years, with a decision to leave zoning as it stood.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Haase to deny the rezoning of 16,065 square feet from RM-3 to C-1 and forward it to the City Commission with recommendation for denial, based on the following findings of fact:
1. Zoning districts are in transition with the unfinished Zoning Code revisions;
2. The RM-3 designation works as a holding zone to keep existing uses stable until/unless they are destroyed; and
3. RM-3 zoning allows the current uses to continue at same density, maintaining the status quo of the area.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Ms. Finger pointed out that, as the applicant, the Planning Commission could simply withdraw the motion with unanimous consent.
ACTION TAKEN
Comm.’s Schachter and Haase withdrew the motion on the floor with no opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Angino to withdraw the application for C-1 zoning.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 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 at 1401-1407 Massachusetts. Submitted by David Hamill, property owner of record. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their April 28, 2004 meeting.
This Item was withdrawn prior to the meeting per the applicant’s request, but was relevant to the discussion of Item 4.
ITEM NO. 6: REVISED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BRIARWOOD COTTAGES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND EAST OF FOLKS ROAD (PGP)
FDP-03-04-04: Revised Final Development Plan for Briarwood Cottages. This residential development contains approximately 4.68 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street and east of Folks Road. The applicant proposes reducing the amount of space used for a postal center and converting the remaining space to a one-bedroom studio apartment. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Thomas Fritzel, Briarwood of Lawrence, LC, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, a Final Development Plan revision to allow conversion of a section of the existing postal center to a 1-bedroom apartment unit. A smaller section of the building would continue to function as the postal center. The existing postal center had been counted as part of the development’s open space in the current Final Development Plan. The open space total would therefore reduce in size by the amount of square footage converted to a private dwelling unit, even though the building footprint would not change.
It was noted that the amount of required open space had already been reduced twice with previous revision approvals, including the one allowing the postal center to be counted in the open space total.
The applicant asked to retain the periphery setback waiver previously approved for the postal center.
Staff recommended denial of the proposal based on the loss of common open area.
It was noted that the entire area was initially submitted as one development. When financial concerns arose, the area was split and half was sold as a separate development which took with it the pool and clubhouse originally intended for the larger overall project. The residents of the original (now smaller) development had asked for the reduction in open space so they would not have to share in the maintenance responsibilities of a shared pool/clubhouse. The Commission had approved that reduction from 11% to 6.5%.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the majority of the space dedicated to the postal center had been used for storage but had been mostly unused for several years.
Mr. Herndon explained several elements of the development had not worked out the way they were originally planned, necessitating the multiple revisions that had come before the Commission.
The mail center was currently used by both developments and the Homeowner’s Association had received complaints that the $10/month charge (covering the plumbing, heating and lighting for the building) for mail service was too high. Converting the majority of the building to a private living space would allow a reduction in this cost.
Mr. Herndon said this would be an almost unnoticeable change in terms of density and parking and was an efficient infill use of existing space. He said the applicant supported Staff’s alternate recommendation for approval with conditions.
It was discussed that the center, as it currently existed, served no community purpose other than the technical fulfillment of the open space requirement. If part of that space were converted to living quarters, the development residents would benefit from reduced postal service rates.
Comm. Schachter pointed out the Planned Unit Development Regulations allowed alternate development patterns in exchange for more open space. The open space requirement for this development had already been reduced by more than half of the 20% the regulations said the developer “shall” provide.
Mr. Herndon responded to questioning that a further reduction could be rationalized by the fact that the “loss” in open space was not a literal one – the area was internal and the footprint of the building was not being changed. When asked if consideration had been given to devoting the postal center space to another public use, Mr. Herndon said the property owner(s) had not stated any other desired use for the building.
Comm. Angino suggested “only somewhat facetiously” that the developer should accept the fact that the postal center had been poorly planned, raze the building and devote the area to open space, which the development was sorely lacking. Mr. Herndon replied that the residents moved there understanding the open space issues and were not complaining about it. They were complaining about mail box prices.
The Commission discussed why they had approved previous revisions with such a lack of open space. Comm. Angino expressed concern that many elements had changed and asked if these were “screw ups” the Commission was asked again and again to codify with development plan revisions. As part of this discussion, the Commission placed on their Parking Lot list a discussion of alley maintenance and garbage trucks.
Comm. Lawson noted the difficulty the City had in getting permission to remove structures that were literally falling down and asked why the Commission was discussing the demolition of a new, usable building.
It was suggested that the area inside the existing postal center was never realistically open space according to the Zoning Code definition.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item
STAFF CLOSING
In response to Commission discussion, Staff provided the definition of open space from the Code, which included “supplementary structures used for the benefit of the public”. The Community Postal Center in this instance was considered such a structure.
APPLICANT CLOSING
The applicant had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter summarized his concerns, stating the PUD was approved because standard zoning regulations would not allow this kind of project (alleys, setbacks, etc.). In exchange for alternate development design, the applicant agreed to provide open space, including that contained inside the postal center.
Comm. Riordan was concerned the Commission was taking so much time on a project that had not received a single comment or complaint and would not be noticed by anyone outside the development. Comm. Schachter replied that the precedent set by this action was important for future decisions. He asked if the Commission felt it would always be appropriate to reduce common space in exchange for reduced maintenance costs.
Comm. Schachter noted that there were several PUD’s in the City “offering” their open space to the City to reduce their own maintenance responsibilities. The City had continually held the development’s to their commitment to maintain that space.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schenewerk, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Briarwood Cottages, including the associated waiver for a reduction in the common open space, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners;
2. Replace any dead or missing landscape material;
3. Provision of recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
4. Provisions of an amended Final Development Plan for Briarwood PRD, removing the proposed dwelling unit within the Postal Office Center from the Common Open Space; and
5. Four existing parking spaces shall be converted to open space.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Schenewerk said his motion provided a practical solution that would allow use of the existing building while retaining the required open space. It also improved the open space provided by converting internal space to external.
It was noted that the development had more than the required number of parking spaces and that Staff should approve which four spaces were used as a site plan consideration.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the revised Final Development Plan for Briarwood Cottages, including the associated waiver for a reduction in the common open space, subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement by the owners;
2. Replace any dead or missing landscape material;
3. Provision of recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
4. Provisions of an amended Final Development Plan for Briarwood PRD, removing the proposed dwelling unit within the Postal Office Center from the Common Open Space; and
5. Four existing parking spaces shall be converted to open space, subject to Staff approval.
Motion carried 8-2, with Comm.’s Schenewerk, Angino, Burress, Lawson, Riordan, Jennings, Johnson and Eichhorn voting in favor and Comm.’s Haase and Schachter voting in opposition.
Chairman Burress called a 15-minute recess.
The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
ITEM NO. 7A: A TO RS-2; 4.07 ACRES; S.W. CORNER OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY 40) & E 1000 ROAD (QUEENS ROAD) (JLT)
Z-03-14-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.07 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being 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.
ITEM NO. 7B: 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.
Items 7A & 7B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the Items, a rezoning and Preliminary Plat for an area left with its County zoning designation after annexation in 2001. A church was the proposed use and RS-2 zoning was requested to match the property to the south and the majority of the overall area.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the Preliminary Plat, with conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRSENTATION
Tim Huhlford spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the church had owned the subject property for 12 years and was now ready to develop. He responded to questioning that the busiest traffic times for the church would be for Saturday morning services. No mid-week or daily services were generally held, and no daycare or children’s center was anticipated at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING – rezoning only
Michael Dreiling, Vice-President of the Branchwood Court Homeowners Association, stated the Association’s strong support for the project.
Gwen Klingenberg, member of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said her neighborhood was glad to welcome this kind of use.
Tim Herndon, member of the Branchwood Court Homeowners Association, asked that the minutes reflect that the City Engineer had reviewed the right-of-way dedication for the future expansion of Branchwood Court as shown on the subject Preliminary Plat. He said the City Engineer had stated the east half of the Branchwood Court right-of-way (as it abuts the adjacent Foxchase Patio Homes Addition) would be 30' wide.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was noted that the RS-2 zoning was for a class of uses, not just a church. Future reuse may become more intense, although uses in addition to the church would require a UPR (school or daycare).
ACTION TAKEN
Item 7A
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the rezoning of 4.07 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.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
Item 7B
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Plat for Seventh Day Adventist Church, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise cover sheet to reflect “Current Zoning: A (Agricultural) District”; and
2. Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary plat that states, “Property owner will sign an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Queens Road/Branchwood Drive.”
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM NO. 8: A TO RS-2; 26.712 ACRES; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD (EXTENDED) AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
Z-04-15-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.712 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard Road (extended) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Green Tree L.C., applicant, and Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, explaining a request for multi-family zoning had been approved in 2003. The property owner was now requesting a single-family zoning category to better suit the surrounding area.
No Preliminary Plat was submitted at this time, and the developer indicated this would come after consideration of issues raised with other developments in the area.
Ms. Day explained unilateral annexation had taken place as part of the 6th Street improvements, and the property owners were allowed to seek City zoning designations at their own pace.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the condition listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Al Diebal, BG Consultants, said the applicant supported Staff’s recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke regarding this Item
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no further comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Schenewerk to approve the rezoning of 26.712 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. Recording of the Final Plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ITEM NO. 9: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO DEALERSHIP; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 33RD STREET AND IOWA STREET (PGP)
PDP-04-02-04: Preliminary Development Plan for an auto dealership. This proposed commercial development contains approximately 0.57 acre. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of 33rd Street and Iowa Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, LLC, Will Cokely, contract purchaser, and Richard and Sherryl Wright and Mike and Dr. Carol Moddrell, property owners of record.
The Commission agreed unanimously at the beginning of the meeting to grant the applicant’s request to defer this Item one month, to the June 2004 meeting.
ITEM NO. 10: 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. Deferred by the Planning Commission at their April 28, 2004, meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day noted the provision of a revised Staff Report with language amended per Study Session discussion.
County Zoning Administrator Keith Dabney responded to questioning that County Staff was confident this language met the intent of the amendment initiated by the County Commission. It would allow distribution of agricultural equipment but not the retail sales, on-site storage or warehousing of such equipment.
It was noted that the County initiated this text amendment in relation to their attempt to eliminate Type 3 Rural Home Businesses. Mr. Dabney described the remaining Type 3 Rural Home Businesses and why they were not allowed as Type 2 uses:
1. Antique shop – retail sales
2. Cabinet shop – too many employees
3. Carpet Cleaning operation – too many employees
Mr. Dabney was asked to contact each of these remaining uses to see what they were doing to meet the 2006 conformance deadline. It was noted that the uses would be allowed to continue until HORIZON 2020 was updated to define appropriate rural occupations.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission slightly altered the proposed language to ensure the amendment applied to a broad spectrum of uses and was not designed for a specific user.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve a text amendment to the Home Occupations section of the County Zoning Regulations [Sec. 19-6.2(c)(2)] to state:
“Assembly, distribution, maintenance and repair of dairy and agricultural implements and equipment.”
and forward the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0
ITEM NO. 11: TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ADDITION OF EXCAVATION USE TO ALLOWED CONDITIONAL USES (PGP)
TA-04-03-04: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations to permit limited excavation businesses through a Conditional Use Permit. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their April 28, 2004 meeting
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Schachter asked if Mr. Dabney had received any direction from the County Commission regarding another text amendment in process, a revision of the uses allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Dabney replied that he would like to look at how other communities dealt with this issue, but the County Commission’s direction had been to get the amendment through the process as quickly as possible. It was known that several communities did not specify a “laundry list” of uses, but allowed any use that met a series of approved criteria.
Mr. Dabney commented that the excavation use being considered in the text amendment would be significantly different from the other allowed uses.
This Item was deferred to the July 2004 meeting per Staff’s request.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT (LMF)
The Commission received this report as part of their packet information.
MISC. ITEM NO. 3: NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Finger asked the Commission to confirm that the joint meeting with the Johnson County Planning Commission on June 16th would replace the regularly scheduled Mid-Month Meeting on June 9th.
The Commission was asked to meet briefly at 5:30 p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room the evening of the 16th to look at the draft Southeast Area Plan. The Commission would then travel to Cedar Creek in Johnson County. A reminder of this meeting would be sent electronically.
The Commission discussed the recent information distributed about possible changes in procedure, Staff Reports, meeting times and dates, etc. It was verified that these issues would be discussed by the entire body before any changes were made. Comments should be forwarded to Staff as soon as possible. These would be passed on to Comm. Haase for incorporation into the draft document.
It was discussed that the June agenda was lengthy and may include items related to the S. Iowa Wal-Mart site.
It was noted that no action had been taken regarding deferral of Item 11. Motioned by Comm. Haase, seconded by Comm. Riordan to defer Item 11 to the July 2004 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.
ADJOURN - 10:25 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.