LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
City Commission Room, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street
NOVEMBER 17, 2004
Meeting Minutes
____________________________________________________________
Commissioners present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Riordan and Student Comm. Brown
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Ahrens, Day, Patterson, Tully and Saker
Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
The Commission requested no changes to the agenda beyond those discussed at Study Session and reflected in the revised agenda provided tonight.
MINUTES
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2004 meeting as revised per Study Session discussion.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Commissioner Brown abstaining due to his absence from the October meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
CPC: The Committee met to finalize the revisions to the Southeast Area Plan approved by the Commission in October. The next meeting will be November 23, 2004 in the Planning Department conference room.
DRC: The Committee met twice and anticipated finalizing the draft Commercial Design Guidelines in two weeks.
RPC: The Committee’s draft Rural Development chapter was one of the topics of a joint meeting of the City, County and Planning Commissions. The Committee would take up the recommendations from that meeting and present a revised draft chapter in two weeks
TAC: The Committee met to finalize the 2005 Unified Public Work Program that was on the Commission’s agenda tonight. They also discussed the possibility of creating toll roads to finance road improvements.
ZAC: The Committee did not meet.
PCMM: The Commission met to complete the October agenda, discuss the draft Commercial Design Guidelines, and receive a presentation from the City’s SmartGrowth consultants.
PCMMII: The Planning Commission met jointly with the City and County Commissions to discuss the draft Rural Development chapter, key issues identified by Staff in the draft Subdivision Regulations and CIP process.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 3 – Development Code update
Item 9 – UPR for Googles of Fun
Item 10B – UPR for Village Meadows Retirement Facility
Miscellaneous Item 1 – Cornerstone Plaza II
General Miscellaneous
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the January – May 2005 meeting date and submittal deadline calendar and the 2005 Mid-Month date and topic calendar as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
EX PARTE DISCLOSURE / DECLARATION OF ABSTENTIONS
The Commission dealt at this point with Misc. Item 1 as agreed at the Study Session and reflected n the revised agenda.
ITEM NO. 1: FINAL PLAT FOR RED TAIL RIDGE; WEST OF E 1200 ROAD, EAST OF E 1100 ROAD, AND SOUTH OF N 1000 ROAD (JLT)
PF-10-32-04: Final Plat for Red Tail Ridge. This proposed 12-lot single-family rural residential subdivision contains approximately 65 acres and is located west of E 1200 Road, east of E 1100 Road, and south of N 1000 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Rodney J. and Mary M. Barnes, property owners of record.
Chairman Haase was recused.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said he pulled this Item from the Consent Agenda in order to explain why he would vote in favor of the plat even though he thought it was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Planning Commission as a whole had determined the plat was in conformance and he would accede to that decision.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for Red Tail Ridge 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:
2. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
3. Correct name of County Commission Chair from Bob Johnson to Charles Jones;
4. Provision of an executed agreement between the property owner and Health Department regarding water supply that will be filed with the final plat and become a covenant running with the land;
5. Provide a note on the face of the plat that provides the book and page reference for the water supply agreement; and
6. Provide a note on the face of the plat that restricts Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 from direct access to N 1000 Road. Access for these lots is from E 1167 Road.
Motion carried 7-0-1, with Chairman Haase recused and Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FRONTIER FARM CREDIT ADDITION; NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 56 & HWY. 59 (JLT)
PP-10-24-04: Preliminary Plat for Frontier Farm Credit Addition. This proposed bank/office subdivision contains approximately 7.04 acres and is located north of U.S. Highway 56 and east of U.S. Highway 59. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Frontier Farm Credit, ACA, contract purchaser, and Jerold W. and Janet K. Seele property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Frontier Farm Credit, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, as part of the Consent Agenda, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO 3: CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 17, 2004, EDITION THAT REPLACES THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE NO 3500 AND ALL AMENDMENTS SINCE ADOPTION IN 1966(LMF)
TA-10-05-04: Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider the adoption of “Development Code, November 17, 2004, Edition,” enacting a new Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, establishing comprehensive zoning regulations and other land use regulations. The “Development Code, November 17, 2004 Edition” is a general and complete revision of the City’s existing zoning regulations, Ordinance No. 3500 and all amendments thereto, and affects all property within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 17, 2004 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice. Copies of the “Development Code, November 17, 2004 Edition” are available for review at the Office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 17, 2004 Edition” is also available on the Planning Department’s website at: www.lawrenceplanning.org. This item was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Commission at their meeting on July 20, 2004.
Recommended Actions:
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase suggested the Commission discuss procedure first and proposed that the Commission take one of two plans of action:
1. Approve the document as presented with the understanding that several issues would be considered in detail and multiple amendments would be forthcoming.
2. Send the document to a new subcommittee (not ZAC) for review of the key issues identified in the Staff Report.
The Commission discussed a concern raised that the public had not been given adequate time to review the document and make comment.
Ms. Finger stated that the Development Code had been in process for over five years, including six Listening Sessions for public comment held in late 2003. A revised draft had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in February 2004. Each revision to the code had been posted on the Planning Department website and copies had been maintained at the public library. The most recent copy, with the current Staff Report, was delivered to the library the previous week.
Comm. Eichhorn said he thought the Commission shared concern about the Development Code, but suggested they could deal with the Cooperative Agreement tonight if it were split from the Development Code for consideration.
The Commission agreed to take public comment on the Cooperative Agreement before considering Chairman Haase’s suggestion. It was clarified that this was not a public hearing on the Cooperative Agreement, but a comment session for the Commission to gather input from the public on the City/KU Cooperative Agreement.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT
Candice Davis spoke as the Oread Neighborhood representative to the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods (LAN). Ms. Davis supported the split consideration of the Cooperative Agreement from the overall Development Code. She said the interlocal agreement had not gone through the public hearing process and the public should be given additional opportunity for input.
Ms. Davis summarized the letter sent to the Commission from LAN stating the Association thought the Cooperative Agreement regarding regulations of the proposed U (University) District in the draft code moderated the public process and the impact of campus development on the surrounding neighborhoods. LAN opposed the U(UK) sub-district, saying that it put no restrictions on University development. LAN further stated that the ad hoc review committee proposal related to the U(UK) District was unclear about committee membership, meeting requirements and review criteria.
Ms. Davis urged the Commission to consider what, if anything, the neighborhoods and the City would gain from the Agreement and whether it was an improvement over the existing situation.
However, LAN suggested the following changes if the Commission chose to approve the U(UK) District:
LAN considered the U(UK) District confusing and asked the Commission not to approve a zoning category with no mandatory restrictions and an at-will termination clause for the voluntary restrictions.
Comm. Burress said his understanding was that the University was unwilling to accept modifications to the proposed Agreement. He asked what LAN would recommend the City do if this were a “take it or leave it” proposal. Ms. Davis said she could not speak for LAN, but she was personally disappointed if the University was not willing to consider clarification and changes.
Carol von Tersch, 706 W. 12th Street, said she found the Agreement threatening because of the inclusion of some non-contiguous endowment properties. Because not all endowment properties were included, she inferred that the properties that were included had specific development plans for the near future. One of these properties was located next door to Ms. von Tersch’s residence and had been maintained as housing for visiting faculty. She understood that it was now being converted to office uses.
Ms. von Tersch said she was concerned that, if the Agreement were approved, she would lose the regulatory protection she had enjoyed to this point.
In reference to the “take it or leave it” question, Ms. von Tersch said she would support the City enacting zoning on the University, even if it meant going to court.
Bill Mitchell, 1201 Emery, referenced his most recent letter to the Commission, saying the doubts expressed in this letter regarding the Agreement were well-founded. He said it was unlikely the University would “change its spots” and that “one cannot deal civilly with a 600 pound gorilla”. He suggested the City ought to stand up to the University if the University would not negotiate further on the Agreement.
Janet Gerstner explained she had been an Oread Neighborhood resident until recently and was still interested in issues that affected the neighborhood, as well as the city at large. She said University issues impacted more than the older downtown neighborhoods, that the main campus and western campus were surrounded by multiple neighborhoods.
Ms. Gerstner said it appeared the Agreement was designed entirely by the University to remove their land from the normal planning process. Staff clarified that the Agreement was developed over a period of time and with revisions by both the University and the City Staff.
Ms. Gerstner said the minutes of the September 7, 2004 City Commission meeting should be part of the Planning Commission’s consideration. This issue was not on the agenda for that meeting, but several comments were made regarding the Agreement.
Ms. Gerstner felt the Agreement should not be approved until/unless more information was given regarding the ad hoc committee and its criteria for review, as well as additional definitions and clarifications. She would also like some language detailing what would occur if the Agreement were terminated according to the provided clause.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the Director of Legal Services was of the opinion that the Agreement, as written, was the best opportunity the City would have at developing a formal agreement with the University. The University had stated many times that it was not subject to the City’s regulations and it would protect that concept in court.
marci francisco, 1101 Ohio, said she took part in the KU Neighbors Group that initiated discussion about the new Scholarship Hall and the impact University development would have on its boundary neighbors. She said the University had chosen not to make this group part of the Agreement negotiations process.
Ms. francisco said the University could predict what would happen on the City’s side of the City/University boundary based on zoning and allowable uses. There was no way of predicting what the University would do on their side of the boundary.
Ms. francisco referenced the recent Scholarship Hall built on Ohio Street with only three off-street parking spaces, which created a significant addition to the existing parking problems in the area. She said this was a prime example of what happened when planning did not precede development and no regulations were applied. She noted that the neighborhood had gone along with this development with the understanding that the U (University) District was forthcoming and would provide regulatory protection. Now the neighborhood found that the U District “had no teeth” because of the proposed U(UK) District.
Comm. Burress asked Ms. francisco the “take it or leave it” question. She said the City should decide if parking and other elements that impacted neighborhoods were important and should be addressed, because this Agreement did not accomplish that.
Caleb Morse, 1733 Mississippi, stated his strong support for LAN’s suggestions about changes to the Agreement and his concern that there were no stated guidelines for judging the Agreement’s success at the annual review.
Mr. Morse said the State Statutes were clear on the fact that the City has no authority over the issuance of building permits for State property. However, the State regulations are not as clear about the City’s ability or inability to enforce zoning in these areas.
Mr. Morse shared the concern and confusion of others regarding the Agreement and its benefit – if any – to the community. In addition to the information requested by previous speakers, he said he would like the document to address what would happen if University property in the U(UK) District changed to private ownership.
Mr. Morse agreed with a comment from Comm. Burress that this Agreement gave the appearance of controlling growth along the City/University boundary. However, he reminded the Commission that the Agreement could be terminated at any time and the University had a history of changing its campus development plan.
Comm. Burress asked Mr. Morse to comment on another argument that could be made in support of the Agreement. Mr. Morse responded that the City seemed to gain a little from the Agreement, but the individual neighborhoods did not.
The public comment section was closed at 7:40 p.m.
STAFF COMMENT
Ms. Finger asked to clarify that the “take it or leave it” comment was Comm. Burress’ language, not Staff’s interpretation of the situation. In Staff’s opinion, the City Commission would not have forwarded the Agreement to the Planning Commission for comment if there was no chance of further modifications. Mr. Corliss had stated this was possibly the best Agreement the City would get, but no one had said that either side would not return to the negotiating table.
Ms. Finger responded to questioning that the U(UK) District was a subcategory of the U (University) District. The U(UK) District designation was meant to represent the text of the Agreement and the boundaries shown in Exhibit A. All regulatory authority over this property was supplied by the Agreement, which was why the new district was not discussed in detail in the Development Code.
It was established that Staff recommended approval of the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Lawrence and the Kansas University as presented. The University had continually claimed that their property (being owned by the State) was not subject to any review or control by the City. Staff believed this was the best opportunity to get the first ever agreement with the University in writing. It was clarified that the Agreement was not a public hearing item, since there was no formal ability to file a protest petition. However, the City Commission had indicated interest in having the Planning Commission take public comment.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino said he would support approval of the Agreement, because denial outright would close avenues of communication. An approved document would provide a common starting point for further discussions. He was concerned about sending the Agreement to a committee, feeling the committee would continue discussing the issue while the University commenced with development projects with no regulations.
Comm. Burress said it made sense to recommend the City continue negotiations with the University, specifically addressing neighborhood issues. He said the alternative was to “expect the University to obey the law”, which would require money and effort to enforce (in court).
Comm. Burress suggested that negotiating with the University was a losing proposition and it was likely the courts would support the City’s case.
It was established in response to questioning that no neighborhood representatives were allowed a ‘voting voice’ in the cooperative committee that developed the Agreement.
Vice-Chairman Riordan said, as a member of the Agreement committee, that the University made a consistent and clear statement that they would pursue the best interests of the University, no matter what, and that they would continue to do so. The University was not concerned about the impact of its development on the City.
As a member of the Committee, Vice-Chair Riordan said the Agreement reflected the highest level of compromise the University was likely to agree to. However, as a Planning Commissioner, he could not support the U(UK) District because it did not provide sufficient protection for the City.
The Commission discussed the likelihood of the University returning to the negotiating table if the Agreement were accepted or rejected.
ACTION TAKEN - Cooperative Agreement
Motioned by Comm. Burress to forward a four-fold recommendation to the City Commission:
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Ms. Finger stated there was no way to condition automatic rezoning, but language could be developed to ensure that termination of the Agreement would automatically trigger the initiation of rezoning to U (University) zoning for the property.
ACTION TAKEN
Revised motion on the floor was to forward the following recommendation to the City Commission:
Vice-Chair Riordan seconded the revised the motion.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chairman Haase asked how the Commission would like to proceed on the public hearing for the Development Code. Ms. Finger said Staff was prepared to make a presentation on the Staff Report and asked for the opportunity to do so.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the majority of the Development Code presented tonight matched the text approved by the Planning Commission in February 2004. She described the public comment and revision process that took place before the Planning Commission acted on the document in February 2004.
Ms. Finger presented a list of recommended changes that would, in Staff’s opinion, make a better policy document. Small changes included:
1. An error was found in the graphics that were added based on the Planning Commission’s approval. Correcting the graphics and accompanying language would require a determination by the Planning Commission regarding the appropriate setbacks for multi-family or non-residential buildings adjacent to single-family uses. Comm. Burress suggested a maximum of the building height or the regulatory minimum setback [Sec. 20-601], whichever was greater.
2. An Errors & Omissions table was provided that listed minor revisions Staff believed could be made without discussion (typographical and spelling errors, etc.).
Ms. Finger gave a brief explanation of each key issue being returned to the Planning Commission for consideration, as outlined in the Staff Report:
1. Revisions to the U (University) District to accommodate a separate district for the new map designation of U (UK) for the Primary Campus of the University of Kansas. [Sec. 20-218]
The Planning Commission dealt with this issue through their previous action recommending the City reject the proposed Cooperative Agreement with the University. The new U(UK) District would not move forward until continued negotiations resulted in a revised interlocal agreement.
2. Revision to the room number thresholds established for accessory uses to hotels. [Sec. 20-501(j)]
Based on existing hotel uses in Lawrence and their accessory uses, the room number thresholds proposed by the current draft document were too high. Staff provided recommended numbers, lowered to reflect existing and anticipated hotel uses.
3. Revisions to the congregation seating thresholds for Religious Assembly. This change also impacts the definitions for the two types of Religious Assembly. [Sec. 20-501(v)(1) & Sec. 20-1702 (ww)]
Based on a review of religious assembly uses site planned in the last 20-25 years, the seating thresholds proposed by the draft document were too low and would result in a majority of these existing uses to become non-conforming. Staff proposed higher numbers in keeping with the status quo of existing uses. This would reduce the potential number of non-conforming uses created by the new Development Code.
4. Revision to the design standards for retail establishments. [Sec. 20-501(aa)]
The draft standards in the February 2004 edition were based on Fort Collins, Colorado. Staff proposed replacing this text with language referencing the new design standards that are being developed by The Commercial Design Standards Committee. The new standards could be amended into the Code when completed.
5. Revision to the Telecommunication Facilities review fee. [Sec. 20-501(dd)]
The specific statement of a $20,000 fee was included as an oversight, as no other fee amounts are specifically stated in the Development Code. Staff researched this provision and spoke with consultants in the industry and other cities. No evidence was found of other communities stating specific fee amounts. Staff recommended changing the language to reference a fee amount that would be set by the governing body.
6. Revision to the registration process for Type B Home Occupations. [Sec. 20-502(9)(ii)]
The proposed registration process for home occupations is cumbersome and it was anticipated that property owners would have difficulty remembering to re-register every two years. Staff proposed restructuring this process based on the simple and efficient registration process for accessory dwelling units in the Code.
7. Revision to the Site Plan appeals process. [Sec. 20-1305(k) & Sec. 20-1301(a)]
The Director of Legal Services had expressed concern that the proposed revisions would make the site plan appeals process longer and more complicated, when the intent was to streamline and shorten the process. A timeline was developed by Staff that appeared to support this concern. Staff proposed new language that kept the existing structure
eliminated the Planning Commission from the appeals process but gave, he felt, adequate opportunity for public input.
8. Revision to the Special Use application to require a site plan. [Sec. 20-1306(c)]
The current zoning regulations require a site plan with a special use permit application. The new code did not include this requirement and Staff recommended this should be retained. This was not considered a significant change because it matched the existing code, but was included in the list of key issues because the draft code had been available for public review without the site plan requirement for over ten months.
9. Revisions to Institutional Master Plan (IMP) & Buffer Area (BA) requirements. [Sec. 20-1307(a)(1) and (b)]
The new code proposed the creation of a new zoning category for GPI (General Public & Institutional) uses. Staff proposed changes to the site size requirements for the IMP and BA based on the list of properties in these areas that would be included in the new category. Staff provided an updated list showing the sizes of existing properties that would be in the GPI category based on Study Session questions from Comm. Burress about the recommended 50-acre minimum being too high. The new list divided the proposed properties into six categories:
10. Revisions to the Registration process for Nonconformities. [Sec. 20-1506]
Nonconformities were mistakenly noted in this section, which was supposed to address only non-conforming uses. Ms. Finger explained the difference between these terms and Staff’s recommendation that the text be revised to reflect the intent that not all nonconformities should have to register as non-conforming uses. Staff also recommended providing a stratified and extended time period (two years) for registering existing single-family detached structures in RM and non-residential zoning districts, as these nonconforming uses were created by the adoption of the Development Code.
11. Addition of the requirement for a Market Impact Analysis. [new Sec. 20-1108]
The proposed draft does not identify the triggering mechanism for the Market Impact Analysis requirement (in Ch.6, HORIZON 2020). Staff recommended adding language making the analysis a submission requirement for commercial projects of a stated size consistent with HORIZON 2020. If the Commission lowered the size threshold as suggested by the League of Women Voters, other sections of the code should be modified for continuity.
12. Revisions to the residential densities permitted in RSO & RMO Districts. [Sec. 20-205 & Sec. 20-601(a)]
The RSO & RMO districts, as defined in the proposed document, made all existing RO (Residential-Office) zoning districts non-conforming. Staff recommended defining RSO and RMO districts differently to create the fewest nonconformities when the code was adopted.
Ms. Finger pointed out an additional section of the code stating that sidewalks were required on both sides of local streets in new subdivisions. She said this requirement was projected in the Subdivision Regulations, but had not been discussed at a public hearing and the Planning Commission did not yet have to include it in the Development Code. This text is in the Commissioner’s version of the Development Code unless they choose to remove it.
It was recognized that these issues were not the only ones being raised and significant questions had been submitted by the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, the League of Women Voters and other parties. However, Staff recommended approval of the Development Code, based on the consideration of the identified issues and acknowledging that multiple amendments would follow in the next year as the Development Code is used.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt, 2131 Terrace Road, referenced the comments in several letters from the League of Women Voters about transitional areas between single-family, multi-family and non-residential uses. She gave the example of a three-story apartment building adjacent to a single-family home, with sideyard setbacks provided according to regulation but with inadequate distance to provide privacy or screening.
Ms. Lichtwardt suggested a standard setback in non-RS districts requiring the setback be equal to a building’s height. This would match the setback requirements for PD districts.
Caleb Morse, 1733 Mississippi, asked the Commission to reject the map designation for the U(UK) District to reflect their previous action rejecting the City/KU Cooperative Agreement.
Alan Black spoke as the President of the League of Women Voters, referenced points included in the League’s communications. Mr. Black said it had become standard practice to allow single-family detached homes to be built in zoning districts that allowed other housing types. He assumed this was in response to market demand. The League was concerned about new homeowners who purchased their property based on the visual appearance of surrounding development, assuming the zoning matched the existing single-family development. These homeowners were then surprised when other housing types (allowed by the area’s zoning) were proposed in their area.
The League suggested dealing with this lack of predictability by requiring a special use permit to build less dense development in non-RS zoning districts. This gave the Commission an opportunity to review the project and alerted potential homeowners of the actual zoning and development possibilities of the neighborhood.
Comm. Burress asked if it would be a simple solution to disallow single-family housing in non-RS zoning districts. Staff said this would restrict the development of mixed use development and cluster housing. It was discussed that regulations could be added later to specifically address mixed use development. The Development Code, as written, already requires a Special Use Permit for single-family detached houses in RM districts.
Ms. Lichtwardt was allowed to comment during Mr. Black’s time that the League suggested cluster housing be allowed by special permit in multi-family districts and by right in any other RS district. Comm. Burress asked the Planning Director to address this suggestion. Ms. Finger noted that the issue raised was discussed in February and was not forwarded by the Planning Commission in the approved document.
Mr. Black said the League also suggested the Development Code should specifically state that building and occupancy permits were a valid method for enforcing the code. Staff responded to questioning that this fact was referenced in the Development Code, but the building permit policy was detailed in the Building Code.
Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, addressing the reverse issue of the transitional use/setback concern. She showed pictures of an example of a single-family home built next to and taller than a commercial use. The home was built with regulatory setbacks, but overlooked the commercial parking lot and had noise, lighting and privacy concerns created by its own height.
It was discussed that protection against this inverse relationship was not specifically addressed in the new code, but the Development Code sis include larger buffer yards and separation, along with stricter rules about outdoor lighting.
Duane Schwada, local developer, talked about the site plan requirement for showing topographical data for 300’ surrounding a subject property. He said this may be impractical for infill development, since the applicant would have to obtain access to multiple properties to survey their land.
Mr. Schwada was also concerned about the range of people/parties that would be allowed to appeal a site plan action. He said this could result in a long regulatory consideration of what was supposed to be an administrative action.
Finally, Mr. Schwada spoke about the market study requirement for commercial development of a given size. He objected to the language stipulating that the Planning Director would choose the analysis consultant and no commercial development would be considered if the overall commercial vacancy rate was 8% or higher. He said this stipulation was not included in previous drafts and it appeared the Commission was allowing public input after the decisions had been made. Ms. Finger responded that the language about the 8% restriction pulled directly from Ch. 6 of HORIZON 2020 as approved on February 11, 2004. This text had been posted on the website and available at the public library since its approval by the City Commission.
Mr. Schwada responded to questioning that he and other developers were “happy” to do business in some markets with vacancy rates of more than 8%.
In Staff’s opinion, Mr. Schwada’s suggestion to reduce the topographic requirement to 20’ from the property line for infill development was reasonable. It was clarified that, if adjacent property owners would not allow access to their property, it was possible to get basic topographical information from the City’s GIS data and to interpolate contours from that information.
Ms. Finger clarified Staff’s intent to retain the 150,000 square foot threshold for the market study requirement as it was stated in HORIZON 2020.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, explained his concern about the one-year site plan expiration date. He said it was not uncommon for some types of projects to take longer than one year to begin construction, so tying site plan approval to a building permit (which could expire in six months) was not suitable. Staff was not opposed to changing the expiration period to 18 months and removing the tie to building permit issuance.
Public hearing closed at 8:45 p.m. Chairman Haase called a 10-minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission talked about items from Staff’s list of Key Issues. They discussed which elements they were comfortable with approving as presented and which they wanted to pull for additional discussion. They also discussed how to handle issues that were raised by the public.
Comm. Burress suggested modifying Key Issue #9 to specify a minimum site size of 5 acres for GPI (General Public Institution) zoning, based on Staff’s revised GPI sites table. He also suggested a change to state that the required setbacks in non-RS districts (side, front and rear) adjacent to RS districts should equal the height of the building or the minimum setback, whichever was greater.
Key Issue #1 was removed from consideration to reflect the Commission’s action on the City/KU Cooperative Agreement
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Vice-Chair Riordan to recommend approval of Staff’s recommended changes to Key Issues 2-12 as outlined in the Staff Report, with changes stated above and subject to conditions 1-3 as stated in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Vice-Chair Riordan to approve the November 17, 2004 edition of the Land Development Code and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, with the following changes:
The motion was subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Revisions noted in the Errors, Omissions and Clarifications Table and revisions to graphic illustrations be incorporated into the text of the Development Code; and
2. Revision to the height limit on projects adjoining RS districts to require a maximum setback of the building’s height or a minimum setback, whichever is greater, for non-RS districts adjacent to RS districts [Sec. 20-601(a) & (b), and 20-607(h)(2)].
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was clarified that neither the Commission nor Staff expected the Development Code as approved to remain a static document. Multiple amendments were anticipated within the upcoming year as the Development Code was used, similar to the existing zoning regulations.
ITEM NO 4: COMPRENSIVE REVISIONS TO THE OFFICAL ZONING MAP IN ASSOCIATION WITH ADOPTION OF THE “DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 EDITION” (LMF/SMS)
Z-10-49-04: The proposed “Zoning Map, November 17, 2004 Edition” includes zoning designations for all property located within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. The proposed “Zoning Map, November 17, 2004 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice. Copies of the proposed “Zoning Map, November 17, 2004 Edition” are available for review at the office of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department, City Hall, 6 E. 6th Street, Lawrence, Kansas. The proposed “Zoning Map, November 17, 2004 Edition” is also available on the Planning Department website at: www.lawrenceplanning.org. This item has six subparts which include: 1) those zoning designations that convert based on the table in section 20-110(e) of the Development Code; 2) public and quasi-public properties that convert to GPI (General Public and Institutional Use) District and to OS (Open Space) District; 3) the main campus of Lawrence Memorial Hospital that converts to H (Hospital) District; 4) the primary campus of the University of Kansas that converts to a U (University) District designation of U (UK) and Haskell Indian Nations University properties that convert to the U (University) District; 5) properties annexed into the city that retained their County Zoning designation that convert to the UR (Urban Reserve) District; 6) existing Planned Unit Development Districts that convert to special zoning district categories unique to each existing Planned Unit Development. Maps for each of these special base zoning districts were developed for discussion purposes. These designations are part of the official zoning map and appear on the composite zoning map of all district designations. Initiated by the Planning Commission at their meeting on August 25, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve map revisions for GPI, OS, U, U(UK), H, UR and older PUD’s. One action for all is recommended.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the intent of approving map revisions to reflect the approved Development Code. To this end, the U(UK) District should be removed from consideration and land proposed for this designation should be considered as part of the U (University) District.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt revisited the suggestion by the League of Women Voters that single-family detached housing be required to obtain a special use permit when located in a zoning district that allowed other housing types (RM, RO, etc.).
It was established that the Commission had considered this idea in February and had chosen not to include it in the Development Code adopted at that time and that specific map revision was not initiated. The Commission would need to initiate a separate public hearing for an amendment to the Development Code if they would like to consider adding the requirement recommended by Ms. Lichtwardt.
Janet Gerstner stated her support for the elimination of the U(UK) District from the zoning maps in reference to the Commission’s action to reject the City/KU Cooperative Agreement.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Jennings to approve the map revisions for the GPI, OS, H, U, UR and older PUD’s as presented and forward them to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval. The motioned included the revision of the U/UK map to eliminate the U(UK) boundary and reflect all property as part of the U (University) District.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
ITEM NO. 5: RESCIND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE ROAD DESIGNATION FOR E 650 ROAD BETWEEN N 1590 AND N 1600 ROADS (BA)
MM-10-01-04: Request to rescind the minimum maintenance road designation for a portion of E 650 Road between N 1590 and N 1600 Roads in Kanwaka Township. Requested by Douglas County Public Works for the Kanwaka Township Board.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained this request was made by the County Public Works Department in order to accommodate improvements to E 650 Road, beginning with the section specified in this application.
No written comments had been received from the public and the request was supported by the County Public Works Director and Planning Staff.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Erickson, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the request to rescind Minimum Maintenance Road status for the portion of E 650 Road between N 1590 and N 1600 Roads in Kanwaka Township and forward it to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 6: TEXT AMENDMENT TO COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS TO PERMIT LIMITED EXCAVATION BUSINESSES (PGP)
TA-04-03-04: Consider a 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.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to amend the County Zoning Regulations to expand the types of uses allowed though the special permit (Conditional Use Permit – CUP) process. He presented the proposed language, which was written to allow a variety of construction, maintenance and repair uses that would primarily serve utility companies.
PUBLIC HEARING
Robin Edmonds, county resident and business owner, said he supported the language as presented by Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Riordan, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Text Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit section of the County Zoning Regulations as follows and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval:
Article 19, Section 19-4.10. Public utilities; construction, maintenance and repair businesses that provide services primarily to utility companies; or public service uses, buildings, structures or appurtenances thereto.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
9:20 p.m. Chairman Haase recessed the Planning Commission meeting and called to order the meeting of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
ITEM NO. 7: 2005 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (BA)
Consider 2005 Unified Planning Work Program, the 2005 transportation planning work program for the Lawrence/Douglas County MPO, as required by federal transportation planning regulations. The work program includes planning and related activities that will be carried out in the coming year by the MPO staff, KDOT, and other organizations. Budget figures are estimated using 2004 figures and preliminary estimates provided by KDOT, since Congress has not yet enacted 2005 appropriations.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens explained that Federal regulations required an annual update to the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). This document outlines the proposed transportation projects for the upcoming year, as well as giving a status report on current activities.
Mr. Ahrens reviewed the major projects listed in the 2005 UPWP:
The UPWP also addressed the beginning of a regional transportation visioning process that would involve significant public education efforts and would consider the creation of toll roads as a funding element for other transportation projects.
The Technical Advisory Committee had received the document and recommended approval by the MPO. Staff supported this recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase said he would like the MPO to be involved in the development of the UPWP in the future, rather than being asked to “rubber stamp” a document that was written without their input. He also asked that Staff try to bring someone in to speak to the MPO and the governing bodies about what MPO’s are and how they function.
Ms. Finger responded to a comment from Comm. Burress that the Commission would be able to look at the feasibility of a toll road system as part of a “grand vision” study.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Erickson to approve the 2005 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) as presented by Staff, transmit it to the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), and authorize the Planning Director or designee to execute necessary UPWP funding agreements and planning process certifications with KDOT.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
9:25 p.m. Chairman Haase adjourned the meeting of the MPO and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM NO. 8: 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, for Auto Exchange incorporated.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a preliminary development plan for a used car lot and accompanying offices on the corner of 33rd & Iowa Streets. He said the existing building on the subject property was intended for demolition and replacement.
Staff described the subject property as a long and narrow lot of approximately 0.5 acres. This was a small lot for commercial development and a lot size waiver had been granted when rezoning was approved a few years ago. A number of periphery setback waivers were now requested.
Mr. Patterson reviewed the issues listed in the Staff Report:
· The subject property was developed without a plat (prior to annexation into the City), so this preliminary development plan would also serve as the preliminary plat for the property.
· The adjacent subdivision and development plans were approved with notes on their final development plans that the location of the cross access easement would be determined by the City.
· The City considered the access shown on the current site plan too close to the intersection of 33rd & Iowa Streets, and recommended – at minimum – that appropriate signage be placed at the access point. Also recommended was a requirement for an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for improvements to 33rd Street and the intersection of 33rd & Iowa Streets and the placement of a note that the City had the authority to construct a median in 33rd Street in the future.
The Staff Report discussed the balance between the City’s preference for additional landscaping at this gateway location and the applicant’s wish for high-visibility of vehicles on display.
Staff recommended approval of request with conditions as listed in the Staff Report. Staff also recommended approval of the requested waivers with a separate motion.
Comm. Burress said the Commission was “boxed” into considering a development plan with less than desirable access because the City “did not push hard enough” when the previous property owner chose not to take part in the PCD involving several surrounding properties.
Staff explained the notes and requirements placed on surrounding properties in an attempt to make a future opportunity to correct the 33rd Street access issue.
There was discussion about mechanisms for the City to acquire the right-of-way needed to provide alternate access to a public right-of-way for the subject property, thus allowing the elimination of the existing 33rd Street access. Comm. Burress suggested the City condemn or purchase the right-of-way outright. Mr. Patterson described a possible method suggested by the Director of Legal Services which would not require funding. The City could determine the location for appropriate access, record this determination with the Register of Deeds and wait to see if any of the impacted property owners filed an appeal against the determination with the Board of Zoning Appeals within the regulatory time period.
Comm. Burress referenced the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director that Iowa Street would remain a 4-lane road and the right-of-way dedicated by this development plan was adequate. However, Comm. Burress believed Iowa Street would someday have to expand to 6 lanes and asked what the Commission could do to protect their ability to make the 6-lane road improvements in the future. Staff said the Commission would have to deny the setback waiver along Iowa Street, which would make the lot exceedingly narrow and difficult to develop for any commercial use.
Chairman Haase said the Commission was supposed to consider waivers in light of their benefit to the City gained, not according to the applicant’s gain. He asked Staff what rationale could be used in this case. Mr. Patterson responded that gains to the City would include the private funding of improvements to this gateway intersection, including landscaping, sidewalks and the replacement of a building that had outlived its economic usefulness.
It was suggested that the City would be better served if the waivers were denied and the Commission “held out” for a design that would close the 33rd Street curb cut. It was understood that this would make the lot unsuitable for the proposed business.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, agreeing it would have simplified the matter if the previous property owner had taken part in the adjacent PCD. Mr. Werner said access for the property was impacted by the parties in the PCD, including Uno’s, Culver’s and Penney’s. Uno’s had been agreeable to shared access arrangements, but Culver’s and Penney’s had denied these offers.
The applicant agreed with Culver’s that sharing the Culver’s access was a bad idea, but Penney’s refusal to allow access to the internal driveway was problematic. Mr. Werner explained City’s Legal Department made a determination that the internal driveway easement existed, although it was not clearly defined in the surrounding plats, so in theory the applicant did not need Penney’s permission to use this access.
The applicant was confident that the agreement with Uno’s would be successful. However if this was not the case, Mr. Werner said the project would return with a necessarily worse access design (right-in/right-out) that would have to be approved because there was no other way to provide the required access.
The applicant was amendable to Staff’s conditions, including the Agreement Not to Protest requirement and the note regarding a possible 33rd Street median.
Mr. Werner said the proposed use was ideal for this site because the traffic generation would be very low, adding fewer vehicles to the existing problems in this location. He noted that the right-of-way on Iowa Street, with the requested waiver, matched the adjacent properties to the north and south.
There was discussion about alternative businesses that might be able to use this site if the waiver were denied. Comm. Jennings pointed out that most retail businesses would not fit on the narrow lot because there would be no room for loading docks. It was established that stock for the car lot would be unloaded in the Uno’s parking area or on the 23rd Street Auto Exchange site.
It was verified that no maintenance work would be done on the subject property.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no additional comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSON DISCUSSION
Staff was asked to explain the process and impact on right-of-way and setbacks if Iowa Street were widened. It was discussed that this would require the City to obtain a number of existing buildings and would involve the relocation of existing utilities.
Chairman Haase suggested the proposed use was not suitable for this gateway location and commented that a medical office (doctor, dentist, etc.) would be more appropriate and could succeed without the 33rd Street access. It was discussed that these kinds of uses would generate more traffic than the proposed use. Comm. Eichhorn noted the cooperation of Uno’s to this point and wondered if that would change if a different use (that would generate more traffic) were proposed.
Staff responded to questioning that the lot was zoned to allow any commercial use except automotive repair and few of these uses would generate less traffic than the one proposed.
Comm. Burress asked Staff to develop language that could be added to the development plan as a condition that would communicate the Commission’s opinion that the City should try to acquire the right-of-way needed to provide alternate access and close the 33rd Street access.
Comm. Erickson said she understood the visibility needs of the proposed use, but she felt that more landscaping was needed because of the properties gateway location. The applicant’s representative said this was a fair requirement.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Waivers
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn to approve waivers #1-5 as presented in the Staff Report. Comm. Burress asked that waiver #1 be split out into a separate motion. Comm. Angino seconded the revised motion to approve waivers #2-5 as follows:
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Chairman Haase voted in opposition and Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve waiver #1 as follows:
Motion carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Jennings and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Haase and Krebs voted in opposition. Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Development Plan
Motioned by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Auto Dealership with the conditions listed in the Staff Report and with the additional condition:
5. Additional landscaping shall be placed on the eastern property line according to the landscape design guidelines for gateway development.
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to amend the motion to include the following condition:
Motion to amend carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting in favor. Comm. Angino voted in opposition and Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Auto Dealership and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
Motion carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Jennings and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Haase and Krebs voted in opposition. Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Additional Recommendation
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to recommend the City Commission make every effort to buy the right-of-way and/or easements needed to accommodate the elimination of the existing 33rd Street access.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was clarified that the motion on the floor was meant to support condition 6 added to the Preliminary Development Plan.
It was pointed out that closing the 33rd Street access point would make the development plan dysfunctional.
There was extended discussion about the necessity and/or impact of closing the 33rd Street access point.
Staff noted that there may be alternative ways (other than purchase) of acquiring the referenced right-of-way, as detailed previously. Ms. Finger suggested alternate wording for the motion that would accommodate these other methods:
“The Planning Commission strongly urges the City Commission to investigate ways to provide public access to the public right-of-way besides 33rd Street”.
Mr. Werner asked that a time limit be placed on the City Commission’s “investigation”, so the project would not be held in limbo indefinitely. There was discussion about an adequate and reasonable time limit.
Comm.’s Burress and Krebs (motion and second) agreed to modifying the motion on the floor per Staff’s suggestion.
ACTION TAKEN
Revised motion on the floor was to strongly urge the City Commission to investigate, within 30 days of receipt of this recommendation, alternatives to the existing 33rd Street curb cut for providing access to the public right-of-way for the subject property.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Student Comm. Brown left at 10:30 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR GOOGOLS OF FUN EDUTAINMENT CENTER & PRESCHOOL; 4931 W. 6TH STREET, SUITE 118 (PGP)
UPR-10-05-04: Use Permitted upon Review request for a preschool. The property is described as being located at 4931 W. 6th Street, Suite 118, and a portion of the adjacent property located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Congressional Drive. Submitted by Amy Gottschamer, owner of Googols of Fun. The Bristol Groupe is property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request to construct an outdoor play area to meet the State requirements for a child care facility. The UPR was approved previously without the outdoor play area in anticipation of changes to the State regulations that had not taken place.
Mr. Patterson described the measures proposed by the applicant to deal with Staff’s safety concerns, specifically showing how delivery trucks going to other area businesses would enter and leave the site. He noted the gate that would be in place when children were crossing to prevent traffic movements across the path to the play area.
Staff recommended approval of the UPR with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Amy Gottschammer, property owner and applicant, gave an overview of the operation and explained the State requirements for an outdoor play area in addition to the various indoor activities her business provided.
Ms. Gottschammer gave more detail about the elements proposed to ensure the safety of children in and walking to the outdoor play area. She was amenable to the daylight hours restriction discussed at Study Session.
The applicant responded to questioning that the business was looking at options for expanding their services to full-day child care.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jennifer Dropkin expressed additional concerns about the play area being located on/in the drainage basin, showing pictures of the open culverts that were large enough for a child to enter. She stated that the runoff coming from these culvers was polluted, making the ground unsuitable for a play area. Ms. Dropkin was also concerned about traffic around and behind the site.
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Investments, said his business interests were not directly involved in this project, but he would like to speak as a parent and as an owner of property across the street. He supported the Gottchamer’s operation, saying this was a creative mixed use that suited the area and filled a need in the community.
Dr. Bob Rubenstein, Ms. Gottschammer’s father, said the business needed to expand its operations beyond evenings and weekends in order to survive. He stated that Ms. Gotschammer’s own children would be playing in the outdoor area, and he/his daughter would not allow that if there were pollution or other safety issues.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Ms. Gottschammer described the deck and fencing design that would prevent children from entering the culvert and would keep the play area separate from traffic movements. She noted that the deck was designed to serve as the only outdoor play area if it was determined that children should not play in the grassy area below the deck.
It was verified that the play area was subject to Health Department review and would have to meet all State health regulations.
STAFF CLOSING
Mr. Patterson stated that the City’s Stormwater Engineer had reviewed the project and asked to see the support structures proposed for the deck and stipulated that the method used to keep children out of the culvert would not block the water flow.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by comm. Riordan to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for 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 revised conditions:
1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
2. Provision of a copy of an approved license from the Douglas County Health Department prior to operation of the child care facility. (Submit the copy to the Lawrence Planning Department and reference file UPR-10-05-04);
3. The use permit is for a Child Care Center for a maximum of 55 children under Googols of Fun’s direct supervised care in the facility at any one time;
4. The existing building will require a supervised fire alarm system to the approval of the City Fire & Medical Department, which must be zoned to show an activation at Googols of Fun;
5. The permit will be administratively reviewed by the City in 5 years (Calendar Year 2010);
6. The permit will expire at the end of 10 years (Calendar Year 2015), unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body;
7. Provide “One-way”, “Do not enter” signage at ends of the truck delivery lanes and provide appropriate gate/barriers and “Caution children crossing” signage, between Googols of Fun and the outdoor playground area;
8. Design the support for the play deck and safety fencing so as not to obstruct stormwater flow, to the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer;
9. Provide the following note on the site plan, “A building permit is required for the outdoor play area and elevated play deck from Neighborhood Resources”; and
10. The outdoor play area may be used only during daylight hours.
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Burress, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs and Riordan voting on favor. Comm. Eichhorn voted in opposition.
ITEM NO. 10A: O-1 & A/PRD-2 TO RO-2; 17.874 ACRES; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET AND WEST OF CONGRESSIONAL DRIVE (PGP)
Z-09-42-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.874 acres from O-1 (Office) District and A (Agricultural)/PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District to RO-2 (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being north of W. 6th Street and west of Congressional Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for Continuum Associates LTD., contract purchaser. B J Mellmanor Townhouse Apartments, L.L.C., and 6WAK Land Investments, L.L.C., are property owners of record.
This item was deferred prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 10B: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR VILLAGE MEADOWS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY; NORTH OF 2. 6TH STREET AND WEST OF CONGRESSIONAL DRIVE (PGP)
UPR-09-03-04: Use Permitted Upon Review for Village Meadows Retirement Community. The property is generally described as being located north of W. 6th Street and west of Congressional Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for Continuum Associates LTD, contract purchaser. B J Mellmanor Townhouse Apartments, L.L.C., and 6WAK Land Investments, L.L.C., are property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a UPR request for a retirement living facility that would include various types of living units (independent, assisted, dementia, etc.). He stated that the plan provided more parking that was required, taking into account the underground parking provided underneath the independent living units.
The project would be developed in two phases, and rezoning was required to allow apartment-style units in an area that was currently zoned for office uses. The applicant had submitted an application for zoning but had mistakenly requested RO-2 zoning, which would not allow the proposed apartment units. A new rezoning had been submitted and would be on the December 2004 agenda. Staff proposed adding a condition to tie the UPR to the upcoming zoning.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant, giving more detail about the mistaken rezoning application and the need for rezoning to allow the type of residential units proposed for Phase 2.
Mr. Werner referenced a pending contract that was tied to the rezoning, saying the contract purchaser was present to address this issue.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the plan included enough space to construct sidewalks on both sides of the local streets and he did not think the developer would oppose a condition of this nature.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gwen Klingenberg spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association in support of the proposed use as a good fit for the neighborhood that would generate less traffic than the typical apartment units currently approved for the area. She referenced the concern expressed by the League of Women Voters that the proposed use would not “go through” after the rezoning was approved. The Neighborhood Association favored the suggestion that the proposal be revised as a Planned Unit Development with conditions based on the special aspects of this use.
Ms. Klingenberg said the Neighborhood Association would like to have traffic calming devices placed on Congressional Drive to deal with the increased cut-through traffic they anticipated as the 6th Street level of service began to fail.
Ms. Klingenberg asked the Commission to defer the UPR until it could be considered at that same time as PUD zoning.
Bill Newsom, contract seller, said there was a condition in the pending contract that the rezoning and UPR would not be recorded until the sale closed. This provided assurance that the proposed use would go forward. He suggested that the proper protections for the neighborhood were in place and additional delays of this project were unwarranted.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the potential uses and density of the existing zoning vs. the proposed zoning, noting there are currently two zoning districts in place. The proposed rezoning and use would constitute a significant reduction in density and traffic generation.
The Commission extended the meeting 10 minutes.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Werner said all parties involved understood that any changes, including use, would have to return to the review process.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Use Permitted upon Review for Village Meadows Retirement Village and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
a. Show the detention basin improvements associated with this site. The detention system must be completed prior to occupancy. Provide DE’s for the system and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;
b. Storm sewer information is incomplete. Show all existing storm sewer locations and elevations. Show all proposed storm sewer locations, elevations and sizes;
c. Provide additional curb inlets to capture runoff in the southeast entrance drive. Report the project bench mark on the site plan;
d. Storm sewers located in the single-family and duplex area must be public systems. Provide DE’s for these systems and submit public improvement plans for review prior to release of the plan to the building inspector; and
e. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
8. Approval of rezoning of the property to a residential zoning district which would accommodate the proposed use; and
9. Provision of a revised site plan to show 6’ sidewalks on both sides of all local streets.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: Reconsideration of PF-07-22-04; Cornerstone Plaza 2 regarding cross-access easements.
The Commission dealt with this item as part of the Communications section of the agenda.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill explained the final plat for this project was approved with a condition for a cross access easement at the north and south ends of property. The applicant was concerned that this would encourage cut-through traffic from vehicles attempting to bypass the traffic signal on K-10 Highway at Harper Street.
Staff recommended re-approving the plat with cross access only at the northern end, eliminating the requirement for similar access to the south. This would provide users of the 10 Marketplace development a choice for egress but would not invite traffic to divert through the property to avoid the traffic light.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for Cornerstone II Plaza with the following revised condition:
1 Provision of a 25’ cross access easement between the east and west property lines in the north portion of the lot to coincide with the access isle shown on the site plan, per Staff approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
The Commission dealt at this point with the Consent Agenda.
ADJOURN – 11:02 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.