LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
City Commission Room, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street
JUNE 23, 2004 DRAFT
__________________________________________________________________
Chairman Burress called the meeting to order on June 23rd at 6:35 p.m. Other Commissioners present: Haase, Angino, Eichhorn, Lawson, Johnson, Jennings, Riordan, Erickson and Student Representative Brown
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Ahrens, Tully, Day and Saker
__________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
Item 11 was moved on the agenda after Item 2.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2004 meeting as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
ZAC: The Committee did not meet.
TAC: The Committee did not meet.
SPC: The Committee met to discuss the draft Southeast Area Plan, which was presented at the Mid-Month meeting and was given to the Commission for receipt on tonight’s agenda. The Committee and Staff recommended the Commission initiate a public hearing for the plan in July. The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 29 at noon, when the Committee would continue revisions for that public hearing. Ms. Finger added that the Commission would need to direct Staff regarding how they wanted to receive information about development proposals in the southeast planning area.
CPC: The Committee did not meet.
RPC: The Committee met twice and was framing its recommendations for a new rural growth policy to be presented to the Commission by the end of the summer.
RFC: The Committee did not meet.
CDSC: The Committee did not meet.
PCMM: The Commission discussed the Southeast SE Area plan, including concerns about the proposed placement of major roads and how that placement would affect county development. The meeting then recessed and reconvened in Johnson County with the Johnson County Planning Commission. The joint meeting was dedicated to a discussion of common planning issues and concerns.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 6B – Preliminary Development plan for Legends at K.U.
Item 9 – Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for 3400 Iowa
Miscellaneous
Ms. Finger explained the information on industrial sites referenced on tonight’s agenda would not be presented because the joint resolution regarding this issue had been modified by the City Commission on the previous night.
Later in the evening, after adjourning the joint meeting with the Eudora Planning Commission, the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission returned to this section of the agenda to consider a request for concurrent submission.
The Commission was asked to consider allowing concurrent submission of the Preliminary and Final Plats for the industrially zoned and developed land at 706 E. 23rd Street, the former Lawrence Lumber property. The subject area carries a single zoning category and none of the land falls within the floodplain.
The area does slightly exceed the 1-acre maximum set for concurrent submission, measuring approximately 1.45 acres. This size may be reduced if additional right-of-way on 23rd Street is deemed necessary.
Staff expects a submittal of a site plan within two weeks, and all elements of the project will be scheduled to go before the City Commission at the same time.
It was verified that the rules regarding concurrent submission include a list of criteria by which, if met, concurrent submission must be granted. The regulations do not specifically preclude allowing concurrent submission if those criteria are not met.
Staff was asked to make a case for why allowing concurrent submission in this case would be appropriate. Ms. Day replied that this decision was at the Commission’s discretion. She pointed out the subject area was developed prior to adoption of the zoning code and without site planning. She added that could be considered an investment in existing infrastructure.
Staff was asked to comment on the policy purpose of the separate submission requirement. Ms. Day responded that one reason was to properly control the division of property. It was noted that no division was proposed with this project.
Staff did not consider the platting element of this project difficult, although the site planning stage would be more complex.
Ms. Day responded to questioning that there was no intent to change the footprint of the existing building and the request was reasonable in Staff’s opinion.
C.L. Mauer of Landplan Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant. He agreed with Staff there was no intent to divide the property, and said the existing building would have to be demolished in order to do so.
It was noted that the request for concurrent submission was not frequently seen.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to allow concurrent submission in August 2004 of the Preliminary and Final Plats for the property located at 706 E. 23rd Street, based on the strong evidence that the subject property would not be subdivided.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
The Commission considered Item 11 at this point.
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE / DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS
The majority of the Commission had received a series of emails about Item 6, all of which were forwarded to Staff without being read and were subsequently distributed in the packets.
No abstentions were declared.
DEFERRAL REQUESTS
There were no requests for deferral.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2003-2004
Comm. Riordan nominated Vice-Chairman Haase for the position of Planning Commission Chairman for the 2004-2005 term. No other nominations were made and Chairman Haase was elected unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Comm. Johnson nominated Comm. Riordan for the position of Planning Commission Vice-Chairman for the 2004-2005 term. No other nominations were made and Vice-Chairman Riordan was elected unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM NO. 1A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HINES SUBDIVISION NO. 1, A REPLAT OF LOT 47, DOANE’S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK SEVEN IN EARL’S ADDITION; 828 E. 14TH STREET (PGP)
PP-04-10-04: Preliminary Plat for Hines Subdivision No. 1, a Replat of Lot 47, Doane’s Subdivision of Block Seven in Earl’s Addition. This proposed two-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.43 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 828 E. 14th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects L.L.C., for Frank Hines, property owner of record. The applicant deferred this item from the May Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM NO. 1B: FINAL PLAT FOR HINES SUBDIVISION NO. 1, A REPLAT OF LOT 47, DOANE’S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK SEVEN IN EARL’S ADDITION; 828 E. 14TH STREET (PGP)
PF-04-13-04: Final Plat for Hines Subdivision No. 1, a Replat of Lot 47, Doane’s Subdivision of Block Seven in Earl’s Addition. This proposed two-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 0.43 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 828 E. 14th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects L.L.C., for Frank Hines, property owner of record. The applicant deferred this item from the May Planning Commission meeting.
Items 1A & 1B were deferred prior to the meeting.
The meeting was recessed at 6:35 and a joint meeting with the Eudroa Planning Commission was immediately called to order, with Eudora Chairman VonAchen presiding. Eudora Commissioners present: VonAchen, Campbell, Bartless, Adkinson
ITEM NO. 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EUDORA EAST INTERCEPTOR SEWER, PHASE I, 2202 N 1420 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-05-02-04: Conditional Use Permit request for Eudora East Interceptor Sewer, Phase I, for construction of a pump station. The property is located at 2202 N 1420 Road. Submitted by Burns & McDonnell for the City of Eudora, applicant, and Mr. & Mrs. Alf T. Oleson, property owners of record. The Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing with the Eudora Planning Commission due to this project’s location.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained the subject property was adjacent to the Eudora city limits. The proposal was to add utility service for Eudora residents and Staff review was based primarily on the proposed physical improvements to the property.
Although Eudora did not yet have a sewer master plan, the project was in conformance with the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan and the city’s planned infrastructure improvements.
Staff recommended approval of the project as presented, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
City Administrator Mike Yanez had no additional comments, but was present to answer questions on behalf of the City of Eudora.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISION DISCUSSION
Neither Commission had additional comments on the Item.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Lawrence-Douglas County Commission
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Eudora East Interceptor 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:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Eudora Planning Commission
Motioned by Comm. Adkinson, seconded by Comm. Campbell to approve Conditional Use Permit for the Eudora East Interceptor 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. Obtain a development permit from Douglas County, if required, for placing a structure within the Flood Plain Management Area
Motion carried unanimously,4-0.
The joint meeting of the Lawrence-Douglas County and Eudora Planning Commissions was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. The meeting of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission was reconvened at 6:55.
The Commission returned to the Communications section of the agenda to discuss a request for concurrent submission, then considered Item 11 as agreed at the beginning of the meeting.
ITEM NO. 3: 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. This item was deferred from the May Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, describing the property’s location at the southwest corner of 33rd & Iowa and noting the Item was deferred from the May meeting. He explained PCD zoning had been approved for the area with the understanding that a number of variances would be required in the development of the property.
The surrounding area is entirely developed and is one of the larger commercial areas in the city.
Mr. Patterson explained that this Preliminary Development Plan should be reviewed with the understanding that it serves as the Preliminary Plat and the Site Plan for the property, as well as providing guidance as the conformance document to the Final Development Plan.
Staff had identified three primary concerns:
1. Peripheral boundary setback – the property will need a waiver from the required peripheral setbacks. Staff would not oppose approval of these waivers, with the stipulation that the remaining setbacks contain additional landscaping.
2. Signage – Staff would like proposed signage included on the elevations for the Commission to consider in relation to the adopted Southern Development Plan.
3. Internal traffic circulation – the subject property has only one definite access point (on 33rd Street) which is considered unsafe by the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer. Two other access points may be possible as cross access easements with the two adjacent properties (Culver’s and Uno’s), but those agreements are not in place at this time. Staff noted that one of these possible access points (Culver’s) has existing traffic safety issues.
The Final Development Plans for Culver’s and Uno’s were approved without dedicated easements, showing only the location the cross access easement should occur. Since easements were never recorded and are not on the plat, there may be no regulatory responsibility for those property owners to provide access to the subject property.
The applicant was asked to provide options to deal with the traffic issue and submitted three access design proposals. Public Works and Planning Staff could not support any of these proposals and suggested the applicant continue working with the adjacent property owners to find a suitable solution to the traffic problems. Public Works additionally recommended creating an access plan that would allow the existing 33rd Street access to close.
Staff recommended denial of the Preliminary Development Plan based on traffic circulation concerns and other issues identified in the Staff Report.
There was discussion about whether the City was responsible for creating the lack-of-access problem and if the City had created an unbuildable lot. Staff indicated this was not the case, because the 33rd Street access could (must) be retained if no other access agreements could be made.
Comm. Angino suggested the city had created this problem by not taking action in the past to create easements. Staff explained that, because this was the first development proposal to come forward for the subject property since the adoption of the development code, this was the first chance the city had to obtain easements. The best time to create optimal access agreements would have been when the adjacent properties were developing their PCD, but the subject property owner chose to keep his land separate from that development project.
Various access designs were discussed, including:
· Using a merging lane to get onto 33rd Street - Staff said the City Engineer would not allow this design because it would create too many conflicting traffic movements.
· Retaining the 33rd Street access if no other option were negotiated – Ms. Finger said this would likely not remain a full access point, but would possibly be changed to a right-in/right-out.
· Merging with Highway 59/Iowa Street traffic – It was unlikely KDOT would allow this design.
It was verified that Staff’s recommendation for denial was based on traffic circulation and other issues identified in the Staff Report. There was no issue with the proposed use of the property.
Comm. Burress said the issue could be solved if the city agreed to pay for fixing the past mistakes (revise the entire access design), but the Commission did not have the authority to request that kind of action. He asked Staff to suggest what design would be best, leaving out the issue of property ownership. Mr. Patterson said the project should proceed as planned with changes made as recommended in the Staff Report, including the additional design work to deal with internal circulation.
APPLICANT PRSENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the contract purchaser. He stated for the record that his firm did not design the Culver’s/Uno’s parking lots, but the subject property was a difficult site because of the way those adjacent properties were designed. He said the applicant was not “fishing” with the three design proposals, but was frustrated with the lack of reasonable options.
Mr. Werner said the developer would not have submitted the plan and spent the money to get to this point if he had known it would receive a negative recommendation for using an existing access (Culver’s), the design of which was outside this developer’s control.
Mr. Werner stated the applicant had never proposed access to Iowa Street because he knew that would not be approved. He said the three proposals were meant to convey to the Commission what the developer had been working with, and it was frustrating to receive no comment other than the proposals “did not work”.
It was established that a cross access agreement had been reached with Uno’s to the south, and negotiations were under way with Penney’s to use Neider Road.
Mr. Werner said it appeared the developer was being asked to improve the Culver’s lot “just enough to get this project approved”. However, this applicant had no negotiating power with Culver’s, so he may have to finance the improvements alone.
In response to questioning, Mr. Werner said the applicant’s favored option was ‘C’, which involved retaining the 33rd Street access. Although this point was close to the intersection, it would give the property owner negotiating power with Culver’s. Mr. Werner said he was “confident” a cross access easement could be obtained with the southern property (Uno’s).
It was clarified that having access only to the south was not a viable option for the proposed use. Two access points were needed to create a “display drive through” for potential customers.
Price Banks, attorney, spoke on behalf of the property owner, saying he agreed with the suggestion that the onus was on the city to correct a situation it had created by not obtaining easements earlier. He stated that, contrary to prior testimony, the property owner had not had an opportunity to take part in the Culver’s or Uno’s PCD. It was clarified that the property owner had an opportunity at that time to sell his land, but “not at a very good price”. Mr. Werner stated that the subject property had been purchased for $10/square foot.
Mr. Banks said the city should have seen to it that appropriate easements were obtained if the eventual intent was to close the 33rd Street access. He said the Culver’s access had not changed since it was approved, and the city should have required changes at that time if it was not a good design.
Mr. Banks reiterated the problem that the subject property was surrounded by private property, and the developer had no negotiating power to work out an access agreement with his neighbors.
Mr. Werner said he was told by Staff nine months ago that there were no easements and it was likely the 33rd Street access would be retained as a right-in/right-out. The Staff Report now countered that, requiring access be restricted to private property (cross access with adjacent property). The developer felt the 33rd Street access was “workable” and an agreement with Uno’s to the south was possible to create the “drive by” pattern the propose land use required.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Patterson noted that a request had been made by Staff for the applicant to submit a revised development plan addressing a number of conditions that did not relate to access. Mr. Werner explained the applicant had not provided this “clean” plan because he could not justify making those changes and still being denied based on access.
Comm. Burress said it was difficult to consider the applicant’s proposal without a clean plan and asked again why the applicant did not “clean it up”. Mr. Werner answered that the applicant felt the plan was clean when it was originally submitted.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was discussion about the impact of deferring the Item until the applicant provided a “clean” plan – addressing more of the issues identified by Staff. It was noted that the submission deadline for the July meeting was past, but the Commission could extend that deadline to Friday, July 2 if they chose.
Ms. Finger verified that, although a cross access design was preferable, the 33rd Street access would have to remain open if an access agreement could not be reached with the adjacent property owners. KDOT would not look favorably on this design because of the proximity to the intersection, but some kind of access would have to be granted.
Staff was asked to comment on the suggestion that the city was responsible for this problem and had a responsibility to create a solution. Ms. Finger replied that, if the Commission’s decision depended on this question, they would have to defer the Item so Staff could obtain an answer from City Legal Staff.
The Commission’s options for action were summarized:
· Approve the plan with the conditions listed by Staff, with a direction that (cross) access issues must be resolved for the Final Development Plan.
· Defer or table the Item with direction to return with a “clean” plan
· Defer or table the Item to allow Staff to obtain opinion from Legal Staff
· Deny
Comm. Johnson said it appeared the city’s intent from the beginning was to have cross access across all three lots. The 33rd Street access would have to be permitted if no alternative was found, but simply wasn’t safe - even as a right-in/right-out. She said the Commission should do anything possible to encourage an alternative design.
Comm. Johnson explained incentives for the Culver’s property to negotiate. They obviously recognized their existing access was “bad”, and this was an opportunity to fix it. Also, they would rather have a nice development next door than a poorly designed one or an empty lot.
It was established that, if the 33rd Street access were ultimately the only one for the lot, the proposed use would not be viable. There were, however, other buyers interested in the lot for other uses. It was noted that these other buyers might not be willing to make the improvements to the lot (sidewalk, landscaping, parking lot) that this developer was proposing to do at his own expense.
Comm. Vice-Chairman agreed that the 33rd Street access was the least desirable option. He commented that the private street and the PCD were not designed correctly, but it was not the responsibility of this applicant to fix those existing conditions. He felt Option C was the only reasonable choice. Comm. Jennings noted that a second access point would be needed along with Option C to make the lot suitable for the proposed use.
Comm. Burress said it could be assumed that no one felt the 33rd Street access was a good idea and that the best solution was to obtain the two cross access easements. The question was how to make that happen. He felt the city had made a mistake by not being “hard enough” on the previous developers – making them acquire or otherwise include the entire corner in the PCD. He said tough bargaining was required, but the Planning Commission was not the body to do it.
Procedurally, Comm. Burress said, it was not appropriate to consider proposals that were not ready to be acted upon. This plan was not clean and was therefore not ready for consideration. It was suggested that the Item be deferred long enough for the applicant to clean up the plan and continue cross access negotiations with the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Werner noted that the current application included cross access with Culver’s and was being denied. He said of course it was possible to make a better circulation design, but not without entirely changing Culver’s lot. This applicant should not be held responsible for financing those changes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Burress to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for the Auto Dealership to the August 2004 meeting to allow time for cross access negotiations with the adjacent property owners.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Vice-Chairman Riordan asked if the applicant was amenable to this. Mr. Banks replied that, without approval tonight, the current contract would not go through and this developer will have put money into the project for no reason. Comm. Jennings said the applicant’s decision not to take part in the overall PCD was a common development gamble, and he (Jennings) was not ready to “lay all the blame at the city’s feet” for the outcome of that choice.
Mr. Werner said the cross access agreements would not be resolved by August, but he preferred deferral over denial.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to defer the Preliminary Development Plan for the Auto Dealership to the August 2004 meeting to allow time for cross access negotiations with the adjacent property owners.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 4: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (BA)
Transportation Improvement Program: Conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the FY 2004-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a multi-year listing of federally funded and regional significant non-federally funded improvements to the region's transportation system.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained that annual adoption of the Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) was a federal requirement to retain eligibility for federal funding. The TIP included all regional transportation improvements projects, as adopted in other documents such as the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvements Program and Transportation 2025.
It was noted that the Commission was acting as the Metropolitan Planning Organization in this consideration.
Staff recommended approval of the TIP as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino asked for the record to reflect his concern that the city, up to the year 2008 shown in the TIP, still did not address the need for an east-west connection north of 6th Street. He stated that, if this lack of action continued, 6th Street would soon become “23rd Street north”.
Comm. Burress explained he would support the motion because all the items in the TIP were already approved in other adopted documents. He compared this to the Capital Improvements Plan, which he always opposed because he had no criteria by which to judge those projects.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Johnson to adopt the 2004-2008 Transportation Improvements Program as presented and forward it to the Kansas Department of Transportation with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Eichhorn voting in opposition. Student Commissioner Brown voted in the affirmative.
ITEM NO. 5: C-4 TO M-3; 1.59 ACRES; NORTH 2ND STREET AND LYONS STREET (SLD)
Z-05-17-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.59 acres from C-4 (General Commercial)To M-3 (Intensive Industrial). The property is generally described as being located at the corner of North 2nd and Lyons Street. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their April 28 meeting. P.D.O. Investors, LLC, are the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms, Day explained this was a “clean up” issue, a rezoning initiated by the Planning Commission to make the documented zoning match the existing development and land uses in North Town Addition.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSON
Comm. Johnson pointed out the neighborhood plan designated this area as a gateway to the city. She asked what could be done to ensure the area was treated appropriately, with landscaping, architecture and design suitable for a gateway. Ms. Day explained a landscaping easement was obtained separately and that other design concerns would be dealt with during the site plan and development plans stages.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 1.59 acres from C-4 to M-3 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, with Student Commissioner Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 6A: PRD-2 (WITH RESTRICTIONS) TO PRD-2; 12.5508 ACRES; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE & INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
Z-05-19-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 (with restrictions) to PRD-2. The property is generally described as being located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc, for Callaway Development Corporation, Contract Purchaser, and Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 6B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGENDS AT KU, PHASE II; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE & INVERNESS DRIVE (SLD)
PDP-05-03-04: Preliminary Development Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase II. This proposed multiple-family residential development contains approximately 12.5508 acres and proposes 172 apartments and recreational amenities. The property is generally described as being located south of 24th Place between Crossgate Drive & Inverness Drive. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc, for Callaway Development Corporation, Contract Purchaser, and Inverness Park Limited Partnership, property owners of record.
Items 6A & 6B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day explained this area was unique because it had been approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) without a development plan. A retirement community had been proposed as a potential use for the subject property, but that proposal had never been implemented and the applicant now proposed a different (still multi-family residential) use. Approval was given, after much discussion about appropriate density, with a density cap of 12 dwelling units per acre (upa). The applicant now requested to increase that density cap to just over 13.5 upa.
The subject area was located near an elementary and a junior high school, and was surrounded by residential development. The area itself was undeveloped, but was adjacent to an existing apartment complex, the first phase of the Legends at KU development. The area had multiple sidewalks for pedestrian access.
The review for this phase included a traffic impact study, which had determined that no additional street improvements were needed to deal with the increased traffic generated by the proposed use.
Staff explained some of the proposed amenities that would be shared with the apartment residents to the east.
It was verified that a retirement facility was approved south and east of the subject property and was currently under development. There was no active development proposal for the area to the north of the subject property.
Staff recommended denial of the project, based on a determination that there was not sufficient justification to increase the 12 upa density cap set by the Planning Commission before the development to the south occurred. That southern development took place and parcels were sold with the expectation of the 12 upa density.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Diane Lawson, Vice-President of Callaway Properties, explained she was responsible for managing the existing phase one of the Legends and other Calloway developments. She said she joined this company because of the high quality of their projects.
Ms. Lawson described the unique intent and design of the Legends at KU as a student-oriented living environment. Anyone could live in this development, but the apartment community was designed specifically around the needs of students (study areas, activity centers, etc.). She described the architecture, maintenance, security and amenities package of the proposed development.
Ms. Lawson explained the Callaway properties were run according to standards designed to reduce their impact on the surrounding neighborhood. This included strict rules about alcohol in the common areas and a “three-strikes-you’re-out” policy. Additionally, the community encouraged a strong sense of community involvement.
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, said he had been involved in the Legends at KU development since 1998 when entire quarter section was developed. The property now developed as Phase I of the Legends development was approved with a generic building footprint and was going to be built by a different developer. The existing Phase I was built according to that footprint and this second phase was intended to follow through with that design pattern.
Mr. Keeney explained that the density would be increased only technically, as the proposal included a higher number of dwelling units. However, the number of bedrooms - thus the number of residents - would actually decrease from 512 to 467.
Mr. Keeney described the transition from 1, 2 & 3-bedrooms units, the heavy landscaping and berming that would additionally mitigate the impact of the apartment complex on the surrounding area. He pointed out that the proposed landscaping far exceeded city standards. The apartment facades were designed not to look like apartments on both the front and back façades.
Mr. Keeney asked the Commission to approve the increased density cap (remove development plan conditions 2 & 3), based on the applicant’s attempt to answer the concerns of the neighborhood and the fact that the actual intensity would be reduced. It was established that the building footprint would also reduce the impact on adjacent properties with the new proposal.
It was established that bus service to the university was part of the amenities package promised to residents. The KU on Wheels program had declined to renew the Legends Phase I contract based on low ridership, but the complex had hired a private service to fulfill the agreement with their residents.
There was discussion about maintenance of the extensive mature landscaping and the developer was warned to avoid Scotch pines to prevent blight.
It was verified that the applicant had met with the community. Mr. Keeney showed the Commission the pictures of landscaping, architecture and design that were presented to the neighborhood at that community meeting and said the applicant was comfortable with binding those drawings to the development plan.
It was noted that a lot of community concern was expressed regarding the amount of traffic generated by the development, particularly in Inverness Drive. Mr. Keeney noted that, since the target market for this development was students (who would usually be traveling to the university), it could be assumed that increased traffic on Inverness would be slight. He also pointed out that Inverness was built wide and equipped with roundabouts in order to handle heavy traffic volumes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Marian Hukle, 4408 W. 25th Place explained she lived less than a block from the subject property and had moved to that location because of its proximity to two schools. She said the applicant’s idea of transitioning appeared to be placing two 8-plexes backing onto Inverness Drive.
Ms. Hukle was concerned that the development was targeted to college students, not the mix of residents that other apartment complexes would generate. She was concerned about mixing these populations (college, elementary and junior high school-aged children) together.
It was verified that Ms. Hulke opposed the proposed use, not the density.
Zeki Oral, area resident, said he attended the neighborhood meeting and was told the applicant was not seeking rezoning. He was told by city Staff before buying his property that the subject area would be developed as low density and was not likely to be an apartment complex.
Mr. Oral said the existing apartment complex already created problems for the neighborhood, and he was concerned that the developer was asking to increase his own profit while reducing the property value of others.
Lisa Thompson, 4408 Gretchen Court, was also concerned about mixing college students in an area with young and junior-high children.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Greg Callaway, project developer, spoke about the change student housing has undergone in the last few years and that some student-centered developments were a “black eye” on their communities because of poor management.
The intent of this kind of development was to offer a mix of housing possibilities to the student population, pulling them out of crowded houses near campus.
STAFF CLOSING
Ms. Day pointed out the landscaping on the south side of the property was not under the applicant’s control but did provide a separation of uses. This greenspace would be part of a city-owned drainage area and future walking path, providing a connection to Inverness.
Mr. Keeney responded to questioning that it was stated at the community meeting that the number of bedrooms would be reduced.
COMMISSON DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the code provides no way to calculate density based on bedrooms instead of dwelling units, but this was not the only type of housing that rented by the room. The target market was not typically something the applicant stated up front, and there was always the possibility this market intent would change, so the appropriate consideration was land use, not potential tenants.
The project was compared to a Greek House or a dormitory, but Staff explained there were very different regulations applied to those types of uses, which were typically very close to the university. It was noted that the university had clearly stated their intent not to build dormitories any longer.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that many of the communications received were concerned with the density increase, rather than the proposed use, as well as the proposed transition between land uses. The applicant proposed to deal with transitioning through architecture and landscaping, while some neighbors expressed a desire for transition through hierarchal development. Staff stated that both techniques were valid.
Comm. Burress said it was still visually obvious that two very different types of communities were being juxtaposed.
It was again verified that continuing the existing Phase I footprint allowed up to 512 residents and the new proposal would allow 476. Comm. Jennings did not understand why there was so much discussion when the applicant wanted to effectively reduce the number of residents, the amount of traffic and the building footprint. He added that proposed use would create very little traffic on Inverness and put almost no additional pressure on the two area schools, which were both at capacity.
It was verified that the rezoning allowing increased density could be tied to this development plan and building type could be restricted through the PUD regulations.
The developer said he could look at changing the 8-plexes along Inverness to 4-plexes. Comm. Jennings noted that the adjacent neighbors would see very little of the 4/8-plexes except the roof, due to the landscaping and berming creating a visual block.
The developer said he was willing to make an agreement with the Parks Department to take over maintenance of the landscaped median at Inverness Drive.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 6A
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 with restrictions to PRD-2, with a maximum density cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre is within the defined limits of the PRD (15 upa);
2. The size and scope of the proposed buildings have decreased from the development that could occur under the original approval; and
3. Proposed landscaping further mitigates building type transition to the west.
and subject to the following condition:
1. Approval is subject to approval of a Final Development Plan.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was verified that the rezoning ordinance would not be published until a Final Development Plan was approved, so the 13.7 density cap would revert to 12 upa if this Development Plan were not approved.
Comm. Burress said he would support the motion because it provided an opportunity to “cut a deal” for fewer bedrooms.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 12.5508 acres from PRD-2 with restrictions to PRD-2, with a maximum density cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the following findings of fact:
1. The cap of 13.7 dwelling units per acre is within the defined limits of the PRD (15 upa);
2. The size and scope of the proposed buildings have decreased from the development that could occur under the original approval; and
3. Proposed landscaping further mitigates building type transition to the west.
and subject to the following condition:
1. Approval is subject to approval of a Final Development Plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Mr. Keeney responded to questioning that the applicant could work around a denial of the peripheral setback waiver along the southern property line.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 6B
Motioned by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Burress to approve waivers 1 & 2 for reduced peripheral setbacks from 35’ to 15’ along 24th Place and the east property line.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for the Legends at KU, Phase II and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess.
Meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m.
ITEM NO. 7: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR SUMMER CAMP; 4931 W. 6TH STREET (PGP)
UPR-05-02-04: Use Permitted Upon Review for a proposed summer camp at Googols of Fun. The property is generally described as being located at 4931 W. 6th Street . Submitted by Amy Gottschamer, owner of Googols of Fun. The Bristol Groupe is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained the applicant’s request to run a Child Care Center program, which might expand to include year-round morning and afternoon child care for grades K-6 on days when school was not in session (school holidays, in-service days, etc.).
Staff noted that the subject area was not able to provide the outdoor play area that was a Health Department requirement for day care facilities. However, the State was considering revisions to this requirement that might allow the proposed use as described in this application.
Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report, including the addition of two conditions related to review and expiration dates. If the State Health Department rules (about the outdoor play area) were not modified, the applicant would be required to come back before the City for a revised development plan detailing an outdoor play area.
It was verified that Staff had no objection to the proposed use running throughout the year, but the application and Staff Report specifically addressed days when school was not in service.
It was established that the property owners within 200’ of the lot boundary had been notified of the proposal and that no negative feedback was received.
APPLICANT PRSENTATION
Amy Gottschamer spoke on behalf of the applicant, explaining the intent to run a morning and afternoon session of child care as a way of “balancing out” the slow summer business months. The use was also proposed during winter break and other school holidays.
The Commission asked if the proposed use would be offered year-round, even on days school was in session. Ms. Gottschamer replied it was unlikely the operation would have many customers on those days, since the service involved school-age children.
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
The Commission had no further comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for a summer camp at Googles of Fun and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 8: RS-2 & PCD-2 TO C-5; 2.63 ACRES; 3300 IOWA STREET (BPD/SLD)
Z-05-21-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.63 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is described as being located at 3300 Iowa Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust and Lawrence Cashways, LLC, are property owners of record.
This Item is closely related to Items 9A & 9B.
STAFF PRSENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the Item, explaining the Staff Report was prepared by Mr. Dyer who was no longer with the department but had briefed Staff on the status of the various applications involving this intersection. A series of applications involving the Wal-Mart property were all being timed to go simultaneously to the City Commission.
This application dealt with two pieces of ground that would be added to the subject property in a “trade” between adjacent property owners Wal-Mart (applicant) and Crown Automotive (agenda Items 9A & 9B). Much of the area to the west and south was developed commercially with a variety of zonings, and there were agricultural uses to the east.
Ms. Day said the Staff Report addressed conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed change would not affect Staff’s land use recommendations.
Staff had recommended a PCD for the overall development, but conventional zoning would work for the subject property without a number of variances. Other parts of the development project (replat, rezoning and development plan) would also be on future Commission agendas.
It was established that access onto Iowa Street would continue to be controlled with the existing stop lights at 33rd and 34th Streets.
Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. It was noted that agenda Items 9A & 9B were closely associated with this application but were more complicated than this request.
The Commission expressed a concern about their ability to “backtrack” – go back and consider previous actions if they changed their mind later in the process. Staff said this depended on what changes they wanted to make and when they wanted to make them.
Comm. Johnson asked what guidelines would be included in the Site Plan review to ensure the development fit as a gateway to the city. Ms. Day explained the Comprehensive Plan was specific about gateway criteria. The City Commission was clear about the importance of appearance and the developers were working to meet those standards.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, showed the subject areas and explained the associated request for rezoning of the area proposed for a new recycling center and a truck turnaround area the Wal-Mart property.
Mr. Thompson stated that this application was necessarily tied to Items 9A & 9B, and all Items needed to be approved or the overall proposal would not work.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that a specific use had not yet been chosen for the area designated on the site plan as an “out lot”, but the traffic impact study had considered it as a gas station - a use of the highest possible intensity.
It was noted that the Commercial Design Standards Committee would like the developer to look at removing the curb cut that would carry traffic directly in front of the Wal-Mart entrance.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 2.63 acres from RS-2 and PCD-2 to C-5 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 9A: C-5 & PCD-2 TO PCD-2; 15.02 ACRES; 3400 IOWA STREET (JLT/BPD)
Z-05-20-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.02 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is described as being located at 3400 Iowa Street. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc. for Schnaer Family Real Estate Limited Partnership and Lawrence Cashways, LLC, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 9B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CROWN CHEVROLET/TOYOTA AND CROWN PRE-OWNED CARS; 3400 IOWA STREET (JLT/BPD)
PDP-05-04-04: Preliminary Development Plan for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota and Crown Pre-Owned Cars. This proposed commercial development contains approximately 13.73 acres. The property is described as being located at 3400 and 3434 South Iowa Street. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc. for Schnaer Family Real Estate Limited Partnership and Lawrence Cashways, LLC, property owners of record.
Items 9A & 9B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully explained the rezoning application appeared complicated, but was basically a request to rezone a portion of the subject property to PCD-2 and change the use restrictions on another section that was already zoned PCD-2. The intent was to relocate the existing new car dealership to the land formally developed as the Payless Cashways site, and create a used car lot on part of the existing site.
Staff recommended approval of both applications, including the use group revisions, subject to the conditions identified in the Staff Reports.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Hampton, applicant representative, had no additional information and stated the applicant’s agreement with the Staff Reports.
Comm. Johnson asked what the new buildings would look like. It was discussed that the developer had not yet decided on building materials, but elevations were required with the Preliminary Development Plan so the Commission could provide direction at this time.
Mr. Hampton said all parties involved understood they would have to come to an agreement regarding cross-access easements.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff noted the Commission would need to make a separate motion for the waivers associated with the Preliminary Development Plan.
The applicant had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase said he appreciated this kind of redevelopment, but asked the developer to look carefully at adding distinctive features (water feature, mature landscaping, etc.) to fit the scope of this gateway development.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 9A
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Johnson to approve the rezoning of 15.02 acres from C-5 and PCD-2 to PCD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a preliminary development plan for the proposed site;
2. Approval of a replat for the subject property and the adjacent Wal-Mart property;
(a) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 7 in Section 20-709.5 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section.
(b) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 9 in Section 20-709.7 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section.
(c) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 11 in Section 20-709.9 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of food stores, convenience stores, and restaurants which shall not be permitted.
(d) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 12 in Section 20-709.10 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of bowling alleys; clubs or lodges; department stores; variety stores; food convenience stores; gasoline stations for sale to the public of gasoline; food stores (including retail bakeries); liquor, wine and beer sales; pawnshops; and theatres, which shall not be permitted.
(e) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 13 in Section 20-709.11 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of commercial amusements parks; commercial baseball parks; carnivals or circuses; eating establishments with dancing or entertainment; eating establishments providing only drive-up service or no seating facilities; food convenience stores, including gasoline sales; food locker plant for consumer use; commercial golf driving range; golf pitch and putt or miniature golf course; sex shop; sexually oriented media store; commercial skating rink and drive-in theatre, which shall not be permitted.
(f) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 14 in Section 20-709.12 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of pawnshops, sexually oriented cabarets, and sexually oriented motion picture theatres, which shall not be permitted.
(g) All of those permitted uses under Use Group 15 in Section 20-709.13 of the March 1, 2001 Revision to the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and any additional permitted uses under any later amendments or modifications to this section, with the exception of a bowling alley; game arcade, including video games; a theatre; and outdoor amusement, recreational or cultural facilities.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0. with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Item 9B
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the waiver to reduce the peripheral setback along the north property line from 35’ to 1’.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota & Crown Used Cars and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of proposed rezoning, to PCD-2 with use restrictions;
2. Acquisition of vacated right-of-way for 35th Street/Armstrong Road from KDOT, or revision of Preliminary Development Plan to provide 30’ peripheral setback along south property line;
3. Written confirmation that KDOT will vacate frontage road right-of-way prior to submission of Final Development Plan; and
4. Revision of Preliminary Development Plan to:
a) Reference approved setback reduction on north side of property from 30’ to 1’; and
b) List all permitted uses on face of Preliminary Development Plan.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
The Commission agreed unanimously to extend the meeting to 30 minutes.
ITEM NO. 10A: A TO A-1; 159.32 ACRES; 1636 E 50 ROAD (SLD/JLT)
Z-05-18-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 159.32 acres from A (Agricultural) District to A-1 (Suburban Home) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of E 50 Road and N 1600 Road along County Road 442 (1636 E 50 Road). Submitted by Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc., for Core Investments, LLC, and Martin B. and Doris J. Caldwell, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 10B: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAETA SUBDIVISION; 1635 E 50 ROAD (SLD/JLT)
PP-05-12-04: Preliminary Plat request for Raeta Subdivision. This proposed 13-lot residential subdivision contains approximately 159.32 acres. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of E 50 Road and N 1600 Road along County Road 442 (1636 E 50 Road). Submitted by Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc., for Core Investments, LLC, and Martin B. and Doris J. Caldwell, property owners of record.
Items 10A & 10B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day gave an overview of the project, explaining the subject area was currently zoned for agricultural use along a long stretch of improved county road. The property has one single-family home with a number of detached outbuildings.
The property is located several miles west of Lawrence, near the Douglas County line. It is not within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) of any incorporated city and is not expected to be part of the UGA in the foreseeable future.
The property was not formally platted, but a plat of survey had been recorded with the Register of Deeds, making it possible for the subject area to split using the 5-acre exemption. This would create 13 lots, all taking direct access to the county road. The number of curb cuts had been reduced by combining access where possible, resulting in 6 cuts, but none of these were considered safe/desirable/optimal by location of design.
Standing alone, the submitted Preliminary Plat was in conformance with the design standards of HORIZON 2020. However, the subject area did not meet the Comprehensive Plan requirements that the property be included in the UGA or be contiguous to another platted subdivision.
There was additional concern that allowing this subdivision to occur would establish a precedent for additional subdivision development.
Based on these factors, Staff recommended denial of the rezoning and the preliminary plat, although it was understood that denial might result in development of the 13 lots allowable through the 5-acre exemption.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Charlie Dominguez spoke as a member of the small corporation (3 partners) owning the property, providing an overview of the property and the corporation’s development intent. He described the design in terms of safety and aesthetics, pointing out the intent to retain a significant portion of the existing greenspace and agricultural uses in their current state. He noted strong support for the project from area residents and property owners and the fact that utilities were already in place for the subject property.
Mr. Dominguez explained he had discussed the project with City Commissioner Highberger. He stated that Mr. Highberger did not consider this leapfrog development because it was highly unlikely city development would ever reach this area.
Mr. Dominguez stated that covenants were proposed for the development to promote energy efficiency, the use of solar power and environmental building. He understood the purpose of agricultural zoning was to preserve a range of agricultural uses and said he would contract with existing uses to maintain those uses and associated structures and avoid unsightly and hazardous uses.
Mr. Dominguez outlined ways in which his project was designed to meet the goals and policies of HORIZON 2020. He also spoke about elements that made his development unique, protecting against future claims of precedence.
PUBLIC HEARING
Robin Cramer spoke as attorney and representative for the business on the adjacent property, Martin Marietta Materials. She stated the owners of the Martin Marietta quarry did not support or oppose the proposal, but came forward only to ask that, if approved, the plat carry a required note to notify potential land owners that an operating quarry was located nearby. She pointed out that, if denied, the developer could build without such notice.
It was discussed that anyone on the subject property would be aware of the adjacent quarry, but they might not realize how close the expanding quarry would come in the future and that blasting would eventually take place as close as 700 feet to the property line.
Joan Kenney, area resident, said she traveled E. 50 Road frequently and could attest to the safety hazards of placing additional driveways there.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Dominguez expressed no opposition to a note on the face of the plat giving notice of the adjacent quarry operation.
Ms. Day said Staff had spoken with the applicant in the past about providing development options. She stated there were many elements of the proposal that Staff could support, such as the cluster housing design. However, Staff was challenged by specific statements in HORIZON 2020 about contiguous development or location within the UGA.
Staff outlined the Commission options for action:
· Deny the request in concurrence with the Staff recommendation;
· Overturn Staff’s recommendation and approve the project with revised findings of fact; or
· Table or defer the item and initiate a text amendment to allow certain kinds of cluster development to occur outside of the UGA and/or not contiguous to platted subdivisions.
In Staff’s opinion, tabling the item and initiating a text amendment was the optimal choice, but noted it could take up to a year to get an amendment adopted, especially if the amendment were geared to a single project. The applicant had indicated problems with delaying development this long.
It was established that the zoning request could be tabled to a specific time, but the plat must be acted upon within 60 days of submittal or it would be automatically approved. Having an approved plat without zoning would create additional complications and the developer would ultimately not be able to get a building permit, even if a final plat were approved (again by default).
Staff advised against delaying action unless the Commission had a chosen course of action (amendment).
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that approval of this development would make it easier for other developments to meet the criteria for rural development, since the subject property would count as an adjacent platted subdivision.
The Commission asked if the development’s distinguishing features would be adequate to protect against future claims of precedence. Ms. Day said the Staff Report recognized those features and the design criteria, but it was not possible to approve the project without acting against the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission agreed, 8-1 (Angino opposed), to extend the meeting 15 minutes.
It was clarified that there was no regulatory way to prevent the applicant from developing his property with the separate parcels created through the 5-acre exemption. The Commission discussed recommending a moratorium - initiated by the County Commission - that would preclude the ability to pull a building permit for parcels created with the 5-acre exemption. This would “bridge” the time period before the new rural guidelines came forward regarding the exemption.
Ms. Finger summarized her conversation with County Administrator Craig Weinaug, who said the County Commission would prefer the issue be combined with the presentation given in August by the Rural Planning Commission. Other options included requesting a joint study session with the County Commission.
Comm. Johnson asked if there was any other way to allow this cluster development until the new rural development guidelines were in place. Ms. Finger said this might be possible through the County’s Home Rule Authority, but Staff would have to obtain a legal opinion on wording for such a resolution and it would still take several months to finalize adoption.
Comm. Burress said the best thing for the community would be to approve the project, but this would violate the Comprehensive Plan, which was supposed to be the basis for every planning decision. He said the Commission had “no choice but to do something that’s not the best use of the property.”
Chairman Haase said the Commission’s inability to deal appropriately with this request bore witness to how “broken” the county regulations are. He stated that rural development cost the taxpayers more than it generated and noted that this general area was part of the land designated by KDOT for a major transportation corridor. Development made the future assimilation of this area into the urban core increasingly difficult.
Comm. Lawson questioned if this project made a moratorium necessary. He said he was “disgusted at the blatancy of blackmail on the part of the applicant”, and felt denial was the Commission’s only appropriate choice.
Comm. Angino said he would support the denial, but did not agree this was blackmail. He asked why the applicant would come before them with a proposal to develop less than he had a right to unless he wanted to develop responsibly.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 10A
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to deny the rezoning of 159.32 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 body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
Item 10B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to deny the Preliminary Plat for Raeta Subdivision, based on the findings presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 11: REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OREAD WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PARK; W. 15TH STREET AND EAST OF RESEARCH PARK DRIVE (PGP)
PDP-05-06-04: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Planned Office Park. This property contains 16.893 acres and the revised proposal is for five residential buildings with a range of units containing 65 - 75 dwelling units. The property is generally located north of W. 15th Street and east of Research Park Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for W. David Kimbrell (contract purchaser) and Bobwhite Meadow LP, Mabet #1, and Hi-Tech Facility Investors, are property owners of record.
This Item was considered at the beginning of the regular agenda per unanimous consent. Considered after Item 2.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, which involved an area that included a planned industrial and planned residential element. The applicant requested permission to change up to 10 of the planned residential units from 3-bedroom units to 1- and 2-bedroom units. The number of bedrooms and the building footprint would not change, only the number of dwelling units, creating a maximum of 75 possible dwelling units. The technical density increase would be from 8.2 to 9.5 dwelling units per acre.
It was noted that the existing PRD zoning allowed a density of 10 dwelling units per acre, and the amount of parking provided would still exceed the required minimum.
It was verified that the project may not develop in the proposed manner, but the applicant wanted the flexibility to do so if the market would support the changes.
Staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Alan Mackey of Landplan Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant. He had no additional information to present and stated the applicant’s agreement with the Staff Report.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
COMMISSION DISCUSISION
The Commission had no additional comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Jennings, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Planned Residential Park and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
The Commission proceeded from this point to Item 3.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
A. Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to initiate and schedule a public hearing in August for a Text Amendment to Transportation 2025 and the Major Thoroughfares Map of Horizon 2020 to designate Peterson Road as a major arterial in place of Wiggins Road.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Commissioner Brown also voting in favor.
B. The Commission discussed scheduling a public hearing in July for the Southeast Area Plan and Staff asked if all development proposals for this area should be placed on that agenda as well.
The Commission had expressed significant concern about the traffic design as shown in the current plan. It was suggested the Commission forward the plan to the Technical Advisory Committee to consider alternate street design.
Ms. Finger explained the City Commission had asked for quick action on the plan so they (City Commission) could see the plan’s land use percentages, and these would not change much with a different street layout in the residential section.
Chairman Haase said the area now marked for residential development might be found more suitable for industrial uses, which would change the land use percentages considerably.
It was clarified that initiating the public hearing for the plan did not mean the Commission had to approve the plan in July, and Staff recommended moving ahead with the public hearing so the community knew the issue was under consideration.
The Commission directed Staff to hold any development proposals for the property in the Southeast Area Plan, feeling it was more appropriate to assign land use before a proposal was considered. Developers involved in the issue would be allowed to speak at the public hearing.
The Commission agreed unanimously to schedule a public hearing in July for the draft Southeast Area Plan as presented tonight.
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT (LMF)
The Commission received this report as part of the monthly packet materials.
ADJOURN - 11:58 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department Office.