Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2005
7:15 p.m., City Commission Room, City Hall
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners Present: Angino, Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Krebs Lawson and Riordan
Staff Present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Ahrens, Day and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the December 15, 2004 meeting minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Parks & Recreation ad hoc: The committee met to continue discussing options for revising the draft Parks & Recreation Chapter of HORIZON 2020.
CPC: The Committee met three times, once with School Board Officials, once to discuss Neighborhood Planning and once to discuss the Southeast Area Plan.
TAC: The Committee met but took no action. They were informed that KDOT representatives would like to meet with the Planning Commission to talk about access issues in Highway 40/W.6th Street. The Commission directed Staff to schedule this topic for the February 9th Mid-Month Meeting.
City/KU ad hoc: The Committee met to consider revisions to the City/University Agreement regarding development issues in areas adjacent to the City/KU border. The University is preparing a draft with significant changes, resulting in improvements for the citizen of Lawrence. Among these changes were the university’s agreement about freestanding properties located off the primary campus. The university also agreed to recognize the city’s setback and parking regulations for development within the 150’ campus boundary.
PCMM: The meeting was cancelled due to weather.
PCMM II: The Commission received an update on the status of HORIZON 2020 updates and discussed the draft Commercial Design Guidelines.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Finger read the following communications into the record:
Item 1 – Oregon Trail Addition
Item 6 – Minimum Maintenance Road Designation E1800 Road
Item 9 – Final Plat and Final Development Plan for Hanscom-Tappen Addition (A.K.A. Parnell Park PRD)
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE AND ABSTENSIONS
Comm. Burress asked to pull Item 1 from the Consent Agenda. The remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved as presented.
ITEM NO. 1: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OREGON TRAIL ADDITION; NORTH OF W. 6TH STREET (HWY. 40) & EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (EXTENDED) (PGP)
PP-12-28-04: Preliminary Plat for Oregon Trail Addition. This proposed single and multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 60.33 acres and is located north of W. 6th Street (Hwy. 40) and east of George Williams Way (extended). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Bluejacket Ford, LC, contract purchaser. Graycliff Holdings L.C. is the property owner of record.
This Item was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson pointed out the provision of a Staff memo revising conditions from the Staff Report. In response to Study Session discussion, Staff provided wording for an additional condition requiring the investigation of the standards regarding the creation of benefit districts and how this would impact the subject property if a major road were extended in this general vicinity.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Plat for Oregon Trail Addition with the conditions per tonight’s Staff memo and including the new condition as stated.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress explained he would vote against the motion because there was no area plan or other information about how the area would develop.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, was allowed to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Herndon said he believed that “all those present agreed that, if benefit district is determined at any juncture to be needed and to benefit of any property, the City could initiate it as a public hearing item.” In light of this, he felt the added condition was redundant, particularly, since the applicant was already taking part in benefit districts for improvements to George Williams Way, Stoneridge Drive and Overland Drive.
Mr. Herndon added that it seemed unfair to require that this issue be determined before submittal of a final plat.
Chairman Haase explained his intent in instigating this condition was to make sure the city preserved its right to apply a benefit district in the future. He clarified that this was not meant to delay the project and did not assess an additional benefit district at this time.
Mr. Herndon replied that the project, as presented, fulfilled the Transportation 2025 prescription for all the roads serving this development.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Preliminary Plat for Oregon Trail Addition, subject to the following conditions:
2. Provision of an agreement not to protest Formation of a Benefit District for improvements to the signalization of the intersection of George Williams Way and W. 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) and the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and W. 6th Street;
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Burress voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 2: FINAL PLAT FOR FRONTIER FARM CREDIT ADDITION; NORTH OF HWY. 56 & EAST OF U.S. HWY 59 (PGP)
PF-12-37-04: Final 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 owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for Frontier Farm Credit Addition and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing; and
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
2. Change the County Clerk’s signature to Jamie Shew.
Motion carried 8-0-1, with Comm. Lawson abstaining, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 3: FINAL PLAT FOR QUAIL VALLEY TOWNHOMES; 2113-2143 QUAIL CREEK DRIVE (PGP)
PF-12-39-04: Final Plat for Quail Valley Townhomes, a Replat of Lots 67, 68, & Lot C of the Replat of Lots 69 & 70, Alvamar Estates. This proposed three-lot planned unit development residential subdivision contains approximately 0.961 acre and is located at 2113-2143 Quail Creek Drive. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for E. & G. Properties, L.L.C., property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for Quail Valley Townhomes and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda.
ITEM NO. 4: FINAL PLAT FOR CARPENTER ADDITION NO. 2; 1017 E. 23RD STREET (PGP)
PF-12-40-04: Final Plat for Carpenter Addition No. 2. This proposed three-lot commercial/office/residential subdivision contains approximately 3.41 acres and is located at 1017 E. 23rd Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for A-Z Enterprises, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Final Plat for Carpenter Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Provide an indication on the Final Plat that //// represents area of prohibited traffic access;
5. Pinning of Lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2; and
6. Provide MEBO’s on Lots 2 & 3 per Section 21-301.5.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, as part of the Consent Agenda
MISCELLANEOUS NEW OR OLD BUSINESS
MISC. ITEM NO. A: REQUST FOR EXTENSION OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MEADOWBROOK APARTMENTS, PHASE 10 (SMS)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill explained that the applicant was requesting a 1-year extension to their approved Final Development Plan. Staff recommended approval of the extension, but for a time period of 6 months.
Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that the applicant based their need for an extension on construction delays. It had taken several months to obtain a building permit, and the applicant preferred to avoid the rainy spring season for the neighbors sake.
Chairman Haase asked Staff what, if any, harm would be caused by granting the 12-month vs. the 6-month extension. Ms Stogsdill replied there would be no specific harm, but the project was now delayed by weather concerns and it was discussed that a 12-month extension would find the developer in the same situation. Also, the proposed new Development Code clearly allows a single 6-month extension for Final Development Plans.
Comm. Burress said that, if the extension(s) expired, it would “break open” this issue of how to develop this land.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Terry Campbell of Barber Emerson spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying the applicant was amenable to Staff’s recommendation for a 6-month extension, but would prefer the 12-month time period requested.
Mr. Campbell reiterated the explanation of delays that had impacted the project and added that this phase of the Meadowbrook development was more challenging because of the topography of this section of land.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve a 6-month extension though August 31, 2005 to the Final Development Plan for Meadowbrook Apartments, Phase 10.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress said he had voted against the Development Plan originally, but in favor of the first extension. However, he would vote against the second extension because he felt the consideration of extensions should hinge on whether the development still fit the overall area, since this area had likely changed since the original approval. He suggested the sunset rules should be closely examined and that one extension should have been adequate for this project.
It was discussed that this extension (if approved) would fall under the current Development Code, so it would be technically possible for the project to receive another (final) 6-month extension when this one expired. The Commission discussed conditioning the extension to preclude this from happening.
The motion was amended without objection.
ACTION TAKEN
Amended motion on the floor was to approve a 6-month extension though August 31, 2005 to the Final Development Plan for Meadowbrook Apartments, Phase 10, subject to the following condition:
Motion carried 8-1, with Comm. Burress voting in opposition.
At 7:50 p.m., the meeting was recessed until 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2005 in the City Commission Room.
Meeting reconvened, January 26, 2005; 6:30 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners Present: Haase, Riordan, Eichhorn, Erickson, Angino, Ermeling, Krebs, Burress and Lawson
Staff Present: Finger, Stogsdill, Patterson, Day, Ahrens and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Stogsdill read the following communications into the record:
Item 7 – CUP for RWD #4 Pump Station
Item 13 – Amendment to Chapter 7, Industrial & Employment-Related Land Use
General
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE AND ABSTENSIONS
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 5: FINAL PLAT FOR LOCUST STREET PROJECT; 642-646 AND 645 LOCUST STREET (PGP)
PF-11-36-04: Final Plat for Locust Street Project. This proposed two-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 0.58 acre. The property is generally described as being located at 642-646 and 645 Locust Street. Submitted by Taylor Design Group, P.A., for D & D Rental, Jon R. Davis and Tom M. Devlin, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the project, reminding the Commission that the Preliminary Plat had been approved and this item was a public hearing issue for the variance portion only. A variance was needed because the existing building encroached approximately 3” into the setback. Instead of executing an agreement with the City to allow use of the public right-of-way, it was considered cleaner for the City to vacate a .5’ wide section to the property owner. This would amount to a total vacation of approximately 70 square feet.
Staff recommended approval of the variance and the preliminary plat with conditions as stated in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Lance Adams, Paul Werner Architects, said the need for a variance was discovered by Staff and presented to the applicant as a clear way to bring into conformance a situation that was created in 1856, when the existing structure was built.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this issue.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Patterson said the City Commission had already approved the site plan for this project, and the Final Plat, if approved tonight, would go before the City Commission in mid-February.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress said he usually opposed the vacation of right-of-way without a tangible (financial) return, but he supported this case because the City did get something of value in return, i.e. the development of a property that would otherwise become blighted.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve a variance reducing the required right-of-way for N. 7th Street south of Locust Street from the required 60’ to 59.5’.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Erickson to approve the Final Plat for the Locust Street project and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed Master Street Tree Plan per Section 21-708a.
2. Pinning of the lots per Section 21-302.2;
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Easement; and
4. Provide the following revisions to the Final Plat:
a. Modify Lot 1, Block 1 to locate the east property line 0.5 feet east in order to allow the existing commercial building to be located entirely on the Lot;
b. Modify the centerline distance and right-of-way for N. 7th Street;
c. Add N. to N. 7th Street name;
d. Correct the lot size for Lot 1, Block 1 to include the area created by the modified property line; and
e. Remove the building setback and parking setback lines.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 6: RESCIND MINIMUM MAINTENANCE ROAD DESIGNATION FOR E1800 ROAD FROM N 900 THENCE SOUTH 0.8 MILE (BA)
MM-12-02-04: Request to rescind the minimum maintenance road designation for E 1800 Road from N 900 thence south approximately 0.8 mile. Requested by Douglas County Public Works for the Palmyra Township Board.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Ahrens introduced the item, a request from Douglas County Public Works to rescind the Minimum Maintenance status from the stated portion of E1800 Road. He noted surrounding and connecting roads that were currently under full maintenance status.
It was discussed that a 48-hour traffic count performed by Douglas County Public Works determined an average of 14 trips per day on this section of E1800 Road.
Staff noted the receipt of a letter of opposition from an area resident, George Gurley, who expressed concern about increased traffic in the area resulting from the proposed development precipitating this request.
It was verified that no new development could occur as long as the road was under a minimum maintenance designation.
Mr. Ahrens responded to questioning that Planning Staff had no information about the proposed development beyond the fact that, since the property had substantial road frontage, up to 16 new lots could be created using the 5-acre exemption and the minimum 250’ road frontage.
PUBLIC HEARING
George Gurley, 1770 N800 Road (Baldwin City), described the acreage he owned adjacent to and near the subject section of E1800 Road, including the 80-acre parcel where his residence stood, about ½-mile from the road in question. He said it would make more sense to divert funding being proposed in this case for E1800 Road to other roads in the area that were more traveled.
Mr. Gurley stated that the only reason to approve the request would be to facilitate a development request, and he would like to see more planning done in this part of the county before development was allowed to occur. He was concerned about piecemeal rural development, which he said was an issue county-wide.
Comm. Lawson referenced the letter Mr. Gurley had written to County Commissioner McElhaney, which discussed the potential developer’s intent to use smaller tracts and dedicate a significant amount of land to un-built greenspace. Mr. Gurley said in response to questioning that he could not speak for the developer, but he (the developer) had spoken to Mr. Gurley about cluster development possibilities, but expressed his concern that this would mean coming before the Planning Commission and risking denial. Mr. Gurley said this was a prime example of the weakness of the 5-acre exemption, for it would allow circumvention of the process and leave out the possibility of public input.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Eichhorn asked if the subject section of E1800 Road had ever been full maintenance and, if so, why it had been reduced to minimum maintenance status. Mr. Ahrens said Planning Staff was not given the road’s designation history as part of the request. Mr. Gurley was allowed to respond to the question and said it had been a minimum maintenance road for as long as he had owned his property. He said there were only a couple of minimum maintenance roads left in the township and he suspected the Township Road Supervisor “wants them off the books for some reason”.
Comm. Krebs asked for clarification on the current upkeep of the road, regardless of its maintenance status. Staff replied that the Township Board was maintaining the road and said this was being done above minimum maintenance standards. However it was not known if the upkeep currently met full maintenance standards.
Comm. Burress asked Staff to guess how many trips per day were typical on minimum maintenance vs. full maintenance roads. Mr. Ahrens said he had no data on these numbers, but he would assume that there was a lot of “overlap”, pointing out that several full maintenance roads and even state highways had very low usage.
There was discussion about what factors were considered when doing traffic volume counts and modeling and clarified that no modeling was done for this request. Information provided was based on a flat trip count.
Comm. Burress estimated a trip generation of about 10 trips per day for each of the new residential units that would be made possible by approving this request. He said it did seem that the 14 trips per day currently taking place on the subject road were sufficient to warrant approval of the request. It was therefore reasonable to state that the only reason for approving the request would be to allow the proposed development to take place and he asked if the Commission thought allowing that development was appropriate. Comm. Burress stated that the Comprehensive Plan directed the Commission to discourage residential development in areas like this one, which were outside the UGA and held open space and agricultural uses. Comm. Angino responded by asking where new homes were to be built, since studies showed a lack of suitable land within the city and they were now not allowed to locate outside the city.
Comm. Krebs said she would support the request because there were only a few minimum maintenance roads in the township and the full maintenance designation more accurately reflected the current upkeep of the road. She said the discussion of whether to allow development should occur when the development proposal was actually in front of the Commission. It was clarified that the possible development could take place without Planning Commission consideration by using the 5-acre exemption. Comm. Krebs indicated this had not been her initial understanding and she appreciated the clarification.
Comm. Erickson raised the possibility of a building moratorium on new 5-acre divisions until the new Rural Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Chairman Haase said that had been discussed at the County Commission level and resulted in no action. He added that the Rural Development Chapter could be approved by the Planning Commission in February at the earliest and would take additional time to be approved by the City/County Commission and be implemented through regulations.
Comm. Lawson said he had opposed the idea of a moratorium in the past, but he would be willing to reconsider this stance. He asked if the County Commission would support the Planning Commission’s decision to defer this issue until information was available that would allow them to deal with the matter in a reasonable manner.
Ms. Finger said the Planning Commission had the authority to table or defer an item, but she did not know what State law was on this issue. Staff suggested it would be appropriate to do so for only 30-60 days and to clearly communicate to the County Commission the intent of this action.
It was suggested that this issue had “greater implications than it would seem at face value, and it would not be imprudent to defer [the request] to give time for due deliberation”. Staff responded to questioning that the County Commission was not bound by the Planning Commission’s action, especially if the Township Board expressed urgency.
Staff advised tabling over deferral because the public hearing had been held, pointing out that the County Commission could consider the issue without a Planning Commission recommendation.
Chairman Haase complimented Mr. Gurley on his letter to County Commissioner McElhaney, saying it clearly encapsulated all the major issues the Rural Planning Committee was dealing with.
Although he said it was a poor way to regulate rural development, Chairman Haase said he would vote against the request because it would allow rural development that would negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of county residents and the fiscal health of the county budget.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Lawson, seconded by Comm. Angino to table the request to rescind the Minimum Maintenance designation of the stated section of E1800 Road until April 27, 2005.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
This item was published as a joint meeting issue with the Baldwin City Planning Commission. It was established that the Baldwin City Planning Commission was not in attendance, so a joint meeting could not be called into session. Staff had verified with the County Counselor that this did not nullify the recommendation of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. It was the opinion of the County Counselor, that the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission fulfilled the requirements of Resolution 80-5 by inviting the Baldwin City Planning Commission to attend a joint meeting, even if the joint meeting could not be convened due to the Baldwin City Planning Commission’s absence.
ITEM NO. 7: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RURAL WATER DISTRICT #4 PUMP STATION; WEST OF E 1700 ROAD NORTH OF N 500 ROAD (SLD)
CUP-12-05-04: Conditional Use Permit for Rural Water District #4 Pump Station. The property is located west of E 1700 Road north of N 500 Road. Submitted by Ponzer-Youngquist, P.A., for Douglas County Rural Water District No. 4, applicant. Katharine Kelley is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, a request to allow improvements to an existing public facility located roughly 1.5 miles outside of Baldwin City. She noted that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan addressing 2 of the 4 conditions recommended in the original Staff Report. A revised Staff Report was provided this evening removing the conditions that had already been met.
Ms. Day said the County Board of Zoning Appeals had approved a variance for the site to allow the structure to be positioned in a manner that would permit future road improvements.
The Baldwin City Planning Commission discussed this matter at their November meeting and a representative was present to answer questions on behalf of the Baldwin City Planning Department.
Staff recommended approval of the request per the remaining conditions listed in the revised Staff Report.
Vice-Chair Riordan noted the statement in the Staff Report that the location of the aboveground structure depended on the ability to lease additional land. He asked if the project would not be completed if the lease was not obtained. Ms. Day said the revised site plan provided by the applicant led Staff to believe the lease had been obtained.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Chester Bender, Ponzer-Youngquist Engineers, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Bender said RWD #4 was trying to replace the existing underground pump station with a new aboveground facility. The existing equipment had seen its service life and the aboveground structures were safer for employees and easier to maintain.
Mr. Bender explained the facility would not be maintained 24 hours a day, but would be monitored remotely. The building would look like a typical agricultural structure.
Mr. Bender responded to questioning that it was possible a light humming noise would be audible within 20-30 feet, but no sound would be heard beyond that distance.
Scott Schultz, Manager of RWD #4, addressed the issue of the leased land, saying they had a verbal agreement with the property owner’s nephew (appointed trustee and employee of Douglas County Public Works). The lease would not be signed until the County Commission approved the project, so any changes or conditions applied with that approval could be worked into the terms of the lease.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the spoke on this item.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional questions or comments.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Rural Water District #4 Pump Station and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
ITEM NO. 8A: RS-1 TO RO-1; 0.86 ACRES; A PORTION OF 1045 E. 23RD STREET (PGP)
Z-09-44-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 0.86 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to RO-1 (Residence-Office) District. The property is a portion of the parcel located at 1045 East 23rd Street (with frontage along E. 24th Street). Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for A-Z Enterprises, property owner of record. (This item was deferred from the 12/15/04 Planning Commission meeting.)
ITEM NO. 8B: C-4 & RS-1 TO C-4; 2.55 ACRES; 1045 E. 23RD STREET (PGP)
Z-09-45-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.55 acres from C-4 (General Commercial) District & RS-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to C-4 (General Commercial) District. The property is described as being located at 1045 East 23rd Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for A-Z Enterprises, property owner of record. (This item was deferred from the 12/15/04 Planning Commission meeting.)
Items 8A & 8B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson reminder the Commission that this item had been deferred based on the request of area residents in October 2004 and again in December 2004 per the applicant’s request. The applicant had revised the original request for RO-1 zoning reflected in Item 8A to a request for RM-D zoning, which was possible through the use of the Lesser Change Table.
Mr. Patterson explained the rezoning requests were part of the Carpenter Addition No. 2 Final Plat approved on the Consent Agenda previously. A mobile home park exists as a legal non-conforming use on the property and the applicant intends to eventually remove the trailers on the subject lots. The site plan for the overall project proposes an office use on Lot 1.
Staff recommended approval of both rezonings, subject to the condition listed in the Staff Report.
Staff provided comparison information on the potential development of the property with different zoning classifications.
It was established that Staff had received calls from residents of the existing mobile home park when the project was posted in October 2004. No new calls had been received recently. It was the applicant’s stated intent that residents of the removed trailers on Lot 1 would be given an opportunity to move to vacant trailers further to the south on Lots 2 & 3. Lot 3 would be redeveloped as duplexes and the land would need to be replatted into individual lots for each structure.
It was verified that the non-conforming use could remain in its existing state until redevelopment occurred.
Comm. Erickson asked if other area residents supported or opposed the proposal. Staff said some residents might be present to speak in the public hearing.
Comm. Burress noted there was no traffic study requirement associated with this project, even though it would significantly increase the density of the area. Mr. Patterson said the local collector was built to adequately handle the amount of traffic generated by this proposal. He noted several access restrictions applied to the plat.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering, spoke on behalf of the property owner. He said the applicant met with the neighborhood in December 2004. The area residents had expressed a preference for single-family or duplex development in the southern section of the subject property. The applicant responded by revising their request to RM-D zoning to accommodate duplex uses. Mr. Maurer said some residents might prefer single-family zoning, but this would not conform to the adjacent zoning.
Mr. Maurer showed how a detention pond would form a barrier between the proposed C-4 area and the residential development to the south.
PUBLIC COMMENT
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 additional comments or questions.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 8A
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 0.86 acres from RS-1 to RM-D and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the Lesser Change Table and the findings of fact provided in the Staff Report. Approval was subject to the following condition:
1. Approval and filing of a final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 8B
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 2.55 acres from C-4 & RS-1 to C-4 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Approval and filing of a final plat at the Register of Deeds Office.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
The Chair called a 3-minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
ITEM NO. 9A: FINAL PLAT FOR HANSCOM-TAPPEN ADDITION (A.K.A. PARNELL PARK PRD); 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PF-12-38-04: Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappen Addition (also known as Parnell Park PRD). This proposed planned residential development contains 30 single-family homes and is approximately 8.020 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Parnell Investors, LLC. Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard are property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 9B: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK PRD; 1503 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
FDP-12-18-04: Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD. This proposed planned residential development contains 30 single-family homes and is approximately 8.020 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Harold C. and Caroline B. Shepard, property owners of record.
ITEM NO. 9C: RS-2 TO PRD-1; 1.903 ACRES; 1535 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
Z-12-54-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 1.93 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as being located at 1535 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Parnell Investors, LLC, property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 9D: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARNELL PARK II SINGLE FAMILY HOMES; 1535 HASKELL AVENUE (SLD)
PDP-12-11-04: Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park II Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development contains property approved as Parnell Park and additional adjacent property. The project includes 42 single-family homes on approximately 8.96 acres. The property is described as being located at 1503 and 1535 Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Allen Belot for Parnell Investors, LLC, property owner of record.
Items 9A – 9D were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff was asked to consider traffic calming suggestions made by a member of the public during the staff presentation.
Ms. Day summarized the overall project and showed which sections of the larger subject area were associated with each item. She noted that the Preliminary Development Plan retained an existing home in the southeast corner, but reconfigured its access.
Staff noted a section of property within the larger area that was not included in the project because the property owner of that parcel, Mr. Weeks, was not interested in taking part in this project at this time. Mr. Weeks had requested Staff apply a condition requiring the applicant to construct a screening fence around the entire periphery of his own (Weeks) property. Staff had responded by recommending a condition that fencing be placed along the west property line, where a variance was requested to reduce the side yard setback. Ms. Day noted that the variance would not be needed if the Weeks’ property were part of the development.
Ms. Day said another variance was requested to allow a local street (Tappen Way) to intersect with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue). Staff had looked at alternatives to the proposed street design, and had determined the shown configuration concurred with the overall design and was consistent with street and neighborhood design in the area.
Ms. Day spoke about the traffic calming elements suggested by area resident Michael Almon to discourage or (preferably) preclude traffic cutting through the development to avoid the intersection at 15th Street & Haskell Avenue. Staff understood the intent of these suggestions, but recommended alternate wording to allow for investigation of appropriate kinds of calming elements. The two calming devices specifically mentioned by Mr. Almon were considered unsuitable for this location. Staff indicated the need for input from the Public Works Department.
Staff described the surrounding uses as multi-family and public institutional.
It was verified with Staff that on-street parking was possible on both sides of the public streets. It would require action by the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Commission to preclude parking on one or both sides of the streets.
There was additional discussion about traffic calming possibilities, with Staff repeating their concern that the project not be limited at this time to specific kinds of calming devices without input from the City Engineer.
Vice-Chair Riordan asked if there was any evidence beyond Mr. Almon’s letter that traffic calming elements were needed to discourage cut-through traffic. Ms. Day said it was possible some travelers would try to make this movement, but it was difficult to predict how common this would be. This issue was not identified in the traffic study.
Comm. Ermeling asked if on-street parking areas would be used by people using the Rails to Trails path in the area. Staff said the connection to the recreational trail was designed for the residents of the area. Outside users would likely park and access the trail at larger gathering places (trail heads).
Staff recommended in response to questioning that conditions regarding traffic calming devices be placed on the Development Plan and not the plat, since this was a public improvement plan issue that did not change the right-of-way requirements.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Allen Belot spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting he had provided a revised site plan addressing several of the conditions listed in the Staff Report. He said a considerable amount of on-street parking had been included in the plan in response to neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Belot said he did not oppose traffic calming elements being added to the development because it was not the intent to create a path for cut-through traffic. He showed locations of stop signs proposed by the applicant to discourage cut through movements, and it was noted by Staff that the placement of these signs would be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer because these were public streets. Mr. Belot added that calming devices must not impede the travel of emergency vehicles.
Comm. Burress asked how the applicant felt about the section of fencing recommended by Staff in response to concerns from Mr. Weeks. Mr. Belot replied that the applicant strongly objected to this requirement. He showed that there was 190’ of thick vegetation between the subject property and Mr. Weeks’ home along that property line. Mr. Belot said requiring a fence was illogical if one looked into the future of how the entire area would develop once/if the Weeks property were someday incorporated.
Mr. Belot said the applicant had one minor request that the condition requiring Oliver’s Trail be renamed Oliver’s Court be removed. He explained the street names were chosen to tie into the area’s history, and the term “trail” was considered more historic than “court”. Ms. Day responded to questioning that the terms “trail” and “court” designated specific kinds of roads (those that go through and those that do not). It was acknowledged that this convention was not applied with 100% consistency.
PUBLIC HEARING – on items 9C & 9D only
No member of the public spoke on these items.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Angino expressed concern about safety related to specific types of calming devices.
Comm. Burress said the applicant made a good argument for not requiring the fence. He said it was not unreasonable for Mr. Weeks to make the request, but the request did not have to be granted. He said the only reason for granting the request would be in order to compensate Mr. Weeks for creating a negative impact on his property, and Comm. Burress did not think that was the case here.
Comm. Burress spoke about the request that through traffic be disallowed on Tappen Way. He said the only persons harmed by traffic in that location would be the residents of that lot, and they would be aware of the situation when they bought the property. He was also concerned about cutting off or hampering emergency vehicle access.
Comm. Burress said he did not see an overwhelming need for traffic calming elements, but he could see the positive benefits to their placement and he would not object to their addition.
Comm. Burress said he had never understood the convention behind the naming of streets and he had no objection to allowing the name Oliver’s Trail to stand.
Comm. Haase said the requested variance was “clearly prohibited” by the required criteria and it did create the problem of potential cut through traffic. However, he would support the variance because he thought this was a beneficial design. He asked that the Commission consider how to rewrite the variance criteria to take this situation into account, because denial in this case “does not create undue hardship in any way.”
Comm. Lawson said he concurred that common sense should prevail in the consideration of variances. He stated his surprise at how dense the vegetation was between the subject property and Mr. Week’s property and agreed that the need for fencing was questionable.
Mr. Lawson said he was aware of the street naming principles and found them useful when applied correctly. There was discussion about the importance of following such conventions. Staff pointed out that street names were under the final authority of the City Traffic Engineer and it was likely he would make the change suggested by Staff if the Commission did not.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Item 9A
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan Addition as presented by Staff.
Motioned by Comm. Ermeling, seconded by Comm. Burress to amend the motion on the floor to strike condition 2.
Motion failed to carry, 3-6, with Comm.’s Ermeling, Burress and Riordan voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Krebs and Lawson voted in opposition. Student Comm. Brown voted in favor.
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Plat for Hanscom-Tappan Addition and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9B
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Riordan to approve the Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report and the additional condition as drafted by Staff regarding the investigation of traffic calming options.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Lawson asked why condition 7 regarding architectural style was included. Staff said this arose from neighborhood concern about compatibility of housing design. It was noted that this was taken care of by the site plan already submitted.
The wording of the added condition was revised to make it clear that the intent was to determine if any traffic calming devices were needed and, if so, what kind. It did not specifically require the provision of any kind of calming devices at this time.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Final Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD, subject to the following re-revised conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to update general notes with the correct corresponding tracts, lot, and block numbers as shown on the Final Plat;
4. Provision of a revised landscape plan per staff approval prior to recording of the Final Development Plan to assure compatibility with the Final Plat requirements;
5. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following notes:
a. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained; and
b. Public improvement plans for the sanitary sewers, streets, storm drainage system and waterlines must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. These improvements must be constructed and complete prior to issuance of building permits. Add a note to the plan stating that building permits will not be issued until the required public improvements are complete, final inspected and accepted by the Public Works Department.
6. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to include the following note: Driveway approach shall be installed with construction of curb;
7. Provision of a revised Final Development Plan to add the following note to the “Conditions of Approval” as follows: “The architecture of the new structures shall be in conformance with the existing architectural character of the surrounding area as shown on the Face of the Final Development Plan.”;
8. Provision of sidewalk around bulb of cul-de-sacs to connect interior sidewalks with pedestrian path ways between Lots 11 and 12, Block 2 and Tract C, Block 1; and
9. Initiate discussion of traffic calming for streets within the entire subdivision with City Staff and determine what, if any, calming elements should be included with the submitted public improvement plans.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9C
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 1.903 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Approval of a preliminary development plan prior to the publication of a rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Item 9D
Waivers
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to questioning, Staff clarified that waiver approval was discretionary at the Planning Commission level as part of a PUD. Waivers allowed for an adjustment of development requirements to create compatible design.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the 2 waivers as requested, based on the desirability of compatible design between this project and the adjacent property.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Upon later discussion, it was discovered that the Staff Report did not consistently state the distance of the first waiver. A new motion was needed to clarify whether the Commission’s intent was to approve a side yard setback of 15’ or 5’.
It was also noted that the second waiver would not be needed if the Commission wished to remove the fencing requirement.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress and allowed with unanimous consent to reconsider the previous action regarding waivers.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Comm. Burress clarified his intent in the original motion that the side yard setback be reduced to 15’ and the first waiver be eliminated.
There was discussion that the applicant asked for a 5’ side yard setback because the lot was only 42’ wide and a 15’ setback would make the lot an unbuildable. Mr. Belot noted the wide-spread use of a 5’ side yard setback between residential uses in the development and the surrounding area. It was suggested that the intent of the side yard setback was to reduce the impact of adjacent development, which was not a concern here because of the excessive (190’) setback of the adjacent property and its dense vegetation.
Comm. Burress was allowed to re-modify the motion without objection. He asked that the side yard setback be reduced to 5’ and the second waiver be eliminated.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve a waiver to allow a reduction of the peripheral setback from 35’ to 5’ for Lot 3, Block 1 abutting the Weeks property.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Variance
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve a variance to allow the intersection of a local street (15th Street) with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue).
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress provided a possible case for hardship, pointing out that denying access to Haskell Avenue would result in a modified road configuration that would create a cul-de-sac longer than allowed by code.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve a variance to allow the intersection of a local street (15th Street) with an arterial street (Haskell Avenue).
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
Preliminary Development Plan
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Krebs, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Parnell Park PRD and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the following revised conditions:
6. Initiate discussion of traffic calming for streets within the entire subdivision with City Staff and determine what, if any, calming elements should be included with the submitted public improvement plans.
Motion carried unanimously, 9-0, with Student Comm. Brown voting in favor.
8:50 pm – The meeting was recessed to 5:30 p.m. on February 2, 2005 at the Lawrence Arts Center.
Meeting reconvened, February 3, 2005; 5:30 p.m.
Lawrence Arts Center, Theatre
_______________________________________________________________________
Commissioners Present: Haase, Jennings, Eichhorn, Erickson, Angino, Ermeling, Krebs, Lawson and Burress
Staff Present: Finger, Hauschild, Patterson, Day, Ahrens and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
Swearing in of witnesses
ITEM NO. 10: SOUTHEAST AREA PLAN (SLD)
Conduct a public hearing on the draft Southeast Area Plan. The plan generally includes the area bounded on the north by K10 (E. 23rd Street); on the west by O’Connell Road (E 1600 Road); on the east by Noria Road (E 1750 Road); and on the south by the Wakarusa River floodplain. The draft plan is available for viewing on or after 10-08-04 at the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Office and at the department’s website www.lawrenceplanning.org.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, noting the maps associated with the plan were available for the public to view at the back of the room. She said the plan, as presented, acknowledged existing industrial activity and the CPC’s understanding of the Commission’s will that additional industrial land be added.
Ms. Day explained the Southeast Area Plan was reactivated in 2003 in response to concerns raised regarding development proposals for the subject area. These concerns culminated with the development request for Farmland East and Farmland West. A portion of the Farmland West request was acted upon and the 55 cares involved in that action were deducted from the land use tables presented in the proposed area plan.
Staff described the boundaries of the planning area and pointed out the major transportation routes in the subject area. Ms. Day identified a map error showing Franklin Road extending to the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT). She stated there was no proposed connection for Franklin Road to the SLT.
Ms. Day said the land use recommendations of the proposed plan corresponded generally with those of HORIZON 2020, showing a portion of low density residential and a larger section of mixed industrial uses referred to as an Employment Center. The plan configured these areas based on the existing drainageway and the understood future SLT alignment. Some portion of the plan area was in Service Area 4 of the Urban Growth Area, while those areas with identified land uses were in Service Area 1.
Staff presented land use configurations that would be appropriate based on the impact of existing uses in and around the plan area. Ms. Day said much consideration had been given to need for and placement of a new elementary school based on how much of this area was dedicated to residential uses. Discussions between the Comprehensive Plans Committee (CPC) and the School Board officials had concluded that the USD 497 Board did not feel there were be enough population generated in this area to warrant the placement of a new school. Based on this discussion, the CPC did not designate a location for a new school within the study area.
Comm. Burress arrived at 5:45 p.m.
Staff referenced the connection of the drainageway into a 40-acre site designated as a future park. The city had acquired this park area in anticipation of greenspace needs for this end of the community. A joint park/school area was once considered a possibility, but there were currently no improvements planned for this parcel. It was noted that the School Board did not agree with some planning concerns that the close proximity of collector and arterial streets was a detriment to the placement of schools. The School Board viewed accessibility to the transportation network was an important benefit to a school.
Ms. Day referenced the substantial amount of land designated as an Employment Center, explaining that a definition for this land use was not yet written. The term as discussed by the CPC was meant to convey something similar to a business park or light industrial center. The Employment Center use was also intended to include some range of commercial and/or limited service uses for the employees of the center. One commercial center was shown at the O’Connell & 23rd Streets, with a smaller one proposed south of 25th Street.
There was extensive Commission discussion about developing a definition for the term Employment Center. Staff emphasized that this was a policy issue. As such, it was not appropriate to introduce as a new concept in a use-specific area plan. There was significant concern about dedication of a substantial portion of land to a land use that was not yet defined.
Staff was also concerned about the lack of appropriate land use transitions and described how the southern portion (east of Franklin Road) would be suitable for extending residential uses to the east. Staff could support such an extension of residential uses across Franklin Road, with the existing drainageway providing the physical separation transition between this area and higher-intensity land uses to the north.
Ms. Day said one resident of the Prairie Park neighborhood had expressed specific opposition to expansion of the existing industrial land. Other property owners had questioned Staff about the possibility of US Highway 59 realignment (along Franklin Road). Ms. Day said realignment of US Highway 59 was not suggested in this plan, nor was it recommended by Staff or by KDOT.
In response to questioning, Ms. Day estimated the number of dwelling units that could be constructed within the acreage of land designated by this plan for residential uses. Because density tended to range between 3-6 dwelling units per acre, total development density was estimated at 1300-2300 potential dwelling units with about 2600-4600 residents.
Also in response to questioning, Ms. Day said investigation of alternative uses for the land identified as future park land was included in the plan recommendations.
There was discussion about the traffic framework and its ability to handle the traffic generated by the amount of industrial land presented in this plan, which amount to about 60% of the overall area. Staff stated that it was planned that a diamond interchange would be installed at Franklin Road and E. 23rd Street. It was noted that KDOT had given no estimation of when, if ever, a southwest bypass (eastern leg of Highway K-10) would be constructed. Staff said this element (interchange of Franklin Road & K-10/23rd Street) could be added as a recommendation of the area plan, along with a directive to look for alternative funding mechanisms.
Staff estimated about 10 trips per day per household for single-family development, pointing out this would vary depending on specific housing type and how far the residential areas were from commercial centers. Staff was not prepared to make similar estimations for office uses, since trip generation varied greatly for that use.
Comm. Burress said he had spoken with several individuals about the Southeast Area Plan, and explained he did not consider this to be ex parte communications (which are precluded according to the Commission’s by-laws), because it did not involve a specific parcel. In these discussions, it had been suggested that the Commission wait to act on the Southeast Area Plan until the ECO2 committee had completed its studies. Ms. Day responded that Staff strongly encouraged the Commission to take action this evening on the area plan. She listed a number of studies and projects that were delayed until land use decisions were made for the subject area. She noted that the Commission was charged this evening with holding a public hearing on the proposed area plan.
Comm. Burress suggested that the plan, if approved, should be accompanied by a statement that elements in the plan were not to be automatically amended into HORIZON 2020, but they should be initiated for policy discussion. Among these issues he listed the development of a definition for the term Employment Center, the possible construction of a bridge across the Kaw (Kansas) River, and the potential for an SLT/Franklin Road interchange.
Until a policy discussion could be held regarding the definition of an Employment Center, Comm. Burress suggested replacing this term with the recognized and defined term(s) in HORIZON 2020, “Office/Research Office/Industrial”, along with a stipulated maximum density.
PUBLIC HEARING
Beth Ann Mansur explained that a task force had been formed between various neighborhoods, including East Lawrence, Brookcreek and Barker, to discuss the proposed area plan. She asked to relate general comments and concerns raised at the task force meetings, stressing that this was not to be construed as an official statement from any of the Neighborhood Associations.
Ms. Masur said the task force supported the idea of an Employment Center in concept, because:
Ms. Mansur said one individual in the task force had said he would prefer not to have industrial uses on the east side of Franklin Road and he saw housing as the “lesser evil” of use alternatives, although he would like to see the area dedicated to greenspace.
The Commission was asked to consider a number of ideas:
Ms. Mansur said the primary concern for many Brookcreek residents was the possibility of Franklin Road as the eastern connector, because this design would significantly increase traffic on Franklin Road to the north and into the neighborhood at 11th & 15th Streets. They asked that the major connector be designed for N900 Road, which already had a connection to Highway K10. Since this might not be good placement for the potential business park, the Broocreek residents asked for a guarantee that Franklin Road, as a major arterial, would not have exits at 11th or 15th Street.
Richard Heckler said he was asked to speak on behalf of Michael Sizemore, who could not attend tonight’s meeting. Mr. Sizemore’s biggest concern was the allowance of sprawling development and how to maintain the expanding infrastructure. As a resident of the Brookcreek neighborhood, Mr. Sizemore felt the area was already dealing with inadequate storm sewers and roads, and older schools were ill-maintained while there was talk of building new ones.
Mr. Heckler conveyed Mr. Sizemore’s support of the League of Women Voters’ position of new development, as well as LEES certification.
Mike Capra discussed why the area was suitable for affordable housing and asked the Commission to answer at this time his question about where affordable housing should go if so much of the southeast area were dedicated to industrial uses. Comm. Burress responded by expressing his opposition to the term “affordable housing”, saying that “all houses are affordable to someone”. He asked Mr. Capra to define what he meant in his use of the term “affordable”. Chairman Haase asked that the speaker complete his statement before the Commission became involved in a question and answer session.
Mr. Capra said he would like to know which member of the Commission was passing around the false statement that US Highway 59 would someday pass through the area known as the Kitsmiller property.
Mr. Capra stated that the entire area should be dedicated to residential uses, and that a buffer could be created with a bicycle trail.
Mr. Capra expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should have “no say whatsoever” regarding projects that met the standards of HORIZON 2020. He felt there should be no discussion of projects that met the guidelines and suggested that the Planning Commission was “on a power trip”, evidenced by their tendency to place additional conditions on many projects.
Chairman Haase informed Mr. Capra that his three minutes of public speaking time had elapsed. Mr. Capra said his speaking time limits were nullified by Comm. Burress asking a question previously.
There was discussion that the Commission should not make it seem that they are not available for questions. Chairman Haase stated that the public was welcome to pose questions in writing at anytime before the communications deadline. He said it was appropriate for a speaker to “leave” questions with the Commission as part of his/her presentation, but should not expect an immediate response. Discussion of speaker questions was appropriate during the Commission Discussion portion of the hearing. Chairman Haase said it was not the point of the public hearing for speakers to “interrogate” the Commission and this kind of questioning was never appropriate.
Danny Drungilas, President of the Prairie Park Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood would like to make it clear that they would oppose any plan to bring US Highway 59 up Franklin Road. They acknowledged the intent for an interchange at US Highway K10, but they would like this to remain at Noria Road. The association was encouraged by the fact that KDOT said no funding was available for such a change.
Mr. Drungilas said the Prairie Park residents would like to see the Kitsmiller property designated for residential uses. They would be amenable to the proposed light industrial or business park use if they could be guaranteed that this use would not change. The association was concerned that, if the land lay vacant for several years, the city would become lax in their standards and allow a more intense use to take over the area.
It was discussed that Highway K10 was currently aligned along 23rd Street, but may someday re-align with the SLT. It was clarified that, if this occurred, this was the 59/K10 interchange opposed by the neighborhood association.
John McGrew spoke as a partner in Bluejacket Ford LLC, the contract holders for the Kitsmiller property. He stated his agreement that the city needed an optimum amount of industrial land in the right place. He referenced Comm. Burress’ concerns about the term “affordable housing”, and said this area was suitable for “more affordable” homes. Mr. McGrew said the private sector was typically unable to support the lower strata housing projects without significant subsidies.
Mr. McGrew discussed in response to questions the estimated cost of one of the units the developer hoped to build on the Kitsmiller property (~$135,000), the average monthly payment (~$975) and the probable necessary annual household income (~$41,000).
Bill Newsome spoke as a partner in Eastside Acquisitions, applicants in the Fairfield Farms project (A.K.A. Farmland NE and Farmland NW located at O’Connell Road and 23rd Street). Mr. Newsome said he spoke before the Commission in the fall of 2003 in support of the land configuration then known as Option 2, and he still stood behind those comments. Mr. Newsome said the Commission chose Option 1 in 2003 and that was the land use pattern being considered tonight. Although his partnership did not feel this was a “perfect plan”, Mr. Newsome said no one could say the issue had not been given thorough review and the partnership would like to see the process move forward.
Mr. Newsome pointed out that approval of the Southeast Area Plan was only the first step in a long process for developing the subject area. The Preliminary Plat application for Fairfield Farms had been on hold since May 2003, waiting for an action on the area plan. Mr. Newsome said it was fair and reasonable for the stakeholders in the project to expect the Commission to move forward in approving the area plan so the development process could proceed.
In response to questioning, Mr. Newsom showed the area contained in the Fairfield Farms plat and explained that the proposed plat was consistent with the land use recommendations in either Option 1 or Option 2.
Steve Glass, LRM Industries and PDO Investors, said both of the partnerships held substantial tracts within the southeast area. He said their land was already zoned and platted, but he wished to comment on their experience with industrial development related to Franklin Business Park.
Mr. Glass said he and the other investors had no desire to do another industrial development, because it was too costly and parcels stood vacant for too long. He said only 3 of the 12 lots in the Franklin Business Park were occupied, and designating any additional land in the southeast area as industrial was tantamount to saying the area would not develop for a long time. He said if this was the city’s intent, they should simply leave the land without a designation and let other areas develop with residential uses.
Mr. Glass said it was not economically feasible for the private sector to do industrial development in Lawrence, because providing infrastructure and holding the land for long periods of time was too costly. He responded to questioning that he thought it unlikely that any other parties would try to develop additional industrial land in the southeast area. If any new industrial projects were to be proposed, the Farmland property on the north side of E. 23rd Street would provide the best transportation opportunities.
Mr. Glass asked if any thought had been given to where the children in the new residential development already approved within the plan area would go to school, since the Prairie Park Elementary School was at or near capacity. He said he understood the School District had stated they did not intent to build a new school in this area and would shift their boundary lines to accommodate new students, but he also knew that intentions could change in time.
Mr. Glass suggested an alternate north-south dividing line directly south of Franklin Road, with residential uses to the south and industrial/business uses to the north.
Mr. Glass responded to questioning that it was important for the city to maintain an inventory of industrial land in a variety of sizes and locations. He said that visibility, not price, was the biggest barrier to selling industrial land. He explained it was difficult to sell industrial lots that were hard to see from the transportation network.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
Betty Lichtwardt explained she was not speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters because their Land Use Committee had not been able to reach a decision about the proposed Southeast Area Plan. She said this was because there were too many unresolved issues with the proposed plan, such as the location of a north-south bypass and the combination and pattern of potential land uses.
Ms. Lichtwardt expressed concern that heavy industrial uses close to the highway would isolate the area unless Franklin Road became a major arterial because it would not connect to the SLT.
Ms. Lichtwardt commented that Noria Road had been planned for years as a location for crossing the Kaw River.
Public Hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase outlined the possible actions that could be taken this evening. One of these was attempting to refine the plan and approving in what the Commission hoped would be its final form. He suggested this was not a realistic expectation and said he hoped the Commission would approve some form of the plan tonight and forward additional concerns or comments to Staff within the next 10 days. It was noted that the City and County Commissions had requested a meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Southeast Area Plan after the Planning Commission took action on the plan.
Comm. Burress said there were a number of changes the Commission could not draft final language for at this meeting. He suggested Staff could draft such language before the joint meeting if it was settled that the Planning Commission was in general agreement about the changes.
Comm. Angino said he could not support the plan in its current configuration for multiple reasons:
Comm. Angino said he liked the north-south division of land uses proposed by Mr. Glass. He proposed deferring action on the plan or including the changes discussed as part of the approval.
Comm. Burress asked Staff to comment on the suggestion that the major arterial crossing the Kaw River be moved from Noria Road to Franklin Road. Mr. Ahrens said that possibility had not been studied. It might be feasible but would require additional study with the Transportation 2025 update. He said both alignments involved building a road that does not exist across the river and through wide sections of the floodplain. It was noted that an alignment east of Franklin Road would be more challenging and costly because it would cross more floodplain and require the elevation of more roadway.
Lynne Parman, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, responded to a number of questions from the Commission:
Comm. Burress made a number of comments:
Comm. Jennings’ comments were as follows:
· The Sign Code will allow only 90 square feet of signage, which is not realistically effective in this location or for these uses.
· KDOT officials have stated before that building a bridge across the Kaw River is going to be costly and complicated because of the surrounding floodplain. They have no time horizon for it.
· The School Board is looking at building larger schools, rather than smaller, neighborhood-centralized schools like the ones being discussed by the Planning Commission.
· The city needs to encourage local employees to be local residents. He hoped the proposed businesses would pay enough to allow workers to live in the proposed homes.
· He was skeptical about Highway K10 becoming a viable transportation corridor for heavy truck traffic going south or west.
· He was also skeptical about a heavy industrial use moving into the subject area, because he did not think this kind of use could “make it through the process”.
· An existing office research park (Oread West) was developed even though “experts stood here and told us it was not sellable.” That park is located in a more suitable location than this area, but it is being filled in with residential uses.
· He opposed the plan but was in the minority of the CPC. He would support more residential uses for the plan area.
Comm. Ermeling spoke:
Comm. Angino said he could not support the plan in its current form and asked about the best process for making changes to the proposal.
Comm. Eichhorn made several points:
Comm. Erickson suggested that additional residential development would be more detrimental than industrial uses, based on the potential trip generation and the school issue.
Comm. Lawson said he had heard no convincing reason why the Commission should approve this large amount of land for industrial/employment uses. He agreed with Comm. Jennings logic that this amount of this kind of use would not be successful in this location.
Comm. Jennings commented that those willing to spend their own money providing infrastructure and developing the area favored residential uses. With extensive industrial land as proposed, no developers were interested in the area and the city would need extensive tax dollars to finance infrastructure when the land mights stand vacant for many years.
Staff responded to questions about the process from this point. The City and County Commissions had requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission after the Planning Commission took action but before the item appeared on the City/County agendas.
Chairman Haase said a meeting was also scheduled by the County Commission for February 28th to discuss and reconcile the Southeast Area Plan with the County access regulations and the recommendations of ECO2. Comm. Angino expressed frustration that these were public meetings but only some members of the Commission were invited to attend, and they (the Planning Commission) were not given an opportunity to take an active part in the discussion.
It was verified that the County Commission had expressed real interest in the plan moving forward tonight.
Comm. Angino asked about modifying the plan according to the public recommendation for a north-south dividing line with residential uses to the south. He suggested N1200 Road as the dividing line. Chairman Haase said he would oppose this configuration because there were too many unanswered questions. Among these questions were:
Chairman Haase suggested the issue had not been studied well and expressed concern that Lawrence would become a ‘bedroom community’ if it did not provide a number of jobs equal to or greater than its growth rate. He said he would submit a list of issues that needed more study, but in the meantime he would be comfortable supporting a plan that was in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that the current configuration of the area plan met this criteria.
Chairman Haase said he had no information on whether the plan area would be suitable for residential development, but he was confident this would be a great location for any use relying on transportation. He commented that the city would soon have a new wastewater treatment plant directly south of the plan area, which would gravity-serve a huge area further south. He believed this indicated a large amount of residential development south of the Wakarusa River and suggested the city plan for the logical realities of the future. One of these realities, in his opinion, was the need for a major arterial road in this area.
Comm. Angino said he would prefer an increase in the types of vehicles associated with residential development than the semi-trucks brought with industrial and business uses. He added that cut-through traffic of regular cars would increase if the major raods were taken up by additional truck traffic.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval in the configuration presented, with the following changes:
· Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;
· Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;
· Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard
· Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;
· Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;
· Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and
· Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in the Comprehensive Plan, Office/Office Research & Industrial.
After discussion, the motion was modified without objection to include the ‘triangle’ of land east of Franklin Road for residential use as proposed by Staff.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Comm. Burress said he would accept the change to the motion even though he felt it was difficult to justify the “dab of residential [land]” being added, because providing moderate-income housing was an important goal.
Comm. Eichhorn said he would oppose the motion because he felt the plan, even as modified, did not include enough residential land.
ACTIONS TAKEN
Revised motion on the floor was to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval in the configuration shown with the following modifications:
· Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;
· Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;
· Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard
· Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;
· Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;
· Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and
· Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in the Comprehensive Plan, Office/Office Research & Industrial.
· Designation of residential land uses for the triangle of land east of Franklin Road identified by Staff.
Motion failed, 3-6, with Comm.’s Burress, Ermeling and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Lawson to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, with the following modification to the land use configuration:
Motion failed, 4-5, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voting in favor. Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voted in opposition.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Haase stated his personal preference for approving the plan as presented, while including in the record a number of elements for further study and possible amendment into the plan at a later date. Among these elements he included Comm. Burress’ list of concerns and suggestions and encouraged the Commissioners to forward additional comments to Staff. Comm. Ermeling said this suggestion seemed to “address all the neighborhood concerns.”
Chairman Haase said he was unconvinced that residential uses were suitable east of Franklin Road. He recognized that, in Staff’s opinion, it was not appropriate to develop Franklin Road as a land use separator. However, he felt the road would “serve this purpose admirably if done right.”
Comm. Jennings noted the previous reference in Commission discussion to a “dab of residential” east of Franklin Road. He pointed out that this was a parcel of significant size that would accommodate roughly 800 homes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to approve the Southeast Area Plan and forward it to the City Commission and Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with the land configuration shown and with the following modifications:
· Addition of language about financing public infrastructure;
· Addition of language stating that design standards will be developed to ensure the Employment Center has a “campus” look;
· Franklin Road shall be designed as a multi-modal transportation boulevard
· Development of a plan for constructing a bridge across the Kaw River;
· Addition of language about connectivity to I-70 and the statement that timing is a high priority issue;
· Addition of signage on Highway K10 to address visibility concerns for businesses in the subject area; and
· Replacement of all references to the undefined term Employment Center to the term(s) defined in HORIZON 2020, “Office/Office Research & Industrial”.
Motion carried 5-4, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Jennings and Lawson voted in opposition.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Chairman Haase repeated his encouragement that the Commissioner’s send additional comments and concerns to Staff.
Chairman Haase called a 5-minute recess, during which Comm. Lawson left. During the break, Staff was asked to convey a request to defer Items 12 and 13. These requests were approved after the meeting convened. The Commission then took up the remaining agenda Items, 11A & 11B.
Meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
ITEM NO. 11A: M-1 TO PRD-2; 8.24 ACRES; 4500 W. BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY (PGP/SMS)
Z-12-53-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 8.24 acres from M-1 (Research Industrial) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development) District. The property is described as 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Bella Sera Development, L.L.C., property owner of record.
ITEM NO. 11B: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BELLA SERA AT THE PRESERVE; 4500 W. BOB BILLINGS PARKWAY (PGP/SMS)
PDP-12-14-04: Preliminary Development Plan request for Bella Sera at the Preserve. This proposed planned residential development contains 99 units and is approximately 8.24 acres. The property is described as being located at 4500 West Bob Billings Parkway. Submitted by BG Consultants, Inc., for Bella Sera Development, L.L.C., property owner of record.
Items 11A & 11B were discussed simultaneously.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the items, explaining the rezoning request would allow a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. He said the applicant was requesting approval of a development plan with 14.2 units per acre.
In response to Study Session questions, Mr. Patterson said about 108 acres of undeveloped land remained of the land zoned for M-1 uses in the Oread Research Park. It was verified that this amount did not include the acreage from the subject request.
Staff recommended approval of both requests with conditions listed in the Staff Reports, including the stipulation of a maximum density of 14.2 units per acre.
Mr. Patterson explained the project involved three condominium buildings to be built in three phases, beginning on the western edge of the subject property. He described the elements of each building, including the number of bedrooms and the amount and location of parking. Mr. Patterson noted that the project provided significantly more common open space than was required and pointed out the steep slopes in the southern section of the property.
Staff commented on the number of stories in each building and the comparative heights of the existing buildings in the surrounding area. In response to questions, Mr. Patterson said HORIZON 2020 provided some guidance about building height, but building height in PRD’s could be modified according to the Planning Commission’s discretion.
Access for each building was shown, including the shared access between the westernmost building and the existing police facility. This shared access would require approval of a periphery setback waiver from 35’ to 0’ along the portions of the parking area along the west property line. A second waiver was needed to reduce the periphery setback along the southern property line to accommodate proposed entryway features.
Chairman Haase asked Staff to provide specific justification for the requested waivers. Mr. Patterson said the first waiver was justified because it allowed the property to share an existing access point to easily accessible parking. The second waiver was justified because it would allow for the provision of the entryway features proposed as part of the development plan.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Jes Santaularia, Managing Member of Diversified Concepts LLC, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He introduced other members of the management team for this project, which he said was just as important to their group as the Southeast Area Plan was to other individuals.
Mr. Santaularia described the surrounding area, noting the location of drainage and utility easements. He said the Commission’s previous discussion about industrial land uses had been interesting because this area had been zoned industrially for several years, but had not been developed because it faced issues (specifically topography) that made industrial development especially challenging. Mr. Santaularia spoke about working with Staff to overcome some of these issues for this project while meeting the city’s regulations. He noted many design elements of the project:
Mr. Santaulauria said this development would have little impact on the existing road system, but would make a “large annual contribution to the tax coffers”. He referenced a recent newspaper article about the city’s intent to study the cost of development and said this project would reduce these costs because roads and infrastructure were already in place.
Cecil Kingsley, BG Consultants, agreed that the topography of the site was challenging, but held no unforeseen development issues. He said the site had been researched thoroughly and the developer clearly understood the underlying materials and what this would require for building purposes.
Rich Kaplan explained his company had provided several market studies in the Lawrence area, and said this project incorporated many planning and development principles from the concepts of SmartGrowth and New Urbanism. He outlined some of these principles, which he said gave people more new choices about where and how they wanted to live:
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt said the Land Use Committee of the League of Women Voters had considered the application but had no formal position on the request. She expressed her personal concern that this proposal would reduce the inventory of industrially-zoned land. She understood Staff did not consider the reduction contrary to the comprehensive plan because of the small amount of land involved, but was concerned that piecemeal reduction of industrial areas would add up over time. She said this issue was not given adequate attention in the Staff Report.
Ms. Lichtwardt said there was additional concern about the predictability of PRD zoning and that the zoning would stand even if this development plan were abandoned. She asked the Commission to consider applying conditions to the zoning, not just the development plan.
Ms. Lichtwardt was also concerned that the first phase involved constructing the tallest building in the development. She asked what would happen to the remainder of the property if the project were discontinued after construction of only one building. She suggested the developer begin at the eastern edge of the property with the shortest building.
Ms. Lichtwardt referenced the proposed benefit district and said the developer should bear the full cost of that street light and geometric improvement, since it was this development that made these improvements necessary.
Ms. Lichtwardt said her final concern was that this would be the tallest building in the viewscape and would become a landmark in consequence.
In response to questioning, Ms. Lichtwardt explained she would like conditions applied to the zoning that would ensure that, if this development plan were abandoned, a new development plan for the same property would have to conform to the same density and building types. She said the Commission did not typically remember they had the ability to do this.
Ms. Lichtwardt said she did not know the heights of any other buildings in the area, but she believed that no other structures were close in height to the proposed Phase One building.
Wally Emerson, area resident, echoed the concerns of the previous speaker. He made several additional comments:
The Commission discussed the height of various area buildings, establishing that no one present could recall the exact height of these structures.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Santaulauria said he would respond to specific comments from the public at the Commission’s request. Regarding the height of the building in Phase One, he said top of the atrium would be approximately 1’ below the 1036’ power poles bordering the eastern edge of the property. The bulk of the building would be well below this height.
Mr. Santaulauria referenced the letter of support from Mike McGrew, whose family held the nearby land preserve. It was suggested that the proposal was the best use for the subject property and more desirable than any potential industrial use.
Mike Edmonson, who had developed many homes on the property adjacent to the east, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the project. He said it was often difficult for neighbors to accept change, and that he hoped to live in this area as well.
The applicant’s representatives estimated the sale price of the units in this project between $200,000 - $700,000.
It was discussed that the neighbors would like the shortest building, the one along the eastern property line, constructed first. The applicant said this was not possible because the tallest, western building would be located at the main entrance and would contain many of the amenities for the entire development. This location was chosen for the tallest building because it was the largest flat portion of the property and judged to be the best place for the development’s common areas.
The applicant’s representatives expressed no opposition to the addition of conditions to the rezoning.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
In response to comments from the public, Staff said it was possible to apply some of the additional conditions discussed to the rezoning. However, it was Staff’s opinion that the conditions provided in the Staff Report provided adequate protection for the neighborhood and no additional conditions were needed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Finger responded to specific questioning that, with the conditions in the Staff Report, the Commission would retain the same leverage for considering a future (replacement) development plan as they would with any new PRD request. Comm. Burress said he believed the Commission had been advised differently in the past. He asked about applying conditions to restrict building height. He pointing out that projects facing limited buildable area due to their topography had to build higher while staying within their density restrictions. He suggested conditioning the zoning to a specific building height so that no future PRD for this property could build any higher than proposed by the current development plan. If this plan was not constructed, the property should revert to M-1 zoning.
Staff explained that it was not possible to create a situation where zoning would “revert automatically” if the PRD were abandoned. Since rezonings were published as an ordinance, it required another public hearing, action and publication of another ordinance to change the zoning again.
Comm. Eichhorn was concerned about placing additional conditions on this rezoning, asking if the Commission intended to do the same for all rezonings.
Comm. Burress said he would like at least one additional condition placed on the rezoning to limit building height to no more than 1035’ above sea level.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 11A
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve the rezoning of 8.24 acres from M-1 to PRD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following revised conditions:
1. Maximum of 14.2 dwelling units per net residential acre;
2. Maximum building height of 1035’ above sea level; and
3. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested that this plan had many elements that would be difficult to recreate if another development plan were to come forward in the future.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Krebs to add another condition to the motion limiting buildable area to the square footage shown on the current Preliminary Development Plan [PDP-12-14-04].
Motion to amend carried 5-3, with Comm.’s Burress, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Krebs voting in favor. Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn and Jennings voted in opposition.
Motion on the floor was to approve the rezoning of 8.24 acres from M-1 to PRD-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following re-revised conditions:
1. Maximum of 14.2 dwelling units per net residential acre;
2. Maximum building height of 1035’ above sea level;
3. Buildable area is restricted to the total square footage shown in PDP-12-14-04; and
4. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Item 11B
Motioned by Comm. Eichhorn, seconded by Comm. Angino to approve two waivers as presented:
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for Bella Sera at the Preserves 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:
a. Modify the density calculation to show the 99 dwelling units and 14.2 dwelling units per Net Residential Acre.
2. Provision of the following notes on the face of the Development Plan:
a. “Public improvement plans will be submitted to Public Works before the Final Development Plan is filed at the Register of Deeds;”
b. “We hereby dedicate to the City of Lawrence the right to regulate any construction over the area designated as common open space, open air recreation area, and non-encroachable area and to prohibit any construction within said areas and spaces inconsistent with the approved use or enjoyment of residents, lessees and owner of the Planned Unit Development.” (Per Section 20-1010(b)(18);
c. “The maximum residential density will be 14.2 Dwelling Units per Net Residential Acre” and
d. Include a statement as to the form of ownership proposed to own and maintain the common open space, recreation facilities, non-encroachable area and any other area within the area proposed to be developed that is to be retained primarily for the exclusive use and benefit of the residents, lessee and owners of the Planned Unit Development. (Per Section 20-1010(b)(16).
3. Provision of the following requirements of the Stormwater Engineer:
a. Revise the east entrance to prevent site stormwater discharge into Bob Billings Parkway;
b. Provide a DE (through replat or separate instrument) for the stream channel along the east boundary. In lieu of hydraulic calculations, provide this DE to enclose the 904 contour;
c. Show all on-site storm sewer pipes, structures, discharge points and scour protection; and
d. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be submitted and approved for this project prior to any construction activity, including soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, and any release of building permits.
4. Within 15 days after approval of the Preliminary Development Plan by the City Commission, the landowner shall file with the Douglas County Register of Deeds a statement concerning the Preliminary Development Plan per Section 20-1012; and
5. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for Traffic Signal and Geometric Improvements to Bob Billings Parkway and Inverness Drive.
Motion carried unanimously, 8-0.
The Commission moved at this point to the end of the agenda.
ITEM NO. 12: RM-1 TO O-1; 2.69 ACRES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE & HARVARD ROAD (PGP)
Z-12-55-04: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.69 acres from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to O-1 (Office) District. The property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Harvard Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Mustard Seed Christian Fellowship, property owners of record.
Items 12 & 13 were considered after the break that followed Item 10.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff conveyed to the Commission the applicant’s request that they consider deferral of this item for one month. The applicant felt the Commission was “tested” by the long hours and the environment of the room (which was not the usual meeting place), and asked that the item be taken up when the Commission was better able to think clearly about the issue.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Eichhorn to defer the item to the February 2005 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
ITEM NO. 13: AMENDMENT TO HORIZON 2020 – CHAPTER 7 (WBH)
CPA-2004-02: Amendment to Horizon 2020 to update Chapter 7 (Industrial and Employment-related Land Use).
Items 12 & 13 were considered after the break that followed Item 10.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff conveyed to the Commission the request from several members of the public that this item be deferred to the February meeting. Staff responded to questioning that may create a “time crunch” for the Commission, because the Development Code would also be coming back before them in February. It was noted that the February and March agendas were already lengthy.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Angino, seconded by Comm. Krebs to defer the Item to the February 2005 meeting.
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm.’s Angino, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Jennings and Krebs voting in favor. Comm. Burress voted in opposition.
The Commission considered Item 11 at this time.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Commission agreed to schedule a special meeting on March 9, 2005 to hold a public hearing on the Land Development Code that was returning to them from the City Commission. It was noted that the City Commission wanted to meet jointly with the Planning Commission before that public hearing. A joint session with the City Commission, County Commission and Planning Commission needed to be scheduled for late February/early March as well.
ADJOURN – 10:35 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.