Planning Commission Agenda Meeting
Meeting Minutes
______________________________________________________________________
July 25, 2005 – 7:10 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Lawson, Riordan and Student Commissioner Wright
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Pool, Miller and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Lawson to approve the June 2005 minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright also voting in favor.
Community Design Committee: The newly-formed committee held an organizational meeting and would soon begin working on goal projections.
City/County Zoning Committee: This newly-formed committee has not yet met, but includes Commissioners Ermeling, Erickson and Krebs. Representatives from Eudora, Lecompton and Baldwin City have also been asked to take part.
Rural Planning Committee: Riordan formally announced that this committee was disbanded, having completed their intended task.
Parks & Recreation Committee: This committee was also formally disbanded after completing their duties.
Transportation 2025 Update Committee: This new committee has not met yet but includes Haase and Harris.
Comprehensive Plans Committee: Membership of this committee has been revised to include members of the public, as well as to add Haase and Eichhorn. The Committee met to complete their review of the Transportation chapter of HORIZON 2020 and continue work on the Industrial chapter.
Mid-Month: The meeting began with an update form Staff on the K-10 Corridor Study findings. Then representatives from Eudora, Lecompton and Baldwin City joined the meeting to discuss rural development issues, most importantly the Rural Development Chapter proposed for HORIZON 2020.
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 3: Final Development Plan for Hutton Farms West
Item 6: Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition
Item 7C: Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition;
· Letter from Fred DeVictor, Director of Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department, expressing opposition to any new pedestrian easements to the area and recommending restricting access to Mary’s Lake to the current parking and trail entrance at Harper Street and E. 28th Street Terrace.
· Letter from Alan Mackey, on behalf of the applicant, requesting a one month deferral to allow the City to further investigate the sanitary sewer issue for this development.
Misc. Item 3: Request for Concurrent Submission for School District Rezonings
Misc. Item 4: Initiation of North Lawrence Rezoning
Item 9: Rezoning 34.35 acres A to B-2
Item 10B: Rezoning 11.165 acres A TO RM-1
Item 11: Rezoning 26.711 acres RS-2 to RM-D
· No ex parte communications were disclosed.
· Haase indicated he would abstain from Items 4A & 4B.
· Items 3 & 7C were deferred without objection.
· Items 4A & 4B were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 1: FINAL PLAT FOR FAMILY VIDEO MOVIE CLUB ADDITION; 1818 MASSACHUSETTS (LAP)
PF-06-22-05: Final Plat for Family Video Movie Club Addition, a Replat of Lots 11 & 12 and the north 50 feet of lot 22 & all of lots 23 & 24, Block 16, Babcock’s Enlarged Addition. The property is generally described as being located at 1818 Massachusetts. This proposed one-lot commercial subdivision contains approximately 1.004 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Family Video, contract purchaser, and First National Bank of Lawrence, property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for Family Video Movie Club Addition 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. A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.
c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.
d. Filed copies of the cross access and utility easements.
2. A Temporary Utility Agreement.
3. Revision of the final plat to include the following:
a. Reference of Book and Page numbers for the cross access and utility easements.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0 as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Wright also voted in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HOUT PROPERTY; NORTH OF N 1000 ROAD AND WEST OF E 1500 ROAD (SLD)
PP-06-11-05: Preliminary Plat for Hout Property. The property is generally described as being located north of N 1000 Road and west of E 1500 Road. This proposed one-lot suburban residential subdivision contains approximately six acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Jeffrey and Jaclyn Hout, property owners of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hout Property, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, as part of the Consent Agenda. Student Commissioner Wright also voted in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 3: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HUTTON FARMS WEST; NORTH OF PETERSON ROAD, EAST OF MONTEREY WAY (EXTENDED) (SLD)
FDP-06-07-05: Final Development Plan request for Hutton Farms West. This proposed single-family and multiple-family residential development contains approximately 38.423 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, L.L.C., for North Forty L.C., property owner of record.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 3 was deferred with unanimous consent to the August 2005 agenda.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 4A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAWRENCE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION NO. 2; 2501 PRINCETON BLVD. (SLD)
PP-06-13-05: Preliminary Plat for Lawrence Country Club Addition No. 2. The property is generally described as being located at 2501 Princeton Blvd. This proposed one-lot subdivision contains approximately 0.957 acre. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Lawrence Country Club, property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 4B: FINAL PLAT FOR LAWRENCE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION NO 2;2501 PRINCETON BLVD (SLD)
PF-06-23-05: Final Plat for Lawrence Country Club Addition No. 2, a final plat of a portion of the Lawrence Country Club Golf Course and the right-of-way for Yorkshire Drive south of Princeton Boulevard. The property is generally described as being located at 2501 Princeton Blvd. This proposed one-lot subdivision contains approximately 0.957 acre. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Lawrence Country Club, property owner of record.
Items 4A & 4B were discussed simultaneously. Haase was recused.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day showed the overall boundaries of the entire golf course, identifying the subject property where the applicant proposed construction of a new building for irrigation. The bathrooms included in the original plan had been removed, so the building was now small enough to be constructed without obtaining a building permit.
Ms. Day showed how the boundaries of the request followed the line of Yorkshire Drive if it were extended.
The Commission noted that the new lot was flag-shaped and asked how redevelopment would occur if the golf course use were eliminated. Staff explained the restrictions on the current plat that no residential development could take place on the new lot and no driveway access could be provided to serve it. The property owner would have to submit a revised plan showing interior circulation and access if another use were requested sometime in the future.
Burress stated for the record that, for this application, Legal Staff had determined the Planning Commission was able to place the noted restriction against residential uses. He (Burress) had asked Staff to provide at a later date some clarification from the Legal Department regarding the Commission’s ability to place use restrictions on a plat.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Selk spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying the applicant would like to “fast-track” this application because golf course improvements were scheduled for October. He said the new pump house would allow for irrigation without relying on City water, and that a sizeable detention structure would be constructed next to the pump house.
Selk explained the new pump house and detention basin created a minor liability, so a new limited liability corporation had been formed to isolate liability. Burress expressed concern about this arrangement, but Selk said the attorney who drafted the agreement was not available for tonight’s meeting.
Selk verified several points for the Commission:
Staff clarified that the condition related to street trees applied to trees on public streets and was a common note on plats. Typically, the applicant was responsible for planting trees along the public right-of-way unless they entered a separate agreement with the Parks Department. In single-family development the trees were planted by the City and fees collected from the property owner. This case was unusual, and the note gave the City the right to be on the subject property for the purpose of planting street trees.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress said he was concerned on two points. First, the plat created a flag-shaped lot, which the Commission typically discouraged. He said this might be acceptable in this case because of the residential use restriction. Secondly, Burress questioned the apparent use of the plat to limit liability in case the pump failed and caused significant damage.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 4A
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Lawrence County Club Addition No.2, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report.
Motion carried 6-0-1, with Haase abstaining and Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Item 4B
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Final Plat for Lawrence Country Club Addition No.2 and forward it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of public improvement plans for all public improvements per approval of the Public Works;
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
3. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. 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 6-0-1, with Haase abstaining and Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 5A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MOON SUBDIVISION; 832 MAPLE STREET (PGP)
PP-06-14-05: Preliminary Plat for Moon Subdivision. The property is generally described as being located at 832 Maple Street. This proposed four-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.817 acres. Submitted by BG Consultants for JMC Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 5B: FINAL PLAT FOR MOON SUBDIVISION, A REPLAT OF LOT 6 NORTH LAWRENCE ADDITION NO 11; 832 MAPLE STREET (PGP)
PF-06-24-05: Final Plat for Moon Subdivision, a replat of Lot 6, North Lawrence Addition No. 11. The property is generally described as being located at 832 Maple Street. This proposed four-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 0.817 acres. Submitted by BG Consultants for JMC Construction, Inc., property owner of record.
Items 5A & 5B were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 6: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CYPRESS PARK ADDITION; 1801 LEARNARD AVENUE (PGP)
PP-06-15-05: Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition. The property is generally described as being located at 1801 Learnard Avenue. This proposed five-lot single-family residential subdivision contains approximately 2.229 acres. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Steve Standing, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson explained the plat was published with a public hearing related to a variance that was required with the original application. The applicant had revised the plat so the variance and public hearing were no longer needed.
Mr. Patterson described the lot dimensions and the applicant’s proposal to develop 5 lots. He noted that Lot 3 was currently developed with a single-family home that included a 2-story garage that could be used as an additional residential unit when this zoning district converts with the new code.
It was noted that the revised plat dedicated ˝ of the necessary right-of-way on Learnard Avenue, which cleared up dedication questions identified in the Staff Report. Sewer lines were readily available for the subject property and the City Stormwater Engineer had approved the detention basin with minor revisions. However, Staff still had concerns about the proposed flag-shaped lots and recommended denial based on these concerns, including:
Staff responded to questioning that there had been discussion with the applicant about more acceptable types of infill development, and the applicant was prepared to explain to the Commission his reason for wanting to pursue the flag lot proposal.
Haase asked what the maximum harm would be of approving the development as proposed. Mr. Patterson said the most harm would be done by the precedent set, establishing a perception that the City approved of this kind of development. Other negative impacts included the creation of lots that would be more expensive to serve with utilities and could hamper future redevelopment.
It was established that the Stormwater Engineer’s “sign off” on the plat indicated his professional opinion that the proposal would not make existing conditions worse and might make these conditions better. Burress asked if existing development could or should expect new development to fix existing problems. Staff replied that the current regulations made no such requirement. Planning Staff said questions about the legal liability for water running off one’s property onto another should be addressed to Legal Staff.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Keeney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Keeney explained the applicant’s intent to develop the property as shown on the plat and to maintain his own existing residence on the site.
Mr. Keeney said he had explained to the applicant that there would be opposition to the flag lot design, but the applicant still expressed a desire to develop flag lots. Mr. Keeney suggested that flag lots were a viable option in the Barker neighborhood because this configuration already existed in the area (not a precedent) and the neighborhood included a variety of lot sizes.
Mr. Keeney noted the shared drives reduced the impact on Learnard Avenue by creating two access points instead of five and said the shared drives would be “extra-wide” and would not be gravel drives. He said that most of the letters Staff received were supportive of the proposal and that a development designed according to Staff’s suggestions would likely be met by neighborhood opposition.
There was discussion about stormwater and detention, including the applicant’s opinion that the development would leave the area in an equal stormwater situation. The applicant referenced the conditions provided by Staff in case the Commission chose to approve the plat. He asked the Commission to consider striking or revising the condition requiring an approved stormwater detention study and site grading plan.
Steve Standing, property owner, said the area residents supported the flag lot configuration because it fit the large-lot development already in place and limited the potential density and number of curb cuts on the property.
Mr. Standing addressed the points raised by Staff against flag lots:
Mr. Standing was asked to explain why he chose to pursue the flag lot configuration when different options were possible. He replied that the flag lot design seemed best suited to deal with the way the property lies and the necessary placement of stormwater retention elements.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that a deed restriction offered no protection for the City’s interests in case the restriction was broken. This type of agreement was similar to a covenant where the City took no part. It would not provide 100% protection, but Staff said the City might choose to require a note stating that only one home was permitted on each lot unless the land was replatted.
It was established that a Homeowner’s Association was proposed to maintain the shared driveways that would function as private drives. City Staff said this was not adequate because, again, the City had no part in the agreement and no way to protect its’ interests.
Lawson commented that he understood Staff’s position, but he appreciated the proposal and thought it would allow more people to live in and enjoy this neighborhood. He referenced one letter that said it was unreasonable to disallow a tasteful development based on what “might happen in the future”. He spoke about the Commission’s realistic ability to control future events and stated his opinion that the proposed deed restriction was ample to meet the concerns raised.
It was suggested that the City could initiate rezoning for the subject area to a zoning district that carried a larger minimum lot size and would restrict future divisions. Staff noted that this would constitute spot zoning. It was verified that the new Subdivision Regulations would address flag lots but no specific language was written.
The Commission discussed that a more conventional development design would not be supported by the neighborhood, but the design the residents supported was clearly against the City regulations. Burress said he would like to see what design alternatives could be found and asked how much time would be needed for the applicant to work with Staff to find a new design that met with City regulations and neighborhood approval. Ms. Finger estimated this could be done by September or October. Mr. Keeney suggested that a flat denial of the flag lot proposal would be more useful than a deferral, giving the applicant and the neighborhood a clear message that this kind of development would not be accepted. He said his firm could then work on alternate development designs instead of putting this burden on Staff.
Haase suggested that, if denied, the applicant consider returning with a PUD request or a proposal for rezoning to a district with a lower density.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Erickson to deny the Preliminary Plat for Cypress Park Addition, based on the concerns outlined in the Staff Report.
Motion carried 6-1, with Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase and Riordan voting in favor and Lawson in opposition. Student Commissioner Wright voted in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 7A: M1-A TO RS-2; 8.0 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
Z-06-36-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately eight acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 7B: M1-A TO RS-2; 2.09 ACRES; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
Z-06-37-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 2.09 acres from M-1A (Light Industrial) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/25/05
ITEM NO 7C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARY’S LAKE ADDITION; NORTH OF 31ST STREET AND EAST OF HASKELL AVENUE (LAP)
PP-06-12-05: Preliminary Plat for Mary’s Lake Addition. The property is generally described as being located north of 31st Street and east of Haskell Avenue. This proposed residential subdivision contains approximately 15.98 acres. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, P.A., for Mary’s Lake Properties, L.L.C., property owner of record.
Items 7A & 7B were discussed simultaneously. Item 7C was deferred prior to the meeting, but several Commission questions centered on plat-related issues.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, two rezoning requests for RS-2 zoning. The items were separate because one of the requests had originally been for RO-1A zoning. This request was revised to RS-2 after it was recognized that access would not be allowed to E 31st Street, which is designated as a future arterial street.
Ms. Pool noted that the Land Use Map in HORIZON 2020 identified the subject parcels for light industrial uses. However, in Staff’s opinion single-family development would be an appropriate alternative because of the existing adjacent single-family development.
Staff recognized that several plat-related issues remained, and recommended approval of the rezoning requests subject to approval of a final plat.
The Commission raised several questions and concerns about the plat that would involve the subject areas:
Haase said he did not believe the plat (when it came forward) would meet the criteria for granting a variance. Burress added that he was unconvinced that disallowing access to 31st Street was best, although this restriction was according to the city’s 31st Street corridor study. Staff noted that, even if Harper Street were designated as a collector (allowing access to 31st Street) there would be a different problem of lots fronting the collector.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Alan Mackey, Landplan Engineering, showed the plat that would come before the Commission in August. He suggested that the rezonings should be deferred as well if the issue of the cul-de-sac variance on the upcoming plat was too substantial to allow consideration of the rezonings as a separate issue.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase noted that little had been said about placing residential uses next to industrial properties and that the Comprehensive Plan advised against this kind of placement. He suggested that the Commission was being asked to “do special things” with these parcels” when the intent should be to integrate the properties into their surroundings.
There was discussion about tabling or deferring the rezoning items until they could be considered in conjunction with the plat, since some Commissioner’s felt some plat information was necessary for their consideration of the appropriateness of the requested zonings. Other Commissioners stated a preference for dealing with the issues at hand.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Burress to defer Items 7A & 7B until a plat could be considered simultaneously.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 1A: SOUTHEAST AREA PLAN
Staff explained that the Planning Commission was asked to review the City Commission’s comments regarding the version of the Southeast Area Plan recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in February 2005. The majority of these comments centered on the amount of land identified for residential uses, vs. the amount designated for industrial land.
The Planning Commission was asked to consider revising the current Plan, returning the Plan to the City Commission with no changes (a confirmation of their original recommendation), or start the area plan process over “from scratch”, possibly with a revised (enlarged) study area.
Haase supported the idea of re-doing the plan with an enlarged study area, but suggested the CPC was overburdened and a new subcommittee should be formed to deal specifically with this task. He said they new plan should recognize the inclusion of several watershed basins and identify areas that called for immediate planning consideration and those that were not yet ready for infrastructure.
Haase also said that he saw many questions that were unanswered by the current Southeast Area Plan, including traffic, housing and infrastructure. He said he would like to make sure the proper analytical studies were completed for a new plan if this was the option chosen. Burress asked if there was a good analytical model for obtaining the kind of information that was needed.
Riordan spoke as a member of the CPC, saying the number of issues before the committee had decreased and suggesting it would be reasonable to return the plan to this group. Erickson, as another CPC member said that adding “new eyes” to the committee might be beneficial.
It was verified that the Southeast Area Plan was not considered as a Text Amendment, so the current plan could be discarded and work on a new plan could begin without formal action.
The Chair agreed to meet with Staff and report back to the Commission on a revised membership for the CPC and suggested area boundaries for what was termed the Eastern Area Plan.
PC minutes 07/25/05 and 07/27/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 1B: A to A-1 COUNTY ZONING REQUESTS
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained that Staff was receiving an increased number of A to A-1 rural rezoning requests, presumably in anticipation of the new county zoning regulations. Staff asked for direction for handling these requests, including information that could be given to persons considering making such a rezoning application regarding their current and potential future development options.
It was verified that the Planning Director would have additional input from the County Administrator and County Counselor at the Wednesday meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn said he thought it would be inappropriate to apply the new regulations before they were adopted, but recognized the complications caused by the rules being “in flux”. He asked if it would be appropriate to request the County Commission place a moratorium on A to A-1 zoning requests until the new zoning regulations were in place.
It was noted that the Commission would be discussing a Text Amendment related to this issue on Wednesday and the County Zoning Regulations would be up for consideration in the near future.
Haase said the current County development regulations had no statutory requirements regarding this kind of development. In lieu of written regulations, he applied the Golden Factors and frequently found that the rezoning requests did not pass the test. Notably, rezoning requests did not, in his opinion, meet the Golden Factor criteria related to contiguity with adjacent uses, or the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare.
Burress stated that there was “no reason to believe that the currently proposed draft of the Rural Development Chapter is an accurate reflection of eventual County regulations.” He said the County Commission had stated specifically that the current chapter was not based on an acceptable concept.
This item was tabled to Wednesday with no objection.
07/27/05
Ms. Finger said the comments received from the County Administrator and County Counsel were not as useful as had been hoped. It was suggested that the best course would be to allow rezoning requests to proceed in the current manner, but to allow the Planning Commission to require notice for potential (A to A-1 zoning) applicants that the regulations are in flux.
Staff presented proposed language for the notice, which Evan Ice and Craig Weinaug said remained within legal limits but provided needed notice for property owners that their development options may change.
The Commission discussed the effectiveness and clarity of the proposed language.
Meeting extended 5 minutes without objection.
Haase said he would like it understood that the Commission would still evaluate each rezoning request according the factors in place at the time of consideration and that no request would be granted “automatically”.
Staff was directed to draft a letter to the County Commission recommending a notice requirement as discussed.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Ermeling to grant the Chair authority to sign the letter drafted by Staff and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at this point.
PC minutes 07/25/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 2: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT SUBMISSION
Request for concurrent submission of preliminary and final plats for property at 1620 E652 Road (related to Z-04-25-05 recommended for approval by PC in May).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill explained that concurrent submission was requested for preliminary and final plats for the subject property. Staff recommended denial of the request based on adopted policy and a concern for City/County interests.
Staff pointed out that, because zoning was becoming a contentious issue, an increasing number of zoning requests were coming in without related plats. Applicants did not want to pay the expensive costs of subdivision platting without having some idea of how various decision-making bodies felt about the project.
Ms. Stogsdill said Staff had further concern about this request because it was likely that a similar request would be submitted for a 48-acre tract in the vicinity after the County Commission dealt with rezoning.
Ms. Stogsdill responded to questioning that accelerating the timeline for this project would be imprudent in light of inherent policy issues and the upcoming changes to the County regulations.
The proposed development would not be allowed under the new County Regulations and Staff could not support an accelerated timeline for the project.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Erickson to deny the request for concurrent submission of the preliminary and final plats for 1620 E652 Road.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/25/05 and 07/27/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 3: REQUEST FOR CONCURRENT SUBMISSION
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Stogsdill explained this was a request for concurrent submission of preliminary and final plats for multiple properties held by USD 497. These properties were all located within the City limits and significant changes to existing development on those parcels was expected.
A comparison was drawn to the previous request, and Ms. Finger pointed out that this request was for the benefit of the community-at-large, not an individual property owner. Getting the subject properties platted allowed the school district to get building permits to proceed with projects that were approved as part of the bond issue.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress asked if Staff was generally not expected to do extended analysis on requests from the School District. Ms. Stogsdill said the majority of the school district properties were already platted and analysis of the remaining unplatted areas would be repetitious. This request identified all the unplatted areas and requested to bring them all into conformance with platting regulations.
Although Staff supported the approval of this request, Ms. Finger expressed significant concern about doing so after a similar request (Misc. Item 3) was denied. It was suggested that a distinction could be drawn between the two requests to explain why one situation was supportable while the other was not. Codifying that distinction was discussed as the best way to deal with this issue.
It was discussed that this was a policy issue and, if the Commission wanted to allow exceptions, the policy should be changed to state under what conditions such an exception would be granted. It was further discussed that, if the Commission expected to support this kind of change, it might be appropriate to grant the School District request in anticipation of the policy change.
The Commission indicated their intent to initiate a Text Amendment outlining the criteria by which concurrent submission may be allowed. Staff was directed to develop language for the amendment, based on the rationale given in the Staff memo provided for this item.
This item was tabled to the Wednesday meeting without objection.
07/27/05
In light of the Text Amendment initiated at the Wednesday meeting (See Misc. Item No. 5), several Commissioners voiced their support for the School District request.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Eichhorn to grant the request for concurrent submission of preliminary and final plats for multiple USD 497 properties as identified by Staff.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
The Commission moved at this point to Misc. Item No. 1B.
PC minutes 07/25/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 4: PROPOSAL FOR REZONING INITIATION
Recommendation from Staff that the Planning Commission initiate rezoning from M-2 to RS-2 for the 200 & 300 Blocks of Perry (south side), and the 200 Block of Maple Street (north side).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff explained that the Commission is being asked to consider initiating rezoning for multiple parcels in North Lawrence at the request of a number of property owners in the overall neighborhood. Sections of the area are already zoned RS-2, and the request was intended to bring conformity to the neighborhood.
Staff had discussed the request with Ted Boyle, representative for the neighborhood, who said many area residents were interested in pursuing the rezoning. However, they but were not ready to approach “left-over” property owners and asked the Commission to initiate the rezoning.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff was asked to check on the status of the North Lawrence Drainage Study.
It was established that the rezoning, as defined, would leave the 300 block of Perry Street zoned M-2, surrounded by residential zoning. Staff did not recommend expanding the rezoning boundaries at this time, explaining that initiating the request would allow Staff to investigate options.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to initiate the rezoning of sections of North Lawrence as identified by Staff and schedule them for a future public hearing
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
9:45 p.m. – Recess to 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 27, 2005
______________________________________________________________________
Meeting reconvened July 27, 2005 – 6:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: Burress, Eichhorn, Erickson, Ermeling, Haase, Lawson, Riordan and Student Commissioner Wright
Staff present: Finger, Stogsdill, Day, Patterson, Pool and Saker
_______________________________________________________________________
Riordan noted the attendance of ex-Commissioner Ernie Angino. He asked Mr. Angino to come forward and be recognized for his 3 years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Angino was presented with a plaque and certificate and asked to say a few words.
Mr. Angino said he appreciated the work the Planning Commission did for the City and County. He misses discussions and ability to talk afterwards. He fully subscribed to the theory that “democracy is worst form of government in the world but its way ahead of what’s in second place”.
10-minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 6:50
Swearing in of witnesses.
Ms. Finger outlined the following communications:
Item 9: Rezoning 34.35 acres A to B-2
Item 12: Rezoning 3.2677 acres from RM-1 to POD-1
Misc. Items 2 & 3: Concurrent Submission Requests
General:
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8A: ANNEXATION OF 17.52 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
A-01-02-05: Annexation request for approximately 17.52 acres, located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, and Tanglewood, LC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8B: A TO PCD-2; 61.64 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-08-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 61.64 acres from A (Agriculture) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8C: A TO RO-1A; 19.89 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-09-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.89 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8D: A TO RS-2; 29.10 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-10-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 29.10 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8E: A TO RM-D; 4.21 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-11-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 4.21 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, LC, Oread, LC, Tanglewood, LC, Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbourt EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8F: A TO RM-2; 13.05 ACRES; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
Z-01-12-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 13.05 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, LC, and Safe Harbour EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 8G: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERCATO; NORTH OF HIGHWAY 40 AND EAST OF K-10 HIGHWAY (PGP)
PP-05-10-05: Preliminary Plat for Mercato. This proposed residential and commercial development contains approximately 122.65 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, Inc., for Hanover Place, L.C., Oread, L.C., Tanglewood, L.C., Kentucky Place, LC, JDS Kansas, LC, Venture Properties Inc., TAT Land Holding Company, L.C., and Safe Harbour EAT-V, LLC, property owners of record. This item was deferred from the 6/22/05 Planning Commission meeting.
Items 8A – 8G were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 9: A TO B-2; 34.35 ACRES; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 56 AND HIGHWAY 59 (PGP)
Z-04-30-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 34.35 acres from A (Agricultural) District to B-2 (General Business) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Highways 56 and 59. Submitted by Joseph Daniels, Jr., for Joseph Daniels, Sr., property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for rezoning near the intersection of Highway 56 & Highway 59. Existing businesses in the vicinity may relocate to the subject area when right-of-way for intersection improvements takes over their current locations.
Staff said approximately ˝ of the 34 subject acres would be buildable and showed KDOT’s proposal for the intersection, including the portion of subject land to be purchased.
Mr. Patterson addressed questions raised at the Study Session:
· Staff does not consider this the creation of a new commercial node, rather as an expansion and relocation of the existing node.
· In Staff’s opinion, this proposal does conform to the informal neighborhood/nodal plan developed for this area during the Frontier Farm Credit rezoning request.
· Baldwin City planning representatives had been contacted and indicated no objection to the application.
Haase pointed out that KDOT would have to purchase a portion of the subject area for right-of-way for Highway 59 improvements. He expressed concern that approving the rezoning would increase the cost of that purchase and suggested the rezoning request was premature. Staff said that KDOT purchasing agents were contacted about the proposal. These agents stated that the land designated for necessary right-of-way was already identified as commercial property and approving the rezoning would not have a negative impact on the fair market value of the property. It was verified that this opinion was shared in a phone conversation and KDOT had not provided any written statement regarding the issue.
It was noted that the rezoning would be conditioned upon platting, which would include the dedication of right-of-way. Although timing was not under Commission control, it was possible that KDOT would purchase the right-of-way before platting occurred.
It was again noted that several businesses would have to abandon their current locations to accommodate the street/intersection improvements. Approving this rezoning would give them someplace close to relocate. Haase said his concerns centered on timing, not appropriateness of the proposed zoning.
Ms. Finger said City and County Counselors had stated that it was inappropriate to delay a zoning or subdivision action in anticipation of future dedications of right-of-way that were not currently shown in the Subdivision Regulations or Comprehensive Plan. Numerous court cases supported this opinion, stating that requiring extraordinary right-of-way (more than is identified in the adopted regulations) would constitute a taking unless the property owner was compensated.
Haase asked if the construction drawings of the proposed intersection improvements would be adequate to support the delay of the rezoning until KDOT purchased their needed right-of-way. Ms. Finger replied that postponing an individual property owner’s ability to exercise his property rights in anticipation of future right-of-way was contrary to Federal law. Haase suggested this was a flaw.
Ermeling expressed concern that the overall area was not well-planned. Staff noted that the Commission was considering only a rezoning at this point, not a site plan or development concept. The proposed rezoning was typical and reasonable for the intersection. It was noted that the types of uses likely to inhabit this area (Ex. existing businesses that would have to relocate) would not require suburban connectivity or a residential support system.
In Staff’s opinion, the League of Women Voter’s concerns about a Wal-Mart type use in this location were unfounded.
It was suggested that current land use policy lacked the element of pedestrian connectivity and this was an important factor that should be applied across the County. It was discussed that this may be possible in conjunction with road construction/improvement. Plats would then have to consider where connections to the overall pedestrian system could be made safely.
It was not known whether the County Commission had approved the neighborhood plan approved and forwarded by the Planning Commission. The revised commercial chapter of HORIZON 2020 limited development in the County commercial areas to 15,000 square feet of commercial space. However, the text is not clear whether this limitation applies to each corner or the entire node.
It was clarified that the subject area would have access to Highway 59 from the frontage road.
Burress referenced the League’s claim that this proposal was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which spoke against a new commercial node in this area. Staff reiterated that, in their opinion, this was not a new commercial node but and expansion and relocation of an existing node, which was not precluded by the Comprehensive Plan.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Joe Daniels, Jr., applicant, explained the B-3 zoning approved for a two-acre tract in 1990 had expired because his father had never submitted a plat. Discussions with Staff convinced him that B-3 zoning was no longer appropriate and he revised his application to B-2 zoning.
The new application was also expanded to include all of the owner’s land because it was not yet known how much or where land would be taken for KDOT right-of-way. The frontage of the existing property along both highways would be significantly limited with the roadway improvements.
Mr. Daniels said this was an opportunity to provide a place for displaced businesses to go. His father (the property owner) had no intent to start a new business at the new location.
Mr. Daniels said informal contacts with utilities indicated that water and electric service would be available, but establishing actual utility easements would be done at the platting stages.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, referencing the letter they sent previously. She said the League had significant concerns, including their opinion that the request was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. She said the League could not find any code text dealing with rural business development except the passage quoted in their letter that stated specifically where and how to locate businesses in rural areas.
The League was concerned that approving this rezoning would open the area to further expansion and the effect this would have on county development (specifically non-farm residential development).
Ms. Lichtwardt said the area’s location near the highway was not adequate justification to permit the rezoning without further study of potential impact.
C.T. Tull, area resident, spoke about the loss to the area if existing businesses were not given a place to relocate. He said the services and social opportunities available at the existing business node were important to area residents.
CLOSING COMMENTS
There were no closing comments from the applicant or Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was discussed that, because of sanitary sewer requirements, it would take at least 3 acres to provide a service station in place of the one that would be lost in intersection improvements. Convenience store pad sites were typically about 5,000 square feet in area, which would be easily accommodated in the subject area.
It was verified that the applicant could plat the property without obtaining zoning, but would not be able to get a building permit.
Burress said the lack of written testimony regarding the impact of the rezoning on KDOT’s purchase price for right-of-way left him to proceed on the assumption that there would be a negative impact.
It was discussed that zoning could not be conditioned upon the dedication of extraordinary right-of-way dedications, but there appeared to be no court precedent for denial of a request based on anticipated right-of-way needs.
It was noted that the nodal plan showed access for this area off of Highway 56 and recommended 15 acres for retail uses in a different location. It was suggested that the nodal plan approved by the Planning Commission should be amended if they wanted to take action that did not match the plan.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Burress, seconded by Haase to deny the rezoning request.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Eichhorn said this area was designated on some maps for industrial uses. He asked if an area plan was a needed to establish the best mix and location of uses. Haase said the site had the potential within 25 years to serve the industrial needs of the community and identifying it as such today was good long-range planning.
Lawson made several comments related to concerns raised by others:
· Lack of presence of infrastructure – Utilities are readily available and have been obtained recently in the area
· Increased land values under commercial zoning – it is naďve to think this land will be purchased at farmland values just because it is not zoned. Purchase price will reflect the prime location of this property.
· Mr. Tull’s comments give important insight into the elements area residents value. There is no strong justification for depriving residents of the pattern of life they enjoy.
· This is the only location south of the Kaw River to buy diesel fuel at the pump. This is a valuable benefit that will be lost when the existing node is gone.
· Staff has provided evidence that the references to HORIZON 2020 raised by the public do not apply to this situation. The commercial chapter of the Comprehensive Plan says citizens should be able to expect continued provision of the day-to-day goods and services where they currently exist.
Ermeling said she agreed on the importance of social value, but this must be balanced with the Commission’s responsibility to long-range plan for the benefit of the community. She also felt that more organization was needed at this node and asked how long it would take to develop an area plan.
Haase also agreed that continuity of services was important, but said the proposal was premature and involved too large a parcel when the entire node was supposed to include a maximum of 15,000 square feet. He suggested it would be better to see how the node could best be developed after KDOT committed to its transportation improvements. If it was then determined that 15,000 square feet was inadequate to accommodate existing services, the nodal plan could be amended. It was pointed out that an amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan as well and it would apply to all commercial nodes, not just this one.
Staff suggested it would be unwise to limit the node to a size that would accommodate only existing nearby uses. Burress said he had no objection to increasing the allowable square footage at this intersection if it could be supported with data.
Burress asked if this request would accomplish the goal of continuing existing services, noting that the area could not be developed until the frontage road was constructed. He also stated that land value was dependent upon zoning.
Mr. Daniels was permitted to address the Commission, saying he understood the logic behind the Commission’s concerns, but there was nothing in planning case law to support the delay of this proposal. He noted that many of the Commission’s concerns were plat-related when they were asked to consider only rezoning at this time.
Mr. Daniels addressed the Commission’s comment that the proposal involved significantly more square footage than would be allowed for retail uses at this node. He explained again that the entire parcel was requested for rezoning because KDOT intersection improvement would drastically reduce the property’s road frontage.
It was established that, if denied, the applicant would have to wait 12 months before resubmitting, unless the new application was substantially different (smaller, different zoning, etc.).
It was verified that the applicant did not own the land adjacent to the east of the subject property.
REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT
Jerry Medlin, adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the request but said he had no interest in rezoning any part of his own property.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Burress said he had assumed that a larger section of land could potentially be developed. Since that now seemed unlikely, he asked if a PUD were an option. Staff said a Community Unit Plan was the County equivalent of a PUD, but these did not apply to commercial development.
It was verified that the Commission would identify and recommend approval of a portion of the requested area, conditioned upon a plat that addressed the issues raised tonight. In was discussed that 7 acres, located outside the new highway, would be appropriate, but it was not yet determined exactly where the highway would be. Access and usable frontage were complications that led the applicant to request rezoning for the entire parcel.
Ms. Finger offered the option of deferring the item to allow Staff to get more definitive information from KDOT.
It was suggested that the alternatives being discussed would be substantially different, so denial of the current request would not prevent the applicant from returning with a request based on the discussion (specifically a smaller size).
It was requested that the record reflect that not all members agreed the League’s interpretation that the request was contrary the Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on floor was to deny the request to rezone 34.35 acres from A to B-2.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 10A: A TO RS-2; 3.973 ACRES; SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
Z-04-27-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.973 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of Wakarusa and Eisenhower Drives. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 10B: A TO RM-1; 11.165 ACRES; WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EAST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
Z-04-28-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 11.165 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO 10C: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GLENWOOD ADDITION; WEST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND EAST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE (LAP)
PP-04-07-05: Preliminary Plat for Glenwood Addition. This proposed 12-lot single-family residential and one-lot multiple-family residential subdivision contains approximately 12.605 acres. The property is generally described as being located west of Wakarusa Drive and east of Eisenhower Drive. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Glenwood, L.C., property owner of record. This item was deferred by the applicant from the June Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Pool introduced the items, two rezonings and a Preliminary Plat to accommodate a one-lot multi-family subdivision and 12 single-family lots. She presented the proposed layout of properties, noting that several single-family lots would share drives to reduce access points to Eisenhower Drive.
It was noted that the applicant proposed a temporary access to Lot 1 until access to the multi-family portion was established.
Staff recommended approval of all three items with conditions as listed in the Staff Report.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Werner stated agreement with Staff’s recommendations. He added that some neighbors take issue with the proposed RM-1 rezoning, but that the entire parcel had been approved for PRD-2 zoning (never published because no development plan was submitted). The applicant felt this was a better plan, putting appropriate use buffers in place and using the lowest possible multi-family density.
Burress referenced the letter from the League of Women Voters expressing concern with large-lot development and asked why it would not be better to accomplish the project as a PUD. Mr. Werner said there was no reason to use a PUD when conventional zoning would allow the intended purpose. He noted that Building Codes would still apply, so the stated concern about buildings closer than 3’ apart was not logical.
PUBLIC HEARING
Gwen Klingenberg asked if she understood the applicant correctly that roads were being considered as buffers. Staff clarified that this would not be acceptable and the plan would have to provide adequate buffering as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Klingenberg said that new single-family homes built adjacent to the multi-family development would want the same kind of considerations as residences that were in place first. She expressed a continued concern with rezonings being brought forward without a plat clearly showing the developers’ intent.
APPLICANT CLOSING
Mr. Werner said that HORIZON 2020 stated that back-to-back zoning relationships were preferable to front-to-back placement. He noted that Eisenhower Drive was not designed as a collector but was designated as such after construction, and this development proposed to dedicate additional right-of-way and limit access points with shared drives.
STAFF CLOSING
There were no closing comments from Staff.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Erickson said the Northwest Area Plan identified the subject area for single-family development. Staff responded to questioning that, in their opinion, medium-density multi-family was an acceptable alternative because Wakarusa Drive is as arterial. It was also noted that the PRD-2 zoning previously approved for this land carried a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre and the proposed zoning carried a 12 d.u.p.a. maximum.
It was clarified that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing in a PUD case, but a site plan would go straight to the City Commission. In either case, the City Commission had the final determination and could allow a public hearing on any of their agenda items if they chose.
ACTION TAKEN
Item 10A
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Lawson to approve the rezoning of 3.973 acres from A to RS-2 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Item 10B
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the rezoning of 11.165 acres from A to RM-1 and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following condition:
1. Recording of a final plat prior to publication of the rezoning ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Item 10C
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the Preliminary Plat for Glenwood Addition, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 11: RS-2 TO RM-D; 26.711 ACRES; NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD AND EAST OF GEORGE WILLIAMS WAY (SLD)
Z-06-35-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.711 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard and east of George Williams Way. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Harvard, L.C, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Day introduced the item, noting the provision of a revised map. She described the surrounding zoning and approved projects in vicinity, noting that much of the area was developing residentially and drawing attention to the number of subdivision plats in the area.
Staff said the applicant had pointed out that the subject property had been approved previously for RM-1 zoning conditioned upon a final plat. A final plat was never submitted so the RM-1 zoning was never published. The property was then approved and platted for single-family development. Multiple development approvals had been given in the surrounding area, and Staff could no longer support multi-family uses for the subject property.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said the applicant admitted he had made a mistake and was trying to correct it. The applicant’s intent was to provide residential units (duplexes) in a price range to encouraging owner-occupation instead of rental.
Mr. Werner noted that multi-family development was once judged appropriate for this area, and if RM-1 zoning was appropriate then RM-D should be as well since it carried a lower density. He said the market for single-family detached housing was “drying up” and explained how this development would meet the criteria for low density development.
Mr. Werner stated that the applicant had been told all through the development process that April Rain Drive would go through. He said the proposed configuration provided the best road network and access management.
Mr. Werner described the proposed buffers and said the area would be platted with large lots, enabling the design of nice-looking duplexes that would sell for an estimated $185-$225,000 per side. It was verified that there was no way to ensure that the units would not be divided with a lot split or plat of survey.
The Commission expressed concern with the lack of information about transitions and it was noted that there was no way to control entry on George Williams Way, even with single-family development.
It was established that Staff discouraged attempting a PRD for this development, because it would require a significant number of waivers and variances.
There was discussion about possible berming, landscaping and other buffering techniques that could be applied to the property. It was noted that these elements would not be possible along the eastern property line because of setbacks and utility easements.
It was discussed that Staff had concern about the amount of multi-family development already existing or approved in the surrounding area.
There was discussion about lower-cost single-family housing. Mr. Werner said this would be difficult because the land would have to be replatted with smaller lots according to the streets and utility easements that were already in place. This would be expensive and bare lots would run more than $50,000 each.
Lawson referenced the Staff Report comment that current area residents purchased their homes based on anticipated development of a certain kind on the subject property. Mr. Werner said separation was an important element in mitigating the impact of the proposed development on neighboring properties.
PUBLIC HEARING
Paula Pethin spoke on behalf of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, outlining the following concerns:
· Traffic safety related to the proximity of the pedestrian pathway to the elementary school and park. This concern is increased by the possible failure of W. 6th Street, which would create significant volume increases on George Williams Way to Harvard and/or Bob Billings Parkway.
· The neighborhood would like to have single-family homes in this location. Homes in a lower price range would be desirable but residents understood this may be prohibited by land costs. The anticipated cost of the proposed units might discourage rental uses, but will not guarantee against this use.
· The area to the south of the subject area has not yet been developed and those residents will have no say in how the subject area is developed, although it will significantly impact their own area.
Russ Lang, property owner to north and east, said he bought his property based on land use predictions of the subject property as large-lot single-family development. He said he might have developed his own land differently to be compatible if he had known the subject area would be developed with duplexes. He referenced Mr. Werner’s reference to the applicant’s “mistake”, saying the surrounding property owners should not be penalized for the applicant’s error.
As a real estate agent, Mr. Lang questioned the applicant’s claims about housing costs and market conditions. He also suggested that if the current lots were too large to develop affordably, the property should be replatted with smaller lots.
Betty Lichtwardt, Lawrence resident, said the new zoning ordinance and development code would provide development alternatives that might be more appropriate for this area and provide options for affordable housing, such as owner-occupied accessory dwellings. She commented that the new regulations did not include a duplex zoning district.
Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence resident, testified that her own home and the surrounding homes were within the $200,000 range. Ms. Klingenberg said the upcoming regulation changes had created a “stampede to buy up land and develop it to the max”, but this was no reason to change precedent and allow multi-family development to surround single-family.
Ms. Klingenberg raised several points:
· The recent CORSIM model run by KDOT identified the need to cut traffic volumes on W. 6th Street, not increase them by allowing higher density land uses.
· The applicant appears to suggest that a road may be used as a buffer between uses, which is not an acceptable buffering element.
· Public input is hampered when zoning is approved before a plan is available, because zoning alone leaves too many unanswered variables.
Mark O’Lear, Lawrence resident, said HORIZON 2020 indicated single-family homes as the most appropriate use for the subject area. He had bought his own home based on the understanding that single-family development would occur here.
Mr. O’Lear repeated the concerns expressed about traffic volumes and the safety of children walking in the neighborhood. He said residents were fearful of the character of duplex uses.
Barbara Swinson, Stonecreek resident, said her property was subject to strict covenants and she was distressed by the decrease in her own property value posed by allowing multi-family development to the west.
Jane Graham, Stoneridge Drive resident, talked about density both north and south of W. 6th Street. She said density was already quite high and would increase when all the approved development was in place. She referenced the concepts of New Urbanism and the importance of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, saying this ideal was not part of the proposed development.
Ms. Graham added her concern that duplexes would be populated with college students, which carried related hazards of dangerous – possibly alcohol-related – driving incidents.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Werner addressed concerns raised by the public:
· Duplex residents are not being fairly or appropriately depicted.
· The people who eventually lived in this area would share the same concerns and safety issues raised by existing area residents.
· This development will increase traffic volumes no matter what, and the difference between single-family and duplex uses is not significant.
· The Planning Commission approved RM-1 zoning previously (even if it was never published) and the same concerns would have applied when that rezoning was being considered.
· The proposed zoning code includes an RS-5 zoning district that might be applicable here, but the new district will not be available until the new code is in place.
· Even if RS-5 zoning were possible, it would involve single-family development at a higher density and bring with it the same concerns.
· HORIZON 2020 states that duplex uses are appropriate and reasonable for this zoning district.
· The applicant understands the substantial commitment made by adjacent landowners, specifically Mr. Lang. However, this development is not likely to create a significant impact on April Rain Drive or Stoneridge Drive. George Williams Way is more apt to be the primary route to access the subject property.
· Possibly the lots along the northern property line could be developed as single-family to address Mr. Lang’s commitment.
· The applicant would not object to a requirement for a landscape buffer along George Williams Way.
Mr. Werner responded to questioning that the cost per lot of a replat (and required stormwater etc. studies) for single-family uses was unknown, but it would be substantial. He noted that this property would take on benefit district payments for improvements to sections of George Williams Way and Harvard Road, making the land more expensive.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff agreed that it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about duplex residents.
It was noted that Longleaf abutted open space and a minor arterial and the area included an odd mix of housing types, created by the piecemeal development of the overall area.
Staff commented that a concept plan had been required in advance for the Stonegate development.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Lawson said he was inclined to support Staff’s opinion, based on Staff analysis that was clear and reasonable. He added that it was unfortunate for the applicant, but existing residents had been given clear indication of how the subject area would be developed (single-family) and this proposal involved a significant change.
Burress said he also supported Staff with mixed feelings. The City needed this kind of housing, but the development concept was not clear. He stated a hope that the City would someday have more owner-occupied duplex housing and that residents would take responsibility for their property.
Ermeling expressed frustration with the continual conflict between development proposals and existing residents. She said she looked forward to finding ways to resolve disconnects before proposals came before the Commission and agreed that plans should accompany zoning requests.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Eichhorn, seconded by Haase to deny the rezoning of 26.711 acres from RS-2 to RM-D, based on the analysis provided in the Staff Report.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 12: RM-1 TO POD-1; 3.2677 ACRES; EAST OF WAKARUSA DRIVE AND NORTH OF HARVARD ROAD (PGP)
Z-06-43-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 3.2677 acres from RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to POD-1 (with restrictions) (Planned Office Development) District. The property is generally described as being located east of Wakarusa Drive and north of Harvard Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Mustard Seed Christian Fellowship, property owners of record
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a rezoning request for a portion of a larger existing RM-1 property for an office use. He described surrounding uses and zonings, including commercial, SF, and a retirement center.
A request for RO zoning for the same property was heard in April and deferred based on concerns regarding office zoning in the new code. O-1 zoning would convert to CO upon adoption of the new code and would allow commercial uses that would expand the 6th & Wakarusa commercial node beyond the limits set by the nodal plan.
The applicant resubmitted for POD-1 zoning at the Commission’s suggestion, including use restrictions to address commercial use concerns.
A Staff memo provided answers to Study Session questions:
· The existing church building is 21,000 square feet
· The current office space vacancy rate is about 1% in Lawrence.
· As a worst case, this proposal would increase the vacancy rate to 11.4-12.5%.
Staff noted that the office vacancy rates were not exclusive to the type of office use that might be placed in this location. Other factors (size, location, etc.) would have to be analyzed for a more accurate reflection of vacancy rates.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Pieter Willems, Pastor of Mustard Seed Church, reiterated that the current rezoning request was submitted at the suggestion of the Commission to ensure commercial uses would not be allowed on the property (now or after adoption of the new code).
Pastor Willems responded to questioning that the church was not opposed to the idea of selling the property to another church, but they had been approached by potential buyers that were interested in office space.
PUBLIC HEARING
Joe Herinck, adjacent property owner, asked if the rezoning was requested primarily to increase property value. If this was so, the church was increasing its profits at the expense of other area property owners, who had been “picking up the slack” for the church’s real estate and property taxes for 15 years.
Mr. Herinck also expressed concern about the impact of an office use on Harvard Road & Wakarusa Drive traffic patterns. Mr. Patterson noted that the office use would have different peak traffic hours than the church use, but traffic generation would be similar.
APPLICANT CLOSING COMMENTS
Mike Kenney, Peridian Group, spoke on behalf of the applicant, making several points:
· The existing zoning would allow redevelopment at a much higher density than the proposed zoning.
· “Raw land” would have the same value under either zoning classification. The existing structure determined the value of the property.
· Vacancy rates are meaningless in this situation. Many vacant office spaces do not have a prime location like this property.
· No restaurant or bank use is proposed for the subject area.
STAFF CLOSING COMMENTS
Staff had no additional comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was verified that any future use will have to use the existing structure as-is. Any exterior changes to the building or site will require a development plan, a plat and a site plan. Staff added that the existing building was not constructed to current commercial standards and the building would have to pass inspection for whatever use took over the property.
The Commission discussed the uses that would be allowed under the proposed Use Groups 7 & 8. Some felt that a few of the allowed uses were inappropriate for this area and further restrictions would be prudent. The applicant expressed no objection to revising the use restrictions to strike Use Group 8 entirely and section 2 of Use Group 7.
Burress thanked the speaker who brought up the tax issue, but said the Commission had no purview over this element.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Ermeling to approve the rezoning of 3.2677 acres from RM-1 to POD-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 use restrictions:
USE GROUP 7. COMMUNITY FACILITIES - PUBLIC UTILITIES (a) may appropriately be located in residential areas to provide education, recreation, health, and other essential services and, (b) do not create significant objectionable influences in residential areas.
1. Community Facilities
· Adaptive reuse of properties listed as a landmark on the Lawrence, State or National Registers of Historic Places or included in the Lawrence or National Register of Historic Districts
· Art gallery or museum
· Cemetery, columbarium, or mausoleum
· Child care center
· Child care home - occupant primary provider
· Child care home - non-occupant primary provider
· Church or other place of worship, including student center
· Club or lodge, private, except those whose chief activity is carried on as
· a business
· Communication Towers
· Community building, public
· Golf course, but not including commercially operated driving range, pitch
· and putt course or miniature golf course
· Halfway house or service-oriented rehabilitation center or residence
· Health center, government operated
· Hospital, general, not including animal
· Institution for children and aged, nonprofit
· Library or museum: public or private, open to public without charge
· Monastery, convent or similar institution of religious training
· Mortuary, funeral parlor, or undertaking establishment
· Nursing home or rest home
· Parish house, nunnery, rectory, etc.
· Park, playground, or playfield, public
· Private recreation facility (exclusive of family swimming pools and swimming pools that are accessory uses to hotels, motels and apartments)
· Rehabilitation center for persons with disabilities
· Sanitarium
· School, public, parochial, or private, non-profit:
o Grades nine and below including kindergarten
o Grades ten and above
· Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts (e.g. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc.)
· Swimming pool, accessory
· Theatre, live (if indoors)
2. Public
Utilities
·
Electrical
substation
·
Gas
regulator station
·
Radio or
television transmitter or tower
·
Sewage
disposal plant, private
·
Telephone
exchange, but not including garage, shop, or service
·
Water
filtration plant, pumping station, elevated storage or reservoir
3. Similar Uses
·
All
other uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function,
traffic-generating capacity, and effects on other land uses and (2) are not
included in any other use group.
4. Accessory Uses
·
(Ord.
6359; Ord. 6382; Ord. 6489)
USE GROUP 8. TEMPORARY USES
(a) Uses of a non-residential
nature which need to be located in residential areas on a temporary basis.
(b) Uses of a commercial nature
which are temporary and where in duration, traffic generation, or intensity,
are allowable in residential neighborhoods or as accessory commercial uses to
established commercial operations.
1. Temporary Uses - Non-residential Nature
·
Automobile
parking lot, for special event
·
Batching
plant, asphaltic or Portland
cement, concrete, non-commercial
·
Construction
building and/or yard
·
Earth
moving and excavation; depositing construction materials, clay, earth, gravel,
minerals, rock, sand or stone on the ground
·
Off-street
parking and loading
·
Tract office
·
All
other temporary uses which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function,
traffic-generating capacity, and effects on other land uses and (2) are not
included in any other use group.
2. Temporary Uses - Commercial Nature
·
Special
Events
·
Temporary
outdoor sales area as an accessory use to an established commercial operation
·
Licensed
transient merchant's temporary structures as defined in Chapter 6, Article 8,
of the City Code.
·
(Ord.
6698)
USE GROUP 9. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Offices for medical, professional and governmental purposes and accessory use, not including retail sales to the public, that are of a nature that may be located adjacent to or combined with residential uses without harmful effects to said residential uses.
1. Medical and Related Offices
· Chiropody, chiropractic, dental, electrology, medical, optical, optometric, osteopathic, including a clinic
2. Ambulatory (Outpatient) Surgery Center
3. Professional and Governmental Offices
· Accounting, architecture, engineering, governmental, insurance sales, law, real estate and sales and brokerage, motion picture studios (enclosed)
4. Veterinarian
· Office and incidental boarding, with no open kennel or yard where animals are confined or exercised
5. Financial Institutions
6. Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts (e.g. photography, music, dancing, drama, etc.)
7. Other Offices
· All other offices which (1) are similar to the listed uses in function, traffic-generating capacity, effects on other land uses, and (2) are not included in any other use group.
8. Accessory Uses
· (Ord. 6287; Ord. 6770; Ord. 7047 rev.)
USE GROUP 9A. LIMITED SERVICES. These uses are limited in development, intensity and traffic-generating capacity to uses which are compatible with established residential neighborhoods.
1. Bank, savings & loan, and trust company
Dry cleaning outlet store
Freestanding automated banking or dispensing facility
Funeral home, mortuary or undertaking establishment
Laboratory, medical or dental
Loan office
Personnel services
Photographic studio
Post Office branch facility
Professional cleaning services
Radio and television studio
Recording studio
School, commercial or trade, when not involving any danger of fire or explosion, nor of offensive odor, noise, dust, glare, heat, vibration or other objectionable factors
Secretarial service
Studio for professional work or for teaching of any form of fine arts i.e. photograph, music, dancing, drama, etc.
Telephone answering service
2. Accessory Uses
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright
voting in favor.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13A: A TO RM-D; 39.4204 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-38-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 39.4204 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13B: A TO RM-2; 15.2863 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-39-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 15.2863 Acres from A (Agricultural) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13C: A TO RS-2; 33.3692 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-40-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 33.3692 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13D: A TO M-1; 17.1220 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-41-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 17.1220 acres from A (Agricultural) District to M-1 (Research Industrial) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13E: A TO C-5; 26.6436 ACRES; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
Z-06-42-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.6436 acres from A (Agricultural) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 13F: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FAIRFIELD FARMS EAST ADDITION; SOUTH OF K-10 HIGHWAY BETWEEN O’CONNELL ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD (SLD)
PP-06-16-05: Preliminary Plat for Fairfield Farms East Addition. This proposed 233 lot mixed use subdivision contains approximately 119.8964 acres. The property is generally described as being located south of E. 23rd Street/K-10 Highway between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road. Submitted by Peridian Group, Inc., for Eastside Acquisitions, L.L.C., property owner of record.
Items 13A-13F were deferred prior to the meeting.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 14: TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 26, COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS (MKM)
TA-06-01-05: Consider text amendment to the County Zoning Regulations (Article 26) regarding building permit fees, Building permit expiration, and elimination of conflict between Zoning Regulations and adopted building codes. This item was initiated by the Board of County Commissioners at their April 25, 2005, meeting.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger explained the County Commission initiated this Text Amendment in response to Keith Dabney’s request for deletion of specific language addressing building codes and limitations. This section would then allow the County Commission to revise these fees by reference. This is current practice but has not been formally codified and Staff recommended approval of the Text Amendment by revising the language as provided.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this item.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Haase, seconded by Lawson to approve the Text Amendment to Article 26 of the County Zoning Regulations as presented and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
Extended meeting 30 minutes with no objection.
PC minutes 07/27/05
ITEM NO. 15: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW CHAPTER REGARDING RURAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (DRG)
CPA-2005-04: Consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020, which proposes to incorporate into the plan a new chapter pertaining specifically to rural planning and development of the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. This draft chapter has been prepared by members of the Rural Planning Committee, a subcommittee appointed by the Chair of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission. This item was initiated by the Planning Commission at their June meeting. The draft chapter and other associated background documents related to the chapter are posted on the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Office website, www.lawrenceplanning.org.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms. Finger summarized the goals of the proposed chapter created and forwarded for Commission consideration by the RPC:
· Address the need for a Cost of Community Services Study to determine the fiscal impact of rural residential subdivisions
· Establish a hierarchy for rural residential development through minimum standards for development within the Urban Growth Area
· Provide protection of for traditional agricultural land uses and the pursuit of these traditional uses in the rural areas beyond or outside the UGA
· Recognize agricultural entrepreneurialism and establish a new zoning form (Planned Agricultural District - PAD) to use in the development of this type of use
· Encourage the preservation of prime farm ground
· Encourage the preservation of lands that area geographically or environmentally sensitive or of historic significance
· Establish a basis for a county-wide access management plan
· Identify the need for residential subdivisions in the unincorporated areas to give consideration to quality of life issues
· Discourage commercial uses and industrial types of development within the unincorporated areas of the County unless these developments are consistent with specific recommendations in HORIZON 2020
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION
Alan Black spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters, reading written remarks into the record. He said the League supported the chapter, feeling this is the best way – short of annexation – to address serious problems associated with unincorporated development.
Some remaining concerns included:
Mr. Black responded to questioning that the League agreed watershed planning should be done for the entire County, but it was undetermined where financing for this planning should come from.
Betty Lichtwardt, Lawrence resident, spoke about pre-planning stormwater management based on drainage plans, a concept that was abandoned in 1983 until Stormwater Management criteria were adopted in 1996. She said the County was now using funding from utility fees to “catch up” for the period of lax stormwater management planning, while additional charges were applied for the impervious surface created in new developments.
Ms. Lichtwardt expressed concern that advance planning was not being done to allow new developments to use the overall drainage plans in place based on complete drainage basins. She suggested this level of planning should be some before allowing any subdivision planning or platting in the UGA.
Tim Herndon, Landplan Engineering, spoke about challenges facing the engineering and development community that were inherent in the chapter as presented:
Haase commented that the build-through acreage concept had been used with documented success on a limited basis in other parts of Kansas. The text related to this concept was drawn from regulations being put to use in Lincoln/Lancaster, Nebraska. He said the proposed chapter would make site selection more important and would make developers think through their projects thoroughly, which was challenging but “doable”.
Haase did not agree that a prototype project needed to occur before the regulations were adopted. He said it would be a joint private/public venture to “find the rough edges” in the chapter.
Mr. Herndon questioned how closely Lawrence compared to the cities and counties where the build-through concept was being applied. He said the City must be cautious about adopting regulations before understanding the potential impact on quality of life, the home buyer, the developer, and the governing bodies that would have to manage the product. He added that “doable” did not mean “reasonable” or “practical.”
Mr. Herndon responded to questioning that he did not think the entire chapter was a “failure”, but that certain components had not been thought through for their full impact.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed whether they were comfortable taking action on the chapter tonight, or if another meeting was needed to deal specifically with this issue. Some felt another meeting would be a reasonable course of action, while others said more discussion would not be significantly beneficial in their decision. It was suggested that the public concerns were on record and would have be considered of the City/County negotiation process to get the chapter adopted.
The meeting was extended 10 minutes with no objection.
ACTION TAKEN
PC minutes 07/25/05
MISC. ITEM NO. 5 INITIATE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO CONCURRENT SUBMISSION
STAFF PRESENTATION
Staff referenced draft language developed per Commission direction at the Wednesday meeting, outlining criteria by which concurrent submission of preliminary and final plats might be allowed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Haase said the draft language appeared to address concerns raised about distinguishing when allowing concurrent submission would be appropriate.
Burress asked if the proposed 50-acre limit was too high. Staff explained was the minimum size for a high school or Junior High/Elementary School complex.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to initiate the Text Amendment as presented and schedule it for public hearing in August 2005.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, with Student Commissioner Wright voting in favor.
At this point the Commission returned to Misc. Item No. 3.
ADJOURN - 11:20 p.m.
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department office.